Tweet
SENDING THE WORLD A MESSAGE ON GENOCIDE
By Irshad Manji
CBS News, NY
Oct 24 2007
The New Republic: Global Reputation Could Be Helped By Denouncing
Armenian Deaths
(The New Republic) This column was written by Irshad Manji.
Now playing on Capitol Hill: a political drama over whether Turkey
deserves denunciation for its mass deportation and murder of Armenians
starting in 1915, otherwise known as genocide.
Initiated by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, this symbolic vote
has sparked more than symbolic anger from at the White House -- and
from the Turkish government itself. The Bush administration insists
that now is the not the time to be offending Turkey, which borders
Iraq and provides the United States with key access routes in its
war on terror.
Then there are ordinary people like my sister. More accustomed
to condemning President Bush, she too frowns on the anti-genocide
resolution. "How would it benefit the U.S.?" she asked me bluntly in
an e-mail last week. Her question was not that of an American wanting
to protect her country's best interests, but that of a Canadian who
does not trust the motives of her narcissistic neighbor. I told my
sister I would get back to her.
The timing of this resolution should raise questions -- all the more
so because of who initiated it: Democrats in Congress. They are the
gang for whom success in today's Iraq, not slaughter in yesterday's
Turkey, is the signal issue in America. HBO's Bill Maher nailed that
point when he quipped, "This is why the voters gave control of the
House to the Democrats. To send a stern message to the Ottoman Empire."
Still, there is at least one important reason to recognize the Armenian
genocide now, and it relates directly to America's implosion in Iraq:
Democracy has been redefined not just in the Middle East, but also in
the United States. These days, American politicians must pay attention
to "voters" who live well beyond their shores.
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put it, "Some of the things that
are harmful to our troops relate to values -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
torture.... Our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a
country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation."
Hers is a subtle argument about the need for the United States
to reclaim the moral high ground on human rights. It might be too
subtle for most Americans who, let us face it, have little concern
for what may or may not have happened countless miles away more than
three generations ago -- especially if the debate harms U.S. troops
right now.
But Ms. Pelosi's argument is not meant for Americans. It is intended
for an international audience.
America remains the only country in the world with a universal
constituency. Domestic politics in the United States often have
a profound effect in every corner of the earth, from determining
immigration flows and investment patterns to handing leaders and
their heirs the excuses they crave to blur the lines between God
and government.
The same cannot be said of domestic politics in modern, multicultural
entrepots such as India, Britain, or China. Nor do domestic politics
in feisty, fiery states like Iran and Israel set precedents for the
rest of us. Not yet, anyway.
No wonder so much of the world seethes that only Americans can vote for
the next president of the United States. I hear it from young Muslims
whenever I travel to Europe. And it is not just Muslims who express a
sense of disenfranchisement. In my home of Canada, a regular columnist
for the newspaper of record recently suggested that Al Gore would be
president if people outside of the United States could cast ballots.
How many countries enjoy a reach so long and far that non-citizens
would care enough to want a say in its leader -- or journalists would
care enough to speculate how the rest of the world would vote?
America's universal constituency is what House Democrats are
acknowledging in their Armenian genocide resolution.
Doubtless, I am about to be accused of naivete. Left-wing critics
will sniff that this condemnation is a pretext to milk campaign
contributions from Armenian genocide survivors, who, like their Jewish
counterparts, are dying off. And, bonus, worshipping at the altar of
their potent lobbies has its rewards, after all.
Right-wing detractors will sneer that this move is meant to
undermine the war on terror by alienating a crucial ally, even if
unintentionally. Indeed, many House Democrats have begun wavering
on the anti-genocide measure because of Turkey's threat to block its
borders to American war planners should any vote pass.
That threat may be moot: With tensions escalating between military
conflict now looming between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK), the border that Washington desperately needs to be free and
clear is not. Ankara has been moving tanks, troops, and choppers to the
Turkey-Iraq border. America's priorities do not count nearly as much
as they did a week ago, genocide resolution or no genocide resolution.
Which brings us back to the original case for pronouncing on the
Armenian slaughter -- a moral case.
The question for Americans ought to be: Since when is it wrong to
speak out against genocide, however many years have elapsed? People of
good conscience continued raising their voices against slavery in the
United States well after abolition. Are they reckless or sinister for
offending many Americans? In any event, is causing offense a reason
to stop remembering?
Here is the question for Turks: Why should your history be immune to
America's judgment when, according to surveys of global attitudes about
the United States, you as a nation are among the most anti-American
(read: judgmental) in all of the Muslim world?
Finally, a question for my sister in Vancouver who suspects American
intentions: As a voter in that massive caucus called international
public opinion, are you ready to credit some United States legislators
for maturing?
I am not sure. Canadians take smug glee in the claim that only
one-third of United States Congress members have passports. It is an
old rumor that Democrats, at least, are striving to shed.
Will non-Americans meet them half way, or will we continue to charge
them all with tribalism in order to appease a deeper insecurity within
our own nations?
The campaign is on. Welcome to democracy.
By Irshad Manji
CBS News, NY
Oct 24 2007
The New Republic: Global Reputation Could Be Helped By Denouncing
Armenian Deaths
(The New Republic) This column was written by Irshad Manji.
Now playing on Capitol Hill: a political drama over whether Turkey
deserves denunciation for its mass deportation and murder of Armenians
starting in 1915, otherwise known as genocide.
Initiated by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, this symbolic vote
has sparked more than symbolic anger from at the White House -- and
from the Turkish government itself. The Bush administration insists
that now is the not the time to be offending Turkey, which borders
Iraq and provides the United States with key access routes in its
war on terror.
Then there are ordinary people like my sister. More accustomed
to condemning President Bush, she too frowns on the anti-genocide
resolution. "How would it benefit the U.S.?" she asked me bluntly in
an e-mail last week. Her question was not that of an American wanting
to protect her country's best interests, but that of a Canadian who
does not trust the motives of her narcissistic neighbor. I told my
sister I would get back to her.
The timing of this resolution should raise questions -- all the more
so because of who initiated it: Democrats in Congress. They are the
gang for whom success in today's Iraq, not slaughter in yesterday's
Turkey, is the signal issue in America. HBO's Bill Maher nailed that
point when he quipped, "This is why the voters gave control of the
House to the Democrats. To send a stern message to the Ottoman Empire."
Still, there is at least one important reason to recognize the Armenian
genocide now, and it relates directly to America's implosion in Iraq:
Democracy has been redefined not just in the Middle East, but also in
the United States. These days, American politicians must pay attention
to "voters" who live well beyond their shores.
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put it, "Some of the things that
are harmful to our troops relate to values -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
torture.... Our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a
country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation."
Hers is a subtle argument about the need for the United States
to reclaim the moral high ground on human rights. It might be too
subtle for most Americans who, let us face it, have little concern
for what may or may not have happened countless miles away more than
three generations ago -- especially if the debate harms U.S. troops
right now.
But Ms. Pelosi's argument is not meant for Americans. It is intended
for an international audience.
America remains the only country in the world with a universal
constituency. Domestic politics in the United States often have
a profound effect in every corner of the earth, from determining
immigration flows and investment patterns to handing leaders and
their heirs the excuses they crave to blur the lines between God
and government.
The same cannot be said of domestic politics in modern, multicultural
entrepots such as India, Britain, or China. Nor do domestic politics
in feisty, fiery states like Iran and Israel set precedents for the
rest of us. Not yet, anyway.
No wonder so much of the world seethes that only Americans can vote for
the next president of the United States. I hear it from young Muslims
whenever I travel to Europe. And it is not just Muslims who express a
sense of disenfranchisement. In my home of Canada, a regular columnist
for the newspaper of record recently suggested that Al Gore would be
president if people outside of the United States could cast ballots.
How many countries enjoy a reach so long and far that non-citizens
would care enough to want a say in its leader -- or journalists would
care enough to speculate how the rest of the world would vote?
America's universal constituency is what House Democrats are
acknowledging in their Armenian genocide resolution.
Doubtless, I am about to be accused of naivete. Left-wing critics
will sniff that this condemnation is a pretext to milk campaign
contributions from Armenian genocide survivors, who, like their Jewish
counterparts, are dying off. And, bonus, worshipping at the altar of
their potent lobbies has its rewards, after all.
Right-wing detractors will sneer that this move is meant to
undermine the war on terror by alienating a crucial ally, even if
unintentionally. Indeed, many House Democrats have begun wavering
on the anti-genocide measure because of Turkey's threat to block its
borders to American war planners should any vote pass.
That threat may be moot: With tensions escalating between military
conflict now looming between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK), the border that Washington desperately needs to be free and
clear is not. Ankara has been moving tanks, troops, and choppers to the
Turkey-Iraq border. America's priorities do not count nearly as much
as they did a week ago, genocide resolution or no genocide resolution.
Which brings us back to the original case for pronouncing on the
Armenian slaughter -- a moral case.
The question for Americans ought to be: Since when is it wrong to
speak out against genocide, however many years have elapsed? People of
good conscience continued raising their voices against slavery in the
United States well after abolition. Are they reckless or sinister for
offending many Americans? In any event, is causing offense a reason
to stop remembering?
Here is the question for Turks: Why should your history be immune to
America's judgment when, according to surveys of global attitudes about
the United States, you as a nation are among the most anti-American
(read: judgmental) in all of the Muslim world?
Finally, a question for my sister in Vancouver who suspects American
intentions: As a voter in that massive caucus called international
public opinion, are you ready to credit some United States legislators
for maturing?
I am not sure. Canadians take smug glee in the claim that only
one-third of United States Congress members have passports. It is an
old rumor that Democrats, at least, are striving to shed.
Will non-Americans meet them half way, or will we continue to charge
them all with tribalism in order to appease a deeper insecurity within
our own nations?
The campaign is on. Welcome to democracy.