Tweet
PROPOSED GENOCIDE RESOLUTION SEEMS TO SERVE POLITICAL UNDERLYINGS
Andrew Zaleski
Loyola College Greyhound, MD
http://media.www.loyolagreyhound.com/media/storag e/paper665/news/2007/10/23/Opinion/Proposed.Genoci de.Resolution.Seems.To.Serve.Political.Underlyings -3051265.shtml
Oct 24 2007
Trouble loomed in paradise again last week. And no, it did not involve
a shipwrecked boat and one inept skipper, but rather recent events
in Washington D.C. (I'm sorry-I would've much rather been writing
about a sandy island surrounded by clean, blue ocean waves myself).
A variety of strong reactions have been resonating outward from our
nation's capital over the recent congressional resolution regarding
the mass killings of Armenians during the era of World War I.
The non-binding resolution, voted out of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee back on October 10 would symbolically recognize the mass
slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire
during the World War I era as an act of genocide.
The resolution has drawn sharp criticism from the Bush administration,
but the sharpest criticism of all has come from the nation of
Turkey. A quick history lesson will allow us to understand exactly
why the Turks are so infuriated over this.
Turkey, as its own sovereign state, formed in 1923 out of the ruins
of the Ottoman Empire, which had been fighting alongside the Axis
powers during World War I.
Although on the losing side, the Turks managed to gain the area known
as Anatolia, which at the time consisted of a mixed population of
Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, and Turks.
Following threats by the victorious Western powers to carve up the land
of the former Ottoman Empire, Turkey scrambled quickly to establish
a government that incorporated the qualities of a democratic republic
as well as a national identity for the Turkish citizen.
To protect against unwanted encroachment by Western powers in the
proceeding years, the Turks made sure that this new national identity
was engineered along precise ethnic and religious lines.
They went about this rather forcefully, deporting in enormous
amounts Greeks, Kurds and Islamics from their eastern holding, while
systemically executing countless others. 1.5 million Armenians in a
state-sponsored genocide were some of those executed.
Today, unfortunately, we find the modern state of Turkey living in
a self-aware and self-induced sense of denial about the genocide it
it was directly responsible for enacting decades ago.
A Turkish state that was engineered to be highly centralized has
currently and purposely chosen to ignore the genocide. Indeed, the
nation has not hesitated in "blowing it off," in a sense, in an attempt
to prevent divisions and independence-minded groups from carving up
the Turkish state. In other words, they still seem to be in a state
of fear about the near division of their country in the early 1920s.
And -- regroup here for a minute -- this is why a U.S. resolution
calling to officially recognize the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians
as genocide has Turkey fuming at the United States.
For a relatively young nation that has always been weary about groups
coming in and carving it up, Turkey will most likely become angry at a
U.S.-backed resolution that they believe would only embolden minority
groups into taking back what was formerly theirs. On the flip side, an
angry Turkey is not good for the United States in terms of operations
in the Middle East.
The U.S. military uses Turkey as an important hub (one of the most
crucial in the region) for the transportation of supplies to our
troops currently fighting in the Iraq war.
Also, Turkey, upset at Kurdish rebels performing cross-border
operations in Northern Iraq, has been threatening to invade Northern
Iraq for quite some time now, and this U.S.-backed resolution is
merely the impetus for them to do so.
So, ultimately, what gives? Why is this type of resolution being
considered by the House now, when passing such a resolution could
have major real world implications for an already difficult and tricky
situation in Iraq?
Apparently, this resolution has been in the works for a while. It
resurfaced after new Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced pressure from key
Democrats from states such as Michigan, New Jersey and California,
Pelosi's home state, with large Armenian populations.
Backers of the resolution in Congress say that by recognizing one
form of genocide the United States is able to legitimately combat
other forms of genocide around the world (for example, the current
Darfur crisis).
But, honestly, what is the point? Why would the United States,
virtually out of nowhere, decide to officially recognize killings
committed by a foreign nation more than eighty years ago?
It seems to me like some cheap attempt to buy votes, not to mention an
easy way to hiccup a U.S. war effort (and no, you don't necessarily
have to be a supporter of the war to have this matter cause you to
be somewhat testy).
Think of it this way: if we are to consider genocide such an appalling
and morally unacceptable evil, why are we only symbolically recognizing
it with a non-binding resolution? Wouldn't we want something a little
more intimidating, perhaps? I don't necessarily disagree with the
intentions of such a resolution such as this. Was there a genocide
committed against the Armenian people?
Yes, there most certainly was. However, this resolution seems to be
utterly devoid of a point. That's not saying I condone genocide.
What I am saying, though, is that I find oddly conspicuous the timing
of such a resolution, which comes on the heels of recent hostile
activities by Kurdish rebels along the Turkey-Iraq border. It seems
as if we know exactly what to do to push Turkey's buttons.
Furthermore, I find the resolution to be ironically disrespectful.
If you want to pass a resolution condemning genocide, then you need
to pass a resolution condemning genocide, and not waste time passing
a resolution that seems to have the purpose of attempting to tally
up votes.
Ultimately, I suppose, at the very core of this is just another
partisan attempt at making some type of partisan gain, a shame that
constantly hangs over political life. Oh, if only Washington were a
paradise after all.
Andrew Zaleski
Loyola College Greyhound, MD
http://media.www.loyolagreyhound.com/media/storag e/paper665/news/2007/10/23/Opinion/Proposed.Genoci de.Resolution.Seems.To.Serve.Political.Underlyings -3051265.shtml
Oct 24 2007
Trouble loomed in paradise again last week. And no, it did not involve
a shipwrecked boat and one inept skipper, but rather recent events
in Washington D.C. (I'm sorry-I would've much rather been writing
about a sandy island surrounded by clean, blue ocean waves myself).
A variety of strong reactions have been resonating outward from our
nation's capital over the recent congressional resolution regarding
the mass killings of Armenians during the era of World War I.
The non-binding resolution, voted out of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee back on October 10 would symbolically recognize the mass
slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire
during the World War I era as an act of genocide.
The resolution has drawn sharp criticism from the Bush administration,
but the sharpest criticism of all has come from the nation of
Turkey. A quick history lesson will allow us to understand exactly
why the Turks are so infuriated over this.
Turkey, as its own sovereign state, formed in 1923 out of the ruins
of the Ottoman Empire, which had been fighting alongside the Axis
powers during World War I.
Although on the losing side, the Turks managed to gain the area known
as Anatolia, which at the time consisted of a mixed population of
Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, and Turks.
Following threats by the victorious Western powers to carve up the land
of the former Ottoman Empire, Turkey scrambled quickly to establish
a government that incorporated the qualities of a democratic republic
as well as a national identity for the Turkish citizen.
To protect against unwanted encroachment by Western powers in the
proceeding years, the Turks made sure that this new national identity
was engineered along precise ethnic and religious lines.
They went about this rather forcefully, deporting in enormous
amounts Greeks, Kurds and Islamics from their eastern holding, while
systemically executing countless others. 1.5 million Armenians in a
state-sponsored genocide were some of those executed.
Today, unfortunately, we find the modern state of Turkey living in
a self-aware and self-induced sense of denial about the genocide it
it was directly responsible for enacting decades ago.
A Turkish state that was engineered to be highly centralized has
currently and purposely chosen to ignore the genocide. Indeed, the
nation has not hesitated in "blowing it off," in a sense, in an attempt
to prevent divisions and independence-minded groups from carving up
the Turkish state. In other words, they still seem to be in a state
of fear about the near division of their country in the early 1920s.
And -- regroup here for a minute -- this is why a U.S. resolution
calling to officially recognize the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians
as genocide has Turkey fuming at the United States.
For a relatively young nation that has always been weary about groups
coming in and carving it up, Turkey will most likely become angry at a
U.S.-backed resolution that they believe would only embolden minority
groups into taking back what was formerly theirs. On the flip side, an
angry Turkey is not good for the United States in terms of operations
in the Middle East.
The U.S. military uses Turkey as an important hub (one of the most
crucial in the region) for the transportation of supplies to our
troops currently fighting in the Iraq war.
Also, Turkey, upset at Kurdish rebels performing cross-border
operations in Northern Iraq, has been threatening to invade Northern
Iraq for quite some time now, and this U.S.-backed resolution is
merely the impetus for them to do so.
So, ultimately, what gives? Why is this type of resolution being
considered by the House now, when passing such a resolution could
have major real world implications for an already difficult and tricky
situation in Iraq?
Apparently, this resolution has been in the works for a while. It
resurfaced after new Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced pressure from key
Democrats from states such as Michigan, New Jersey and California,
Pelosi's home state, with large Armenian populations.
Backers of the resolution in Congress say that by recognizing one
form of genocide the United States is able to legitimately combat
other forms of genocide around the world (for example, the current
Darfur crisis).
But, honestly, what is the point? Why would the United States,
virtually out of nowhere, decide to officially recognize killings
committed by a foreign nation more than eighty years ago?
It seems to me like some cheap attempt to buy votes, not to mention an
easy way to hiccup a U.S. war effort (and no, you don't necessarily
have to be a supporter of the war to have this matter cause you to
be somewhat testy).
Think of it this way: if we are to consider genocide such an appalling
and morally unacceptable evil, why are we only symbolically recognizing
it with a non-binding resolution? Wouldn't we want something a little
more intimidating, perhaps? I don't necessarily disagree with the
intentions of such a resolution such as this. Was there a genocide
committed against the Armenian people?
Yes, there most certainly was. However, this resolution seems to be
utterly devoid of a point. That's not saying I condone genocide.
What I am saying, though, is that I find oddly conspicuous the timing
of such a resolution, which comes on the heels of recent hostile
activities by Kurdish rebels along the Turkey-Iraq border. It seems
as if we know exactly what to do to push Turkey's buttons.
Furthermore, I find the resolution to be ironically disrespectful.
If you want to pass a resolution condemning genocide, then you need
to pass a resolution condemning genocide, and not waste time passing
a resolution that seems to have the purpose of attempting to tally
up votes.
Ultimately, I suppose, at the very core of this is just another
partisan attempt at making some type of partisan gain, a shame that
constantly hangs over political life. Oh, if only Washington were a
paradise after all.