Tweet
HOPEFULS SPLIT ON ARMENIA GENOCIDE
by Michael Doyle
Fresno Bee
September 15, 2008 Monday
California
The two major presidential candidates differ sharply over an Armenian
genocide commemoration, with Republican John McCain opposing it and
Democrat Barack Obama supporting it.
The policy clash could make a political difference in the San
Joaquin Valley and other regions with sizable Armenian-American
populations. McCain may have more to lose, in the short term. But in
the long run, based on past candidates' stances, Obama may have more
to prove.
Commemoration could be in the form of a congressional resolution or
presidential proclamation. Last fall, though, came the latest signal
that federal commemoration is a fleeting ideal: A House resolution
calling on the president to use the word "genocide" in his annual
Armenian message, supported by a House committee, never reached the
floor for a vote.
Now, the popular presidential vote is at stake, and the potential
short-term political cost is readily apparent.
Estimates of the number of Armenian-Americans range from 385,000,
in the 2000 census, to more than 1 million. Many track the genocide
issue closely.
By contrast, only 117,000 U.S. residents nationwide claimed Turkish
ancestry.
"There are many Armenians in states such as Michigan and Florida,"
said Barlow Der Mugrdechian, coordinator of the Armenian Studies
Program at California State University, Fresno. "Since the race is
expected to be close in these states, and many others, the Armenian
vote could prove to be the difference."
The long-term challenge is different. If Obama is elected, he would
face tremendous pressure from the State Department, the Pentagon,
other countries -- and maybe even his own advisers -- to back away
from emphatic Armenian genocide language. That is what other presidents
have done.
In 1988, for instance, a campaigning George H.W. Bush declared the
United States should "acknowledge the attempted genocide of the
Armenian people." As president, Bush instead stressed "the differing
views of how the terrible events of 1915-23 should be characterized."
Bush's son, while campaigning in 2000, similarly referred to a
"genocidal campaign" against the Armenians. Once elected, he avoided
the genocide term, and his State Department withdrew a U.S. ambassador
who dared use it.
"I think the Armenian community is very leery of any candidate who says
he will support a genocide resolution, because those promises haven't
necessarily been kept," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. "When
push comes to shove, the State Department gets in there and has
its way."
Genocide is what Armenian-Americans and many scholars say happened in
the dying years of the Ottoman Empire, between 1915 and 1923. By this
account, the slaughter and violent exile of some 1.5 million Armenians
met the definition of genocide and should be commemorated as such.
Genocide means the systematic and intentional destruction, in whole
or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.
Presidents traditionally deliver a public statement about what happened
between 1915 and 1923 each April 24 -- Martyrs Day, considered by
Armenians the day that the genocide began in 1915. The question thus
becomes: Will the statement next spring include the word genocide?
Obama's stance
"There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people,"
Obama said while campaigning this year.
He hasn't been very active on the issue in his four years in
the Senate, despite serving on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Obama has not co-sponsored the Senate's Armenian genocide
resolutions, and he did not attend confirmation hearings for President
Bush's nominees to serve as U.S. ambassador to Armenia.
Obama's rhetorical support now for recognizing the genocide nonetheless
helped secure the endorsement in January of the Armenian National
Committee of America. It's a view long held publicly by Obama's vice
presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat who
chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's also a position
being deployed on the campaign trail.
Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard scholar who
has advised Obama on foreign policy, posted on YouTube a campaign-style
video explicitly addressed to the Armenian-American community. Power
declared that a President Obama would "call a spade a spade" and
publicly acknowledge the genocide.
Power, a strong proponent of Armenian-American issues, no longer
has a formal role advising Obama. One top adviser, Anthony Lake,
was national security adviser to Bill Clinton during the period that
Clinton avoided the genocide word in his annual proclamations. Another
top Obama adviser, Susan Rice, was Clinton's assistant secretary of
state in fall 2000 when Clinton blocked a genocide resolution written
by Radanovich.
McCain's reasoning
McCain's position is the opposite, as he cites the diplomatic and
strategic risks associated with alienating Turkey.
"I was disappointed that many in Congress were ready to legislate a
historical judgment of the Armenian genocide whatever the cost to our
relations with Turkey," McCain declared in Iowa last October. "Turkey
is essential to stabilizing Iraq, containing Iranian power, and
encouraging economic and political reform in the Arab world. We should
be strengthening our partnership, not erecting new barriers to it."
by Michael Doyle
Fresno Bee
September 15, 2008 Monday
California
The two major presidential candidates differ sharply over an Armenian
genocide commemoration, with Republican John McCain opposing it and
Democrat Barack Obama supporting it.
The policy clash could make a political difference in the San
Joaquin Valley and other regions with sizable Armenian-American
populations. McCain may have more to lose, in the short term. But in
the long run, based on past candidates' stances, Obama may have more
to prove.
Commemoration could be in the form of a congressional resolution or
presidential proclamation. Last fall, though, came the latest signal
that federal commemoration is a fleeting ideal: A House resolution
calling on the president to use the word "genocide" in his annual
Armenian message, supported by a House committee, never reached the
floor for a vote.
Now, the popular presidential vote is at stake, and the potential
short-term political cost is readily apparent.
Estimates of the number of Armenian-Americans range from 385,000,
in the 2000 census, to more than 1 million. Many track the genocide
issue closely.
By contrast, only 117,000 U.S. residents nationwide claimed Turkish
ancestry.
"There are many Armenians in states such as Michigan and Florida,"
said Barlow Der Mugrdechian, coordinator of the Armenian Studies
Program at California State University, Fresno. "Since the race is
expected to be close in these states, and many others, the Armenian
vote could prove to be the difference."
The long-term challenge is different. If Obama is elected, he would
face tremendous pressure from the State Department, the Pentagon,
other countries -- and maybe even his own advisers -- to back away
from emphatic Armenian genocide language. That is what other presidents
have done.
In 1988, for instance, a campaigning George H.W. Bush declared the
United States should "acknowledge the attempted genocide of the
Armenian people." As president, Bush instead stressed "the differing
views of how the terrible events of 1915-23 should be characterized."
Bush's son, while campaigning in 2000, similarly referred to a
"genocidal campaign" against the Armenians. Once elected, he avoided
the genocide term, and his State Department withdrew a U.S. ambassador
who dared use it.
"I think the Armenian community is very leery of any candidate who says
he will support a genocide resolution, because those promises haven't
necessarily been kept," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. "When
push comes to shove, the State Department gets in there and has
its way."
Genocide is what Armenian-Americans and many scholars say happened in
the dying years of the Ottoman Empire, between 1915 and 1923. By this
account, the slaughter and violent exile of some 1.5 million Armenians
met the definition of genocide and should be commemorated as such.
Genocide means the systematic and intentional destruction, in whole
or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.
Presidents traditionally deliver a public statement about what happened
between 1915 and 1923 each April 24 -- Martyrs Day, considered by
Armenians the day that the genocide began in 1915. The question thus
becomes: Will the statement next spring include the word genocide?
Obama's stance
"There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people,"
Obama said while campaigning this year.
He hasn't been very active on the issue in his four years in
the Senate, despite serving on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Obama has not co-sponsored the Senate's Armenian genocide
resolutions, and he did not attend confirmation hearings for President
Bush's nominees to serve as U.S. ambassador to Armenia.
Obama's rhetorical support now for recognizing the genocide nonetheless
helped secure the endorsement in January of the Armenian National
Committee of America. It's a view long held publicly by Obama's vice
presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat who
chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's also a position
being deployed on the campaign trail.
Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard scholar who
has advised Obama on foreign policy, posted on YouTube a campaign-style
video explicitly addressed to the Armenian-American community. Power
declared that a President Obama would "call a spade a spade" and
publicly acknowledge the genocide.
Power, a strong proponent of Armenian-American issues, no longer
has a formal role advising Obama. One top adviser, Anthony Lake,
was national security adviser to Bill Clinton during the period that
Clinton avoided the genocide word in his annual proclamations. Another
top Obama adviser, Susan Rice, was Clinton's assistant secretary of
state in fall 2000 when Clinton blocked a genocide resolution written
by Radanovich.
McCain's reasoning
McCain's position is the opposite, as he cites the diplomatic and
strategic risks associated with alienating Turkey.
"I was disappointed that many in Congress were ready to legislate a
historical judgment of the Armenian genocide whatever the cost to our
relations with Turkey," McCain declared in Iowa last October. "Turkey
is essential to stabilizing Iraq, containing Iranian power, and
encouraging economic and political reform in the Arab world. We should
be strengthening our partnership, not erecting new barriers to it."