Tweet
EDITORIAL LEFT MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED
By Donald Poochigian, a philosophy professor at UND.
Grand Forks Herald , ND
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index. cfm?id=54797&section=Opinion
Oct 24 2007
GRAND FORKS - Please accept my apology for my inadequacies, but the
assertion in a Herald editorial that "Successful American foreign
policy generally passes two tests: It's both right and in our national
interest," confuses me ("Back off on genocide bill in Congress,"
Page 4A, Oct. 16).
Since Congress never has apologized for the devastation of the
American Indian population for colonization or to the African American
population for slavery, do these fail the "right" or "interest"
test? Perhaps neither is relevant because they are not issues of
"foreign policy." If so, then why did Congress fund construction of
a monument to the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis? Is this a "foreign
policy" issue? Why not of the Romani (gypsies), equally devastated
by the Nazis?
What also of the official congressional apology for internment of
Japanese Americans in World War II? Is this a "foreign policy" issue?
If a domestic policy issue, what is the Herald's test(s) for
"successful American [domestic] policy?" What is an issue of "foreign
policy," and what standard(s) apply to domestic policy?
Confusion multiplies because the editorial stipulates that "Successful
American foreign policy generally passes two tests."
Unspecified are the exceptions acknowledged by the word "generally,"
and why the unstated exception does not apply to acknowledgment of
the Armenian genocide by Turkey.
To what extent as well does the editorial board's standard of being
"both right and in our national interest" apply to its own policy? In
the same Oct. 16 Herald, three articles on Israel appear: "Simmering
tensions; All's quiet on Israel's northeastern front, for now"
(Page 3D), "Israel's Holocaust memorial unveils tree that saved Jew"
(Page 4D), and "Israel plans new benefits for Holocaust survivors"
(Page 5D).
Is this coverage a matter of being "right" or "in our national
interest?" If not, what is the test, and why do the Armenians not
pass it? As an Armenian American born and raised in California by
parents born and raised in California, who has lived in Grand Forks
for more than three decades, this is of interest to me.
Also of interest is how the editorial board knows the motives of
congressional support for acknowledging the Armenian genocide is,
"Because House Democrats want to sabotage the war in Iraq." Evidence
for this assertion is not provided, other than an administration agent
of the "partisan smog in Washington" claiming, "It's a brilliant ploy
- the Dems get to stab our troops in the back, but lay the blame off
on the Turks." Democrats never expressing such a motive, how does
"Ralph Peters, columnist for the New York Post" know this?
Obviously these issues are of importance to me as an Armenian American,
and the Herald's considerate clarification of them in a future article
would be helpful for my understanding of my place in the Grand Forks
community.
By Donald Poochigian, a philosophy professor at UND.
Grand Forks Herald , ND
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index. cfm?id=54797&section=Opinion
Oct 24 2007
GRAND FORKS - Please accept my apology for my inadequacies, but the
assertion in a Herald editorial that "Successful American foreign
policy generally passes two tests: It's both right and in our national
interest," confuses me ("Back off on genocide bill in Congress,"
Page 4A, Oct. 16).
Since Congress never has apologized for the devastation of the
American Indian population for colonization or to the African American
population for slavery, do these fail the "right" or "interest"
test? Perhaps neither is relevant because they are not issues of
"foreign policy." If so, then why did Congress fund construction of
a monument to the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis? Is this a "foreign
policy" issue? Why not of the Romani (gypsies), equally devastated
by the Nazis?
What also of the official congressional apology for internment of
Japanese Americans in World War II? Is this a "foreign policy" issue?
If a domestic policy issue, what is the Herald's test(s) for
"successful American [domestic] policy?" What is an issue of "foreign
policy," and what standard(s) apply to domestic policy?
Confusion multiplies because the editorial stipulates that "Successful
American foreign policy generally passes two tests."
Unspecified are the exceptions acknowledged by the word "generally,"
and why the unstated exception does not apply to acknowledgment of
the Armenian genocide by Turkey.
To what extent as well does the editorial board's standard of being
"both right and in our national interest" apply to its own policy? In
the same Oct. 16 Herald, three articles on Israel appear: "Simmering
tensions; All's quiet on Israel's northeastern front, for now"
(Page 3D), "Israel's Holocaust memorial unveils tree that saved Jew"
(Page 4D), and "Israel plans new benefits for Holocaust survivors"
(Page 5D).
Is this coverage a matter of being "right" or "in our national
interest?" If not, what is the test, and why do the Armenians not
pass it? As an Armenian American born and raised in California by
parents born and raised in California, who has lived in Grand Forks
for more than three decades, this is of interest to me.
Also of interest is how the editorial board knows the motives of
congressional support for acknowledging the Armenian genocide is,
"Because House Democrats want to sabotage the war in Iraq." Evidence
for this assertion is not provided, other than an administration agent
of the "partisan smog in Washington" claiming, "It's a brilliant ploy
- the Dems get to stab our troops in the back, but lay the blame off
on the Turks." Democrats never expressing such a motive, how does
"Ralph Peters, columnist for the New York Post" know this?
Obviously these issues are of importance to me as an Armenian American,
and the Herald's considerate clarification of them in a future article
would be helpful for my understanding of my place in the Grand Forks
community.