Tweet
FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS LOOM IN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
Mark Meirowitz
LoHud.com
http://www.lohud.com/article/ 20100310/OPINION/3100302/1076/OPINION01/Foreign%20 policy%20implications%20loom%20in%20genocide%20res olution
The Journal News
March 10 2010
On March 4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs made a major misstep
by approving, by a razor-thin margin of 23-22, a historically erroneous
and politically injudicious "Armenian Genocide" resolution which, among
other things, calls upon the president to "accurately characterize" the
historical events concerning the Ottoman Empire's actions in Armenia as
"genocide." U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, voted for the resolution.
It is no coincidence that the resolution, House Resolution 252, was
referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The jurisdiction of
the committee includes oversight and legislation relating to national
security developments affecting foreign policy, strategic planning
and agreements and public diplomacy. Members of this committee have
included future presidents John Quincy Adams and James Polk, as
well as Benjamin Franklin and John Jay. Throughout American history,
the committee has been involved in many major foreign policy issues.
The committee was mandated to consider the foreign policy implications
of this resolution. Instead, it overlooked its responsibilities,
and passed the resolution. On this issue, the committee ignored what
is best for the U.S., and decided to become the arbiter and judge of
historical events.
The resolution is now on its way to the House floor, where it faces an
uncertain future. But since this resolution, despite numerous defeats
over the years, always returns from the dead, it is helpful to set
forth some of the very significant foreign policy reasons that the
House should not approve the proposed Armenian Genocide resolution
now or ever:
1. The Turkey-Armenia Protocols have been signed and contemplate
a historical commission to sort out the issue of the events which
occurred in Armenia in 1915. These protocols are, to put it mildly,
in a precarious state, and this resolution could completely disrupt
any progress on the protocols.
2. Turkey is a staunch ally of the United States and U.S. strategic
interests could be severely disrupted by the passage of this
resolution.
3. Congress should not be making foreign policy decisions which could
disrupt bilateral relations with a major ally. The passage of the
resolution would interfere significantly with the efforts of President
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make foreign policy,
and would severely, perhaps irreparably, damage U.S.-Turkish relations.
4. The passage of this resolution could drive Turkey further from
the Western orbit.
5. The U.S. has a major military base at Incirlik, with profound
strategic importance to the United States.
The fact is that the Turkish government sees this legislation as a
litmus test of American support for Turkish interests (and it would
behoove the supporters of the legislation to fully appreciate this).
Already, as a result of the committee vote, Turkey has recalled its
ambassador, and Turkish-U.S. relations are in turmoil.
Engel, who supported the legislation, should be aware that while he
might believe that he is endorsing a particular approach on historical
events, he is, in effect, by passing the resolution, painting Turkey,
a major ally and friend of the U.S., in a very unfavorable light and
stigmatizing all Turks, including Turkish-Americans, for events which
occurred almost 100 years ago during a time of unrest and war that
preceded the founding of the modern Turkish republic.
Hopefully, this resolution will be put aside permanently. No good can
come from this resolution, only an unnecessary crisis with Turkey. It
is plainly in the strategic interests of the U.S. not to disrupt
the very positive developments in U.S.-Turkish and Turkish-Armenian
relations. Engel should recognize this, and act accordingly.
I am very hopeful that Engel will have an epiphany and change his
thinking on this resolution. This would best for New York and the
United States. The resolution's passage by the full House would be
nothing short of a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.
Mark Meirowitz
LoHud.com
http://www.lohud.com/article/ 20100310/OPINION/3100302/1076/OPINION01/Foreign%20 policy%20implications%20loom%20in%20genocide%20res olution
The Journal News
March 10 2010
On March 4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs made a major misstep
by approving, by a razor-thin margin of 23-22, a historically erroneous
and politically injudicious "Armenian Genocide" resolution which, among
other things, calls upon the president to "accurately characterize" the
historical events concerning the Ottoman Empire's actions in Armenia as
"genocide." U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, voted for the resolution.
It is no coincidence that the resolution, House Resolution 252, was
referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The jurisdiction of
the committee includes oversight and legislation relating to national
security developments affecting foreign policy, strategic planning
and agreements and public diplomacy. Members of this committee have
included future presidents John Quincy Adams and James Polk, as
well as Benjamin Franklin and John Jay. Throughout American history,
the committee has been involved in many major foreign policy issues.
The committee was mandated to consider the foreign policy implications
of this resolution. Instead, it overlooked its responsibilities,
and passed the resolution. On this issue, the committee ignored what
is best for the U.S., and decided to become the arbiter and judge of
historical events.
The resolution is now on its way to the House floor, where it faces an
uncertain future. But since this resolution, despite numerous defeats
over the years, always returns from the dead, it is helpful to set
forth some of the very significant foreign policy reasons that the
House should not approve the proposed Armenian Genocide resolution
now or ever:
1. The Turkey-Armenia Protocols have been signed and contemplate
a historical commission to sort out the issue of the events which
occurred in Armenia in 1915. These protocols are, to put it mildly,
in a precarious state, and this resolution could completely disrupt
any progress on the protocols.
2. Turkey is a staunch ally of the United States and U.S. strategic
interests could be severely disrupted by the passage of this
resolution.
3. Congress should not be making foreign policy decisions which could
disrupt bilateral relations with a major ally. The passage of the
resolution would interfere significantly with the efforts of President
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make foreign policy,
and would severely, perhaps irreparably, damage U.S.-Turkish relations.
4. The passage of this resolution could drive Turkey further from
the Western orbit.
5. The U.S. has a major military base at Incirlik, with profound
strategic importance to the United States.
The fact is that the Turkish government sees this legislation as a
litmus test of American support for Turkish interests (and it would
behoove the supporters of the legislation to fully appreciate this).
Already, as a result of the committee vote, Turkey has recalled its
ambassador, and Turkish-U.S. relations are in turmoil.
Engel, who supported the legislation, should be aware that while he
might believe that he is endorsing a particular approach on historical
events, he is, in effect, by passing the resolution, painting Turkey,
a major ally and friend of the U.S., in a very unfavorable light and
stigmatizing all Turks, including Turkish-Americans, for events which
occurred almost 100 years ago during a time of unrest and war that
preceded the founding of the modern Turkish republic.
Hopefully, this resolution will be put aside permanently. No good can
come from this resolution, only an unnecessary crisis with Turkey. It
is plainly in the strategic interests of the U.S. not to disrupt
the very positive developments in U.S.-Turkish and Turkish-Armenian
relations. Engel should recognize this, and act accordingly.
I am very hopeful that Engel will have an epiphany and change his
thinking on this resolution. This would best for New York and the
United States. The resolution's passage by the full House would be
nothing short of a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.