Tweet
FORGETTING THE ARMENIANS, 2009 EDITION
by Alex Massie
Spectator.co.uk
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3500141/for getting-the-armenians-2009-edition.thtml
March 30 2009
At the New Republic Mike Crowley picks up where this post left off
and lays-out the familiar arguments on US recognition of the Armenian
genocide. It's tough for the Armenians: all they have on their side
is principle (and Obama's campaign promises) while, as Crowley points
out, the Turks have realpolitik and a well-oiled lobbying machine
(that currently employs the combined efforts of Dick Gephardt and
Denny Hastert) that takes opposing any formal, President-endorsed
recognition of the genocide very seriously indeed. As Mike reports:
Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide
while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the Armenians'
annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White
House will be expected to release a statement. In the past, these
proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year,
for instance, George W. Bush lamented "mass killings and forced exile"
and "epic human tragedy"--but did not use the term "genocide." The
Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never
endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to use the occasion to say
the magic word.
But sources on Capitol Hill and those familiar with Ankara's thinking
both predict Obama will punt on the issue. "I fully expect him to
fold," laments one human rights activist who wishes otherwise. "I would
be shocked if he didn't." But the real shock should be in seeing Obama
break such a clear promise. Reasonable people can differ on whether
recognizing the genocide is worth the possible consequences. It is
not debatable, however, that Obama made a promise, or that he ran as
a man of integrity and principle. To be sure, Obama's high-minded
rhetoric has always concealed a deeply rooted pragmatism (think
of the convenient difference between troops and "combat troops"
in Iraq). But there is a line between pragmatism and hypocrisy,
and Obama may be about to cross it.
All true. But hypocrisy can breed opportunity. As Daniel Larison - who
has written a lot about this - observes, relations between Turkey and
Armenia show signs of improving. Opening the border between the two
countries and "normalising" relations between them might do rather
more for the average Armenian than a welcome, but still symbolic,
declaration from the American Congress and President.
Larison suggests that delaying the resolution (again!) for another
year might not be the worst thing in the world. And that seems
reasonable. Provided, that is, Washington pressures Ankara to improve
its relations with Yerevan. Indeed, suggesting that Washington will
certainly recognise the genocide next year if there's no significant
progress in moving towards Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That
might at least permit Obama a less than wholly shameful retreat from
his campaign positioning on the issue. Of course, the Armenians have
heard "wait for next year" many times before. If Obama does choose
expediency over principle - and one would be amazed if he does not -
then he should also make it clear that this is a one time only offer*.
Of course, this may be far too optimistic.
*Suppose there is this progress you seek? Wouldn't recognition next
year be seen as being too risky and too likely to jeopardise that
progress? Perhaps. But that's something to be determined at a later
date. Meanwhile, the genocide issue would, for once and at last, be
being used to advance Armenian (and, in the wider scheme of matters,
Turkish) interests rather than being just a political irritant to be
dealt with as shabbily and as quietly as possible.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Alex Massie
Spectator.co.uk
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3500141/for getting-the-armenians-2009-edition.thtml
March 30 2009
At the New Republic Mike Crowley picks up where this post left off
and lays-out the familiar arguments on US recognition of the Armenian
genocide. It's tough for the Armenians: all they have on their side
is principle (and Obama's campaign promises) while, as Crowley points
out, the Turks have realpolitik and a well-oiled lobbying machine
(that currently employs the combined efforts of Dick Gephardt and
Denny Hastert) that takes opposing any formal, President-endorsed
recognition of the genocide very seriously indeed. As Mike reports:
Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide
while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the Armenians'
annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White
House will be expected to release a statement. In the past, these
proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year,
for instance, George W. Bush lamented "mass killings and forced exile"
and "epic human tragedy"--but did not use the term "genocide." The
Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never
endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to use the occasion to say
the magic word.
But sources on Capitol Hill and those familiar with Ankara's thinking
both predict Obama will punt on the issue. "I fully expect him to
fold," laments one human rights activist who wishes otherwise. "I would
be shocked if he didn't." But the real shock should be in seeing Obama
break such a clear promise. Reasonable people can differ on whether
recognizing the genocide is worth the possible consequences. It is
not debatable, however, that Obama made a promise, or that he ran as
a man of integrity and principle. To be sure, Obama's high-minded
rhetoric has always concealed a deeply rooted pragmatism (think
of the convenient difference between troops and "combat troops"
in Iraq). But there is a line between pragmatism and hypocrisy,
and Obama may be about to cross it.
All true. But hypocrisy can breed opportunity. As Daniel Larison - who
has written a lot about this - observes, relations between Turkey and
Armenia show signs of improving. Opening the border between the two
countries and "normalising" relations between them might do rather
more for the average Armenian than a welcome, but still symbolic,
declaration from the American Congress and President.
Larison suggests that delaying the resolution (again!) for another
year might not be the worst thing in the world. And that seems
reasonable. Provided, that is, Washington pressures Ankara to improve
its relations with Yerevan. Indeed, suggesting that Washington will
certainly recognise the genocide next year if there's no significant
progress in moving towards Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That
might at least permit Obama a less than wholly shameful retreat from
his campaign positioning on the issue. Of course, the Armenians have
heard "wait for next year" many times before. If Obama does choose
expediency over principle - and one would be amazed if he does not -
then he should also make it clear that this is a one time only offer*.
Of course, this may be far too optimistic.
*Suppose there is this progress you seek? Wouldn't recognition next
year be seen as being too risky and too likely to jeopardise that
progress? Perhaps. But that's something to be determined at a later
date. Meanwhile, the genocide issue would, for once and at last, be
being used to advance Armenian (and, in the wider scheme of matters,
Turkish) interests rather than being just a political irritant to be
dealt with as shabbily and as quietly as possible.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress