Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Destabilizing Alliances Or Telling The Truth?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Destabilizing Alliances Or Telling The Truth?

    DESTABILIZING ALLIANCES OR TELLING THE TRUTH?
    By Luke Gublo

    Michigan Technological University Online Lode, MI
    Oct 17 2007

    This week brought about another foreign policy challenge for the
    Bush Administration. They have plenty as it is, of course, with the
    continuation of an Iraq policy that is overwhelmingly unpopular with
    the American people. This week, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign
    Affairs passed a bill that would end the United States' complicity
    in Turkey's denial of what many feel was genocide committed against
    Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The vote was 27-21 in favor of
    the bill, with Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Republican Presidential candidate
    Ron Paul (R-TX) not voting.

    This particular vote has raised some concern in Washington regarding
    its relations with Turkey. The vote has quite literally brought
    relations to a grinding halt, which is not a good thing for the Bush
    Administration, since Turkey plays a vital role in the Middle East by
    sharing a border with Iraq. Not only would a diplomatic shutdown close
    this supply route for the military, but there's always the possibility
    that Turkey could send troops over the border and destabilize the
    Kurdish region of Iraq. Undoubtedly, there is major reason to be
    concerned over this.

    Morally speaking, however, it really doesn't say much for America as
    a country to deny what is possibly one of the most ghastly events of
    the 20th century. Over 750,000 Armenians lost their lives after being
    forcibly deported to concentration camps. Many died along the way,
    while many lost their lives after being poisoned, shot or burned
    alive at the concentration camps.

    Furthermore, it's no secret that Adolf Hitler took some inspiration
    from what the Ottoman Empire did to the Armenian people. In somewhat
    of a moral justification for his plans for Europe and his belief that
    he would not be held accountable for what he would do to the Jewish
    people, Hitler famously uttered, "Who, after all, speaks today of
    the annihilation of the Armenian People?"

    Ultimately, this presents the Bush Administration with a moral
    dilemma. Should America deny that this event was indeed genocide and
    acquiesce to the desires of a strategic ally, or should we do what is
    morally right and recognize the acts committed by the Ottoman Empire
    for what they were?

    Of course, realizing the need for good diplomatic ties with a
    strategic ally, the Bush Administration has chosen to oppose the
    Armenian Genocide Bill. I find this quite unfortunate. Although we
    would indeed anger Turkey by signing this bill into law, it is morally
    indefensible for America to deny the Armenian genocide.

    Bush wasn't always against the idea of genocide being committed
    against the Armenian people. At a campaign stop in Chicago prior to his
    election in 2000, Bush had many different feelings about this issue.

    "The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies
    comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and
    acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of
    bloody crimes against humanity," said Bush. "If elected President, I
    would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering
    of the Armenian people."

    What has changed so much since then that we must deny this gruesome
    event? Undoubtedly, our standing in the Middle East will be hurt by
    losing ties with Turkey, but America must take a moral stand here. If
    America is to stand as a soldier in the fight against tyranny, it
    must condemn tyranny when it is so painfully obvious.

    http://www.mtulode.com/article.php?artic leId=907
Working...
X