Tweet
LET THE ARMENIANS REST
Chattanooga Times Free Press
October 24, 2007 Wednesday
Tennessee
One stares in dumb amazement at the war front because, incredibly,
front-page news in the past few days has had to do with what did or
did not happen almost a hundred years ago. More exactly, what should
what happened a hundred years ago be called?
The quarrel, put simply, is over the question, What do we call what
was done to the Armenians by the Turks in the early years of World War
I? The matter of interest is the persecution of the Armenians by the
Young Turks and ancillaries in the final days of the Ottoman Empire,
when the map of the Middle East was changing.
The dispute hit the front pages when a congressional resolution
affirming that the events of 1915-17 constituted genocide appeared
likely to pass in the House of Representatives. The Turkish government
reacted strongly, and President Bush urged Congress not to drive this
wedge between the United States and an important ally in the region.
It may be of historical terminological interest what to call the
Young Turks' action. But it is worthwhile to remember that it has
been dubbed a "genocide" for many years, even though there has been
technical resistance to the use of the holy word. A Polish-born
lawyer named Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide" in 1943. "I
became interested in genocide," he said, "because it happened so many
times." His writings before World War II had concentrated heavily
on the events in Armenia. More than one international organization
has conducted studies of those events, each in turn determining that
the term "genocide" accurately describes what also has been called a
"massacre."
True, Lemkin did not have dispositive authority on the correct
use of the word, and after the Nazi Holocaust became widely known,
there were those who insisted that the Turkish holocaust should not
be thought a member of the same family. Their point has been that
Hitler's war against the Jews was ethnic and cultural, while the
Turkish assault on the Armenians had to do with more conventional
geopolitical issues. The Turks themselves contended that the Armenians
were a fifth column working on behalf of the Russian Empire.
The questions are not uninteresting, but that they should have a
bearing on the Iraq war seems strange until one studies the geography
of the region. The interfaces are in the northeastern part of Iraq,
the area known as South Kurdistan. There we have an irredentist
passion among some Kurdish militants to sever formal ties to the
government of Iraq, in favor of a new-old nation unified by cultural
and historical factors. And, not incidentally, by physical control
of rich oil deposits.
The Turks do not wish a new state bulging up between them and Iraq --
especially because their own Kurds would surely be emboldened if the
Iraqi Kurds were successful. The situation could get "ugly," one U.S.
military officer is quoted as saying, if Turkey were to send troops
across the border to deal with Kurdish militants inside Iraq.
It was into this tense situation that the House resolution erupted.
Every day one member of Congress or another associates himself with,
or dissociates himself from, the resolution classifying as genocidal
the Turkish activity of 90 years ago.
We are asked to believe that the Turkish high command judges it more
important to resist such classification affirmed by an ally than to
pursue the common aims in the region. On the moral point, there is no
way in which Turkey can advance its credentials by trivializing what
in fact was done to the Armenians, more than 1 million of them having
been killed, allowed to starve, or exiled. But this ought not to be a
quarrel that affects contemporary points of contention in Iraq. Those
who linger with the muse of Clio are giving no aid whatever to the
dead Armenians, but are jeopardizing our Iraq enterprise by provoking
Turkish hubris.
The implications of this breach are horrendous. Turkey is a NATO power,
and if it were to act singularly it would damage a military-political
venture in which the United States -- the father and mainstay of NATO
-- is engaged at high pitch.
It is almost always relevant to ask the classical question, Cui bono?
Who stands to gain?
No postmortem aid to the dead Armenians is in prospect. On the
other hand, the Turks can't permanently commandeer the historical
classification of actions by one state against a cultural or ethnic
minority. So is it a matter of pride?
We are constantly being told about the high-octane pride of Turks,
Kurds, Iraqis, whomever. Is the congressional resolution simply an
exercise in American pride?
Chattanooga Times Free Press
October 24, 2007 Wednesday
Tennessee
One stares in dumb amazement at the war front because, incredibly,
front-page news in the past few days has had to do with what did or
did not happen almost a hundred years ago. More exactly, what should
what happened a hundred years ago be called?
The quarrel, put simply, is over the question, What do we call what
was done to the Armenians by the Turks in the early years of World War
I? The matter of interest is the persecution of the Armenians by the
Young Turks and ancillaries in the final days of the Ottoman Empire,
when the map of the Middle East was changing.
The dispute hit the front pages when a congressional resolution
affirming that the events of 1915-17 constituted genocide appeared
likely to pass in the House of Representatives. The Turkish government
reacted strongly, and President Bush urged Congress not to drive this
wedge between the United States and an important ally in the region.
It may be of historical terminological interest what to call the
Young Turks' action. But it is worthwhile to remember that it has
been dubbed a "genocide" for many years, even though there has been
technical resistance to the use of the holy word. A Polish-born
lawyer named Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide" in 1943. "I
became interested in genocide," he said, "because it happened so many
times." His writings before World War II had concentrated heavily
on the events in Armenia. More than one international organization
has conducted studies of those events, each in turn determining that
the term "genocide" accurately describes what also has been called a
"massacre."
True, Lemkin did not have dispositive authority on the correct
use of the word, and after the Nazi Holocaust became widely known,
there were those who insisted that the Turkish holocaust should not
be thought a member of the same family. Their point has been that
Hitler's war against the Jews was ethnic and cultural, while the
Turkish assault on the Armenians had to do with more conventional
geopolitical issues. The Turks themselves contended that the Armenians
were a fifth column working on behalf of the Russian Empire.
The questions are not uninteresting, but that they should have a
bearing on the Iraq war seems strange until one studies the geography
of the region. The interfaces are in the northeastern part of Iraq,
the area known as South Kurdistan. There we have an irredentist
passion among some Kurdish militants to sever formal ties to the
government of Iraq, in favor of a new-old nation unified by cultural
and historical factors. And, not incidentally, by physical control
of rich oil deposits.
The Turks do not wish a new state bulging up between them and Iraq --
especially because their own Kurds would surely be emboldened if the
Iraqi Kurds were successful. The situation could get "ugly," one U.S.
military officer is quoted as saying, if Turkey were to send troops
across the border to deal with Kurdish militants inside Iraq.
It was into this tense situation that the House resolution erupted.
Every day one member of Congress or another associates himself with,
or dissociates himself from, the resolution classifying as genocidal
the Turkish activity of 90 years ago.
We are asked to believe that the Turkish high command judges it more
important to resist such classification affirmed by an ally than to
pursue the common aims in the region. On the moral point, there is no
way in which Turkey can advance its credentials by trivializing what
in fact was done to the Armenians, more than 1 million of them having
been killed, allowed to starve, or exiled. But this ought not to be a
quarrel that affects contemporary points of contention in Iraq. Those
who linger with the muse of Clio are giving no aid whatever to the
dead Armenians, but are jeopardizing our Iraq enterprise by provoking
Turkish hubris.
The implications of this breach are horrendous. Turkey is a NATO power,
and if it were to act singularly it would damage a military-political
venture in which the United States -- the father and mainstay of NATO
-- is engaged at high pitch.
It is almost always relevant to ask the classical question, Cui bono?
Who stands to gain?
No postmortem aid to the dead Armenians is in prospect. On the
other hand, the Turks can't permanently commandeer the historical
classification of actions by one state against a cultural or ethnic
minority. So is it a matter of pride?
We are constantly being told about the high-octane pride of Turks,
Kurds, Iraqis, whomever. Is the congressional resolution simply an
exercise in American pride?