Tweet
AN INCONVENIENT HISTORY
Student Newspaper, Scotland, UK
Oct 19 2007
Between 1915 and 1923, an estimated two million Armenians were killed
or deported from the Ottoman Empire. These figures are not a point
of contention, but whether these killings constituted genocide has
been fiercely debated ever since. Turkey has steadfastly denied every
attempt to categorise the incidents as genocide and has imprisoned
multiple Turkish journalists and historians for 'insulting Turkishness'
by suggesting that it was indeed genocide. The latest volley in
the war of words came Thursday 11 October, when the United States'
House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution terming the
killings genocide by a 27-21 vote. This clears the way for the measure
to be debated in the House of Representatives, where it is expected to
enjoy considerable support. This comes despite the fact that President
Bush and other administration figures lobbied intensely against the
measure's passage.
Turkey responded swiftly, recalling its ambassador to the United States
for consultation and warning that the consequences "won't be pleasant"
if the measure passes. The timing could not be much worse for the
Bush Administration, as Turkey was already fuming about cross-border
raids launched against Turkish soldiers by Kurdish rebels who have
found shelter in Northern Iraq.
Surprisingly, the measure did not pass based on the usual
Washington partisan politics, as both Democrats and Republicans
split on the resolution. This reflects the bigger issue that this
resolution brings up: which are more important, moral principles or
strategic realities? There is no doubt in my mind that the death of
approximately 1.5 million Armenians was a targeted, premeditated,
government-sponsored genocide.
Yet there is also little doubt that this non-binding resolution
could result in drastic political fallout and an extremely pissed off
Turkey - the only Islamic country part of NATO and probably America's
strongest Islamic ally. If Turkey responds as harshly as some expect,
the consequences for US troops in Iraq could be severe, as Turkish
bases and airports are essential for keeping US forces in the Middle
East supplied. Since the French National Assembly passed a similar
resolution condemning the genocide last year, no French airplanes
have been allowed to pass through Turkish airspace. Should American
politicians really choose a symbolic rejection of mass murder and
ethnic cleansing over America's political and strategic interests?
Passions run deep in Turkey over this issue, and even many
intellectuals are not at all prepared to have an open discussion
about the long-ago event. A friend of mine studied in Turkey for
a semester last year and he was amazed at the level of sensitivity
to this matter. He had frank and engrossing discussions with Turkish
professors and students about a multitude of issues - American-Muslim
relations, the ban on head scarves, Islamic fundamentalism, Kurdish
separatists, Jewish-Muslim relations - but he said that even the most
open-minded Turk suddenly closed down and stuck to the party line
when he brought up the subject of the Armenian genocide. He quickly
learned not to discuss the events of 1915-1923.
This automatic rejection by the Turks of the label of genocide is
precisely why I think the measure is a courageous act. Because
principles really are important, and all too often the current
US administration has placed strategic reality (or overoptimistic
delusions) over principles. When Bush claims to want to democratise the
Middle East yet supports dictatorships in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Jordan, it makes him, and unfortunately America as a whole, look
like a megalomaniacal fool. It is about time that American politicians
were willing to stand up and make principles something important again.
Even more than an encouraging sign for America, I believe that
this could have important positive ramifications for Turkey. Turkey
aspires to become part of the European Union and by extension, what
some call the 'Western World.' Well, one sign of a strong, 'Western'
country is its ability to face unpleasant truths about itself.
Whether it is America facing up to the unforgivable treatment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II or Britain coming to terms
with its colonial history, mature and vibrant democracies can survive
criticism and critique. If Turkey wants to become part of the EU club,
it surely has some soul-searching to do.
read comments at
http://studentnewspaper.org/2007/10/18/an-incon venient-history/
Student Newspaper, Scotland, UK
Oct 19 2007
Between 1915 and 1923, an estimated two million Armenians were killed
or deported from the Ottoman Empire. These figures are not a point
of contention, but whether these killings constituted genocide has
been fiercely debated ever since. Turkey has steadfastly denied every
attempt to categorise the incidents as genocide and has imprisoned
multiple Turkish journalists and historians for 'insulting Turkishness'
by suggesting that it was indeed genocide. The latest volley in
the war of words came Thursday 11 October, when the United States'
House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution terming the
killings genocide by a 27-21 vote. This clears the way for the measure
to be debated in the House of Representatives, where it is expected to
enjoy considerable support. This comes despite the fact that President
Bush and other administration figures lobbied intensely against the
measure's passage.
Turkey responded swiftly, recalling its ambassador to the United States
for consultation and warning that the consequences "won't be pleasant"
if the measure passes. The timing could not be much worse for the
Bush Administration, as Turkey was already fuming about cross-border
raids launched against Turkish soldiers by Kurdish rebels who have
found shelter in Northern Iraq.
Surprisingly, the measure did not pass based on the usual
Washington partisan politics, as both Democrats and Republicans
split on the resolution. This reflects the bigger issue that this
resolution brings up: which are more important, moral principles or
strategic realities? There is no doubt in my mind that the death of
approximately 1.5 million Armenians was a targeted, premeditated,
government-sponsored genocide.
Yet there is also little doubt that this non-binding resolution
could result in drastic political fallout and an extremely pissed off
Turkey - the only Islamic country part of NATO and probably America's
strongest Islamic ally. If Turkey responds as harshly as some expect,
the consequences for US troops in Iraq could be severe, as Turkish
bases and airports are essential for keeping US forces in the Middle
East supplied. Since the French National Assembly passed a similar
resolution condemning the genocide last year, no French airplanes
have been allowed to pass through Turkish airspace. Should American
politicians really choose a symbolic rejection of mass murder and
ethnic cleansing over America's political and strategic interests?
Passions run deep in Turkey over this issue, and even many
intellectuals are not at all prepared to have an open discussion
about the long-ago event. A friend of mine studied in Turkey for
a semester last year and he was amazed at the level of sensitivity
to this matter. He had frank and engrossing discussions with Turkish
professors and students about a multitude of issues - American-Muslim
relations, the ban on head scarves, Islamic fundamentalism, Kurdish
separatists, Jewish-Muslim relations - but he said that even the most
open-minded Turk suddenly closed down and stuck to the party line
when he brought up the subject of the Armenian genocide. He quickly
learned not to discuss the events of 1915-1923.
This automatic rejection by the Turks of the label of genocide is
precisely why I think the measure is a courageous act. Because
principles really are important, and all too often the current
US administration has placed strategic reality (or overoptimistic
delusions) over principles. When Bush claims to want to democratise the
Middle East yet supports dictatorships in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Jordan, it makes him, and unfortunately America as a whole, look
like a megalomaniacal fool. It is about time that American politicians
were willing to stand up and make principles something important again.
Even more than an encouraging sign for America, I believe that
this could have important positive ramifications for Turkey. Turkey
aspires to become part of the European Union and by extension, what
some call the 'Western World.' Well, one sign of a strong, 'Western'
country is its ability to face unpleasant truths about itself.
Whether it is America facing up to the unforgivable treatment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II or Britain coming to terms
with its colonial history, mature and vibrant democracies can survive
criticism and critique. If Turkey wants to become part of the EU club,
it surely has some soul-searching to do.
read comments at
http://studentnewspaper.org/2007/10/18/an-incon venient-history/