Tweet
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MESSAGE TO TURKEY: LET'S AGREE TO DISAGREE ABOUT THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Michael Mensoian
www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/04/09/presi dent-obama%e2%80%99s-message-to-turkey-let%e2%80%9 9s-agree-to-disagree-about-the-armenian-genocide/
April 9, 2009
President Obama's statement at a joint news conference on April 6
with President Abdullah Gul that "(M)y views [on the Genocide] are
on the record and I have not changed my views" may be translated to
mean that the United States and Turkey should agree to disagree about
the Armenian Genocide.
During his much-anticipated visit to Turkey by both Turks and
Armenians, President Obama adroitly played to both sides of the
street. For his Armenian constituents he mentioned his having views
on the Genocide that are well known, and for his Turkish audience
he capitulated to the need to assuage the Turkish leadership. What
happened to his conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not only an
historic fact, but that there was a moral imperative requiring his
administration to recognize it?
The Turkish leaders wisely co-opted his moral sensibilities by having
him address the Turkish Grand National Assembly; a rare honor for
a western dignitary. It must be granted, that it would have been
difficult for President Obama to be forthright on such an emotional
issue in that particular venue, but a much stronger enunciation of
his views and a more balanced evaluation of the Turkish-Armenian
normalization process could have been made.
However, a cynic might wonder whether his side trip to Turkey to pay
homage to a government that has utterly failed to honestly address
the issue of the Armenian Genocide-an established historic fact-was
orchestrated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President
Obama himself, to give cover to his expected muted expression of
support for the April 24th message to the Armenian people.
This is not an overly critical analysis of his speech to the Turkish
Grand National Assembly when his comments are evaluated with respect
to the various issues relating to normalization. When he claims that
Turkey is a critical ally and an important part of Europe, it only
encourages the Turkish government's continued veiled threats that
passage of any genocide resolution by the United States Congress would
do irreparable harm to what Obama sees as a "critical" Turkey-United
States relationship.
In his speech in the Grand National Assembly, Obama said, "(A)t
the end of World War I Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign
powers that were trying to claim its territory....(b)ut Turkey chose
a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control." Did
"foreign control" include Armenian claims to its historic lands? How
does he presume that this so-called success affected the legitimacy
of the independent Armenia that was promised in the Treaty of Sevres
and eliminated by the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne. Wasn't this the
purpose of the Genocide unleashed by the Ottoman Turkish government:
to clear eastern Turkey-the western provinces of historic Armenia-that
was continued under Ataturk during the years between Sevres and
Lausanne? Its purpose was to prevent legitimate Armenian territorial
claims from being implemented. Are these territorial rights to be
forgotten in the name of normalization? Evidently so.
Perhaps the most telling of the several disturbing comments made by
President Obama occurred when he said "(T)hat there has been a good
deal of commentary about my views, [but] this is really about how
the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way
forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works
through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive." How
anyone can believe that this comment before the Turkish National
Grand Assembly is a step in the right direction is difficult to
understand. Juxtapose President Gul's statement as he stood next to
President Obama when he expressed the long-standing determination of
the Turkish government to tie normalization to a Turkish-Armenian
commission to study the totality of events that occurred during
the period from 1915 through 1923. "It is not a political, but an
historic issue. That's why we should allow historians to discuss the
matter." Does President Obama believe exculpatory evidence exists to
support Turkey's view that the Armenian Genocide never occurred? If
so, how does this square with his campaign rhetoric (January 2008)
that "(T)he Armenian genocide is not an allegation...but rather a
widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical
evidence..."
Add to this Prime Minister Erdogan's statement on the previous Friday
in London when he maintained that "(F)or Turkey, it is impossible
to accept a thing [the Armenian Genocide] that does not exist." How
can Turkey's position, emphatically stated and maintained as official
policy through decades of obfuscation and revisionism, fail to raise
serious doubts in President Obama's mind as to the Turkish leadership's
desire or ability to deal objectively with Armenia? If it hasn't,
it should.
Not having strengthened Turkey's position vis-a-vis Armenia
sufficiently, President Obama continued: "We have already seen historic
and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These
contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would
return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous
coexistence that would serve both of your nations. That is why the
United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations
between Turkey and Armenia."
On what basis, one might ask, would normalization be achieved that
would be beneficial to Armenia and its long-term interests? In an
interview with journalists on April 6, the President is quoted as
saying that he is not interested in the United States in any way
tilting these negotiations." Would not recognizing the Armenian
Genocide "tilt these negotiations" toward Armenia? If that is so, how
does this affect Genocide recognition by his administration? Conversely
hasn't his deference to Turkish interests tilted the negotiations
toward Ankara?
Praising Turkey's leadership, President Obama went on to say
"...that...[Turkey is] ...poised to be the only country in the
region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South
Caucasus nations." This comment certainly could not have pleased
either Moscow or Tehran. He continued to say that "... to advance
that peace, ...[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping
to resolve the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, which has continued far
too long." How is "constructive role" to be interpreted? For whose
benefit? Azerbaijan's? How do these comments expressed before the
Turkish National Grand Assembly affect the future of our brothers
and sisters in Artsakh? It effectively strengthens Baku's demands
by reinforcing the United States position that any settlement must
maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. This all but
eliminates the likelihood of Artsakh ever achieving a free and
independent status. Is this why their lives and homes were sacrificed?
President Obama's performance in Turkey cannot be viewed as having
any beneficial impact on Armenian interests; just the opposite is
true. Unfortunately, it significantly bolstered the Turkish position
in the ongoing process of "rapprochement." How much better it would
have been if President Obama had been less eager to have Armenia bear
the burden for his obsequious performance before the Turkish Grand
National Assembly.
By Michael Mensoian
www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/04/09/presi dent-obama%e2%80%99s-message-to-turkey-let%e2%80%9 9s-agree-to-disagree-about-the-armenian-genocide/
April 9, 2009
President Obama's statement at a joint news conference on April 6
with President Abdullah Gul that "(M)y views [on the Genocide] are
on the record and I have not changed my views" may be translated to
mean that the United States and Turkey should agree to disagree about
the Armenian Genocide.
During his much-anticipated visit to Turkey by both Turks and
Armenians, President Obama adroitly played to both sides of the
street. For his Armenian constituents he mentioned his having views
on the Genocide that are well known, and for his Turkish audience
he capitulated to the need to assuage the Turkish leadership. What
happened to his conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not only an
historic fact, but that there was a moral imperative requiring his
administration to recognize it?
The Turkish leaders wisely co-opted his moral sensibilities by having
him address the Turkish Grand National Assembly; a rare honor for
a western dignitary. It must be granted, that it would have been
difficult for President Obama to be forthright on such an emotional
issue in that particular venue, but a much stronger enunciation of
his views and a more balanced evaluation of the Turkish-Armenian
normalization process could have been made.
However, a cynic might wonder whether his side trip to Turkey to pay
homage to a government that has utterly failed to honestly address
the issue of the Armenian Genocide-an established historic fact-was
orchestrated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President
Obama himself, to give cover to his expected muted expression of
support for the April 24th message to the Armenian people.
This is not an overly critical analysis of his speech to the Turkish
Grand National Assembly when his comments are evaluated with respect
to the various issues relating to normalization. When he claims that
Turkey is a critical ally and an important part of Europe, it only
encourages the Turkish government's continued veiled threats that
passage of any genocide resolution by the United States Congress would
do irreparable harm to what Obama sees as a "critical" Turkey-United
States relationship.
In his speech in the Grand National Assembly, Obama said, "(A)t
the end of World War I Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign
powers that were trying to claim its territory....(b)ut Turkey chose
a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control." Did
"foreign control" include Armenian claims to its historic lands? How
does he presume that this so-called success affected the legitimacy
of the independent Armenia that was promised in the Treaty of Sevres
and eliminated by the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne. Wasn't this the
purpose of the Genocide unleashed by the Ottoman Turkish government:
to clear eastern Turkey-the western provinces of historic Armenia-that
was continued under Ataturk during the years between Sevres and
Lausanne? Its purpose was to prevent legitimate Armenian territorial
claims from being implemented. Are these territorial rights to be
forgotten in the name of normalization? Evidently so.
Perhaps the most telling of the several disturbing comments made by
President Obama occurred when he said "(T)hat there has been a good
deal of commentary about my views, [but] this is really about how
the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way
forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works
through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive." How
anyone can believe that this comment before the Turkish National
Grand Assembly is a step in the right direction is difficult to
understand. Juxtapose President Gul's statement as he stood next to
President Obama when he expressed the long-standing determination of
the Turkish government to tie normalization to a Turkish-Armenian
commission to study the totality of events that occurred during
the period from 1915 through 1923. "It is not a political, but an
historic issue. That's why we should allow historians to discuss the
matter." Does President Obama believe exculpatory evidence exists to
support Turkey's view that the Armenian Genocide never occurred? If
so, how does this square with his campaign rhetoric (January 2008)
that "(T)he Armenian genocide is not an allegation...but rather a
widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical
evidence..."
Add to this Prime Minister Erdogan's statement on the previous Friday
in London when he maintained that "(F)or Turkey, it is impossible
to accept a thing [the Armenian Genocide] that does not exist." How
can Turkey's position, emphatically stated and maintained as official
policy through decades of obfuscation and revisionism, fail to raise
serious doubts in President Obama's mind as to the Turkish leadership's
desire or ability to deal objectively with Armenia? If it hasn't,
it should.
Not having strengthened Turkey's position vis-a-vis Armenia
sufficiently, President Obama continued: "We have already seen historic
and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These
contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would
return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous
coexistence that would serve both of your nations. That is why the
United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations
between Turkey and Armenia."
On what basis, one might ask, would normalization be achieved that
would be beneficial to Armenia and its long-term interests? In an
interview with journalists on April 6, the President is quoted as
saying that he is not interested in the United States in any way
tilting these negotiations." Would not recognizing the Armenian
Genocide "tilt these negotiations" toward Armenia? If that is so, how
does this affect Genocide recognition by his administration? Conversely
hasn't his deference to Turkish interests tilted the negotiations
toward Ankara?
Praising Turkey's leadership, President Obama went on to say
"...that...[Turkey is] ...poised to be the only country in the
region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South
Caucasus nations." This comment certainly could not have pleased
either Moscow or Tehran. He continued to say that "... to advance
that peace, ...[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping
to resolve the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, which has continued far
too long." How is "constructive role" to be interpreted? For whose
benefit? Azerbaijan's? How do these comments expressed before the
Turkish National Grand Assembly affect the future of our brothers
and sisters in Artsakh? It effectively strengthens Baku's demands
by reinforcing the United States position that any settlement must
maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. This all but
eliminates the likelihood of Artsakh ever achieving a free and
independent status. Is this why their lives and homes were sacrificed?
President Obama's performance in Turkey cannot be viewed as having
any beneficial impact on Armenian interests; just the opposite is
true. Unfortunately, it significantly bolstered the Turkish position
in the ongoing process of "rapprochement." How much better it would
have been if President Obama had been less eager to have Armenia bear
the burden for his obsequious performance before the Turkish Grand
National Assembly.