Tweet
PRESIDENT OBAMA BREAKS A PROMISE TO CALL THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE A GENOCIDE
Eric Black
MinnPost.com
http://www.minnpost.com/ericbl ack/2009/04/26/8346/president_obama_breaks_a_promi se_to_call_the_armenian_genocide_a_genocide
April 27 2009
On April 24, 1915, about 300 Armenian intellectual and professional
leaders in the Ottoman Empire's capital of Constantinople were rounded
up, beginning a three-year killing spree that resulted in the deaths
of about 1.5 million Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Turks.
The anniversary of that date, which fell on Friday, is the day
Armenians and others observe in remembrance of that genocidal campaign.
The government of modern Turkey denies that these deaths can accurately
be described as a genocide, and it pressures its allies not to adopt
the word. Turkey claims that the number of deaths has been overstated,
and that they occurred more or less accidentally when the Ottomans
were trying to move a potentially troublesome Armenian population out
of the war zone in the middle of World War I, and that a significant
number of Turks were killed by Armenians. The overwhelming majority
of neutral historians rejects these claims and agrees that the
killings were genocidal. The International Association of Genocide
Scholars affirms that "genocide" is the proper term. Other groups
have concluded that the killings had the earmarks of genocide, as
defined by international law.
Armenians around the world seek to have the G-word applied. Politically
active Armenian-Americans seek to have Congress, and an American
president, declare that their ancestors were victims of genocide,
indeed the first major genocide of the 20th century. A presidential
declaration employing the word "genocide" seems to be the top
Armenian-specific goal that Armenian-Americans bring into each
presidential campaign.
In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush attracted significant political and
financial support from Armenians by promising that, if elected, he
would embrace the term genocide. After taking office, he reneged --
at the behest of Washington's Turkish allies -- and even used his
influence to prevent Congress from adopting a non-binding resolution
using the term "genocide."
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry promised that he would call it a
genocide. Although I had written previously about the Armenian
genocide (more on that below), I first learned of the U.S. political
aspect of the issue in 2004 when I stumbled onto a fund-raiser of
"Armenian-Americans for Kerry." Kerry got the Armenian support in 2004,
but, as you also may have heard, lost the election.
As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama supported that congressional
resolution, which is sponsored every year. In 2008, as a presidential
candidate, Obama stated:
"As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide
Resolution and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
Candidate Obama also referred to his "firmly held conviction that
the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or
a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an
overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An
official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical
facts is an untenable policy." He particularly slammed the Bush
Administration for shamefully firing its own ambassador to Armenia
for, as Obama said, "properly us[ing] the term 'genocide' to describe
Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915."
The worm turns On Friday, President Obama issued a statement in
commemoration of the annual "Armenian Remembrance Day." If you read it
without knowing the background, you would probably say "Wow, this guy
is pretty worked up about what the Ottoman Turks did to the Armenians."
President Obama refers to the killings as "one of the great
atrocities of the 20th century." He says that 1.5 million Armenians
were "massacred or marched to their death." The events "must live on
in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian
people," Pres. Obama implores. Referring to his previous commitments,
the presidential declaration goes on:
"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915,
and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the
achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
"Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of
reconciliation," Obama preaches, adding that his "interest remains
the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
He adds that "the contributions that Armenians have made over the
last ninety-four years stand as a testament to the talent, dynamism
and resilience of the Armenian people, and as the ultimate rebuke to
those who tried to destroy them."
President Obama says he reaches out to Armenian-Americans with "a
sense of friendship, solidarity, and deep respect."
It's a beautifully crafted statement, full of emotion and a touch of
poetry. It is tougher on Turkey than the government of Turkey thinks an
ally should be, and Turkey has officially complained that Obama didn't
mention all the Turks that died at the hands of rebellious Armenians.
He refers to his own previous statements, which priminently featured
the word "genocide." And he uses synonyms, such as the reference
above to an effort to destroy the Armenian people. But once you know
the background, you can't help but notice that nowhere in Obama's
389-word statement does the word "genocide" appear.
And there's the rub. He promised, explicitly, that he would do it. And
when the time came, he broke the promise.
I want to be mature and reasonable about such matters. Turkey is
an important U.S. ally of long-standing, borders on Iraq and Iran
and Syria (and the independent state of Armenia) and has one of
the most developed democracies in the Muslim world. The argument is
fundamentally historical, and not everyone cares as much about history
as I do. Pissing off Turkey is not something to be done lightly.
But all of those reasons were well-known before Obama made his
commitment to recognize the Armenian genocide. Like many Americans,
I want to believe Obama represents an important break from the politics
of lies and fancy spin, a break that has to do with honesty, integrity
and promise-keeping. I still do believe that, but not on this matter.
If he wasn't going to keep the promise, he shouldn't have made it.
The excellent online factchecker, Politifact, which has launched an
"Obameter" to track Obama's fidelity to his campaign promises, lists
his promise to the Armenians as No. 511, issued an update after
Friday's statement that concludes: "Obama's April 24th statement
still doesn't meet the terms of his promise, and the Obameter stays
at Promise Broken."
I asked Lou Ann Matossian of Minneapolis, a past president who
currently serving as director of cultural and external affairs of
the Armenian Cultural Organization of Minnesota, for her reaction to
Obama's artful dodge. Speaking as an individual and not for the ACOM,
Matossian emailed me that:
"Avoiding the word genocide at Ankara's behest has become a modern form
of genocide denial or collusion in genocide denial. For President Obama
to do so in our own language, against our community's usage, against
his promises, and against our urgent request, is deeply offensive."
The reference to "our own language" alludes to this, in Obama's
official statement:
"The Meds Yeghern must live on in our memories."
Meds Yeghern is an Armenian phrase, which translates as "great
calamity," Matossian said, adding: " A tornado is a 'great calamity.' A
genocide is a crime. The concept of crime implies the concept of
justice. 'Genocide' has a meaning in international law. "Calamity"
(yeghern) has none."
Obama may have hoped that the use of the Armenian phrase would
communicate extra respect. Apparently, to Matossian, it was one more
way to avoid using the G-word, that Obama had promised to use.
Matossian concluded: "President Obama has now missed two opportunities
to fulfill his promise to affirm the Armenian Genocide as such. [The
first missed opportunity was on a state visit to Turkey, when
Obama was asked about the massacres and answered without the use of
'genocide.'] The Armenian Genocide resolution now before Congress
will be his third opportunity. The President, the Vice President, and
the Secretary of State all have strong records on this commemorative
legislation. The Bush White House lobbied hard against the Armenian
Genocide resolution. What will the Obama White House do?"
By the way, I have asked the White House press office for any
explanation the White House might want to make of President Obama's
official statement. I haven't received a reply. If I get one, I will
surely pass it along.
Two last things and I will thank you for your patience and let you
get on with your day.
Thing One:
My own strong feelings about the Armenian genocide date from an
interview I did for the Strib, in 2000, with Vahakn Dadrian, an eminent
historian of the killings. The details that stuck with me were about
how the Turks killed the Armenians. Quoting from that piece:
"The way the Armenians were killed are staggeringly grisly and provide
a macabre contrast to the relatively bureaucratic and hi-tech methods
that the Nazis would employ 25 years later.
In a policy that Dadrian said was 'unparalleled in the annals of
human history,' the Turks 'decided to rely not on soldiers but on
bloodthirsty criminals.' Dadrian said 30,000 to 35,000 convicts were
released from prison to participate in the slaughter.
With a world war raging, Dadrian said, Ottoman officials were anxious
not to waste bullets or powder on the Armenians, so they employed
four main methods to kill the Armenians:
Many were beaten to death or killed with daggers, swords and axes.
Massive drowning operations were conducted in the tributaries
of the Euphrates River and the Black Sea. Bargeloads of Armenians
were intentionally sunk. Dadrian, quoting [Henry]Morganthau [who was
U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman court at the time], said that in places
the Armenian corpses became so numerous that the rivers were forced
out of their beds, in one case changing the course of a river for a
100-meter stretch. The method that Dadrian called "the most fiendish"
was to pack Armenian women and children into stables or haylofts and
then set them ablaze, burning the victims alive. Dadrian estimated
that about 150,000 were killed by this method.
Hundreds of thousands more died of hunger, thirst or exposure during
forced marches in the desert. Dadrian said the Armenians were told they
were being relocated but were marched along routes chosen to maximize
the chances that none of the marchers would survive." Thing Two:
With credit to Ben Smith of Politico who found this YouTube video:
Samantha Power, a genocide scholar whom I admire who also served as
an Obama foreign policy adviser and who now works for the National
Security Council, made this video to appeal to Armenian-Americans
to support Obama, based on the fact that he was "a person who can
actually be trusted."
Eric Black
MinnPost.com
http://www.minnpost.com/ericbl ack/2009/04/26/8346/president_obama_breaks_a_promi se_to_call_the_armenian_genocide_a_genocide
April 27 2009
On April 24, 1915, about 300 Armenian intellectual and professional
leaders in the Ottoman Empire's capital of Constantinople were rounded
up, beginning a three-year killing spree that resulted in the deaths
of about 1.5 million Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Turks.
The anniversary of that date, which fell on Friday, is the day
Armenians and others observe in remembrance of that genocidal campaign.
The government of modern Turkey denies that these deaths can accurately
be described as a genocide, and it pressures its allies not to adopt
the word. Turkey claims that the number of deaths has been overstated,
and that they occurred more or less accidentally when the Ottomans
were trying to move a potentially troublesome Armenian population out
of the war zone in the middle of World War I, and that a significant
number of Turks were killed by Armenians. The overwhelming majority
of neutral historians rejects these claims and agrees that the
killings were genocidal. The International Association of Genocide
Scholars affirms that "genocide" is the proper term. Other groups
have concluded that the killings had the earmarks of genocide, as
defined by international law.
Armenians around the world seek to have the G-word applied. Politically
active Armenian-Americans seek to have Congress, and an American
president, declare that their ancestors were victims of genocide,
indeed the first major genocide of the 20th century. A presidential
declaration employing the word "genocide" seems to be the top
Armenian-specific goal that Armenian-Americans bring into each
presidential campaign.
In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush attracted significant political and
financial support from Armenians by promising that, if elected, he
would embrace the term genocide. After taking office, he reneged --
at the behest of Washington's Turkish allies -- and even used his
influence to prevent Congress from adopting a non-binding resolution
using the term "genocide."
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry promised that he would call it a
genocide. Although I had written previously about the Armenian
genocide (more on that below), I first learned of the U.S. political
aspect of the issue in 2004 when I stumbled onto a fund-raiser of
"Armenian-Americans for Kerry." Kerry got the Armenian support in 2004,
but, as you also may have heard, lost the election.
As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama supported that congressional
resolution, which is sponsored every year. In 2008, as a presidential
candidate, Obama stated:
"As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide
Resolution and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
Candidate Obama also referred to his "firmly held conviction that
the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or
a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an
overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An
official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical
facts is an untenable policy." He particularly slammed the Bush
Administration for shamefully firing its own ambassador to Armenia
for, as Obama said, "properly us[ing] the term 'genocide' to describe
Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915."
The worm turns On Friday, President Obama issued a statement in
commemoration of the annual "Armenian Remembrance Day." If you read it
without knowing the background, you would probably say "Wow, this guy
is pretty worked up about what the Ottoman Turks did to the Armenians."
President Obama refers to the killings as "one of the great
atrocities of the 20th century." He says that 1.5 million Armenians
were "massacred or marched to their death." The events "must live on
in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian
people," Pres. Obama implores. Referring to his previous commitments,
the presidential declaration goes on:
"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915,
and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the
achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
"Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of
reconciliation," Obama preaches, adding that his "interest remains
the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
He adds that "the contributions that Armenians have made over the
last ninety-four years stand as a testament to the talent, dynamism
and resilience of the Armenian people, and as the ultimate rebuke to
those who tried to destroy them."
President Obama says he reaches out to Armenian-Americans with "a
sense of friendship, solidarity, and deep respect."
It's a beautifully crafted statement, full of emotion and a touch of
poetry. It is tougher on Turkey than the government of Turkey thinks an
ally should be, and Turkey has officially complained that Obama didn't
mention all the Turks that died at the hands of rebellious Armenians.
He refers to his own previous statements, which priminently featured
the word "genocide." And he uses synonyms, such as the reference
above to an effort to destroy the Armenian people. But once you know
the background, you can't help but notice that nowhere in Obama's
389-word statement does the word "genocide" appear.
And there's the rub. He promised, explicitly, that he would do it. And
when the time came, he broke the promise.
I want to be mature and reasonable about such matters. Turkey is
an important U.S. ally of long-standing, borders on Iraq and Iran
and Syria (and the independent state of Armenia) and has one of
the most developed democracies in the Muslim world. The argument is
fundamentally historical, and not everyone cares as much about history
as I do. Pissing off Turkey is not something to be done lightly.
But all of those reasons were well-known before Obama made his
commitment to recognize the Armenian genocide. Like many Americans,
I want to believe Obama represents an important break from the politics
of lies and fancy spin, a break that has to do with honesty, integrity
and promise-keeping. I still do believe that, but not on this matter.
If he wasn't going to keep the promise, he shouldn't have made it.
The excellent online factchecker, Politifact, which has launched an
"Obameter" to track Obama's fidelity to his campaign promises, lists
his promise to the Armenians as No. 511, issued an update after
Friday's statement that concludes: "Obama's April 24th statement
still doesn't meet the terms of his promise, and the Obameter stays
at Promise Broken."
I asked Lou Ann Matossian of Minneapolis, a past president who
currently serving as director of cultural and external affairs of
the Armenian Cultural Organization of Minnesota, for her reaction to
Obama's artful dodge. Speaking as an individual and not for the ACOM,
Matossian emailed me that:
"Avoiding the word genocide at Ankara's behest has become a modern form
of genocide denial or collusion in genocide denial. For President Obama
to do so in our own language, against our community's usage, against
his promises, and against our urgent request, is deeply offensive."
The reference to "our own language" alludes to this, in Obama's
official statement:
"The Meds Yeghern must live on in our memories."
Meds Yeghern is an Armenian phrase, which translates as "great
calamity," Matossian said, adding: " A tornado is a 'great calamity.' A
genocide is a crime. The concept of crime implies the concept of
justice. 'Genocide' has a meaning in international law. "Calamity"
(yeghern) has none."
Obama may have hoped that the use of the Armenian phrase would
communicate extra respect. Apparently, to Matossian, it was one more
way to avoid using the G-word, that Obama had promised to use.
Matossian concluded: "President Obama has now missed two opportunities
to fulfill his promise to affirm the Armenian Genocide as such. [The
first missed opportunity was on a state visit to Turkey, when
Obama was asked about the massacres and answered without the use of
'genocide.'] The Armenian Genocide resolution now before Congress
will be his third opportunity. The President, the Vice President, and
the Secretary of State all have strong records on this commemorative
legislation. The Bush White House lobbied hard against the Armenian
Genocide resolution. What will the Obama White House do?"
By the way, I have asked the White House press office for any
explanation the White House might want to make of President Obama's
official statement. I haven't received a reply. If I get one, I will
surely pass it along.
Two last things and I will thank you for your patience and let you
get on with your day.
Thing One:
My own strong feelings about the Armenian genocide date from an
interview I did for the Strib, in 2000, with Vahakn Dadrian, an eminent
historian of the killings. The details that stuck with me were about
how the Turks killed the Armenians. Quoting from that piece:
"The way the Armenians were killed are staggeringly grisly and provide
a macabre contrast to the relatively bureaucratic and hi-tech methods
that the Nazis would employ 25 years later.
In a policy that Dadrian said was 'unparalleled in the annals of
human history,' the Turks 'decided to rely not on soldiers but on
bloodthirsty criminals.' Dadrian said 30,000 to 35,000 convicts were
released from prison to participate in the slaughter.
With a world war raging, Dadrian said, Ottoman officials were anxious
not to waste bullets or powder on the Armenians, so they employed
four main methods to kill the Armenians:
Many were beaten to death or killed with daggers, swords and axes.
Massive drowning operations were conducted in the tributaries
of the Euphrates River and the Black Sea. Bargeloads of Armenians
were intentionally sunk. Dadrian, quoting [Henry]Morganthau [who was
U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman court at the time], said that in places
the Armenian corpses became so numerous that the rivers were forced
out of their beds, in one case changing the course of a river for a
100-meter stretch. The method that Dadrian called "the most fiendish"
was to pack Armenian women and children into stables or haylofts and
then set them ablaze, burning the victims alive. Dadrian estimated
that about 150,000 were killed by this method.
Hundreds of thousands more died of hunger, thirst or exposure during
forced marches in the desert. Dadrian said the Armenians were told they
were being relocated but were marched along routes chosen to maximize
the chances that none of the marchers would survive." Thing Two:
With credit to Ben Smith of Politico who found this YouTube video:
Samantha Power, a genocide scholar whom I admire who also served as
an Obama foreign policy adviser and who now works for the National
Security Council, made this video to appeal to Armenian-Americans
to support Obama, based on the fact that he was "a person who can
actually be trusted."