Tweet
About - News & Issues
April 25 2009
Obama Breaks His Promise on the Armenian Genocide Saturday April 25,
2009
It's official. As expected, President Obama has broken his promise on
the Armenian genocide.
While campaigning for the presidency, when every vote mattered, Obama,
was unequivocal:
I also share with Armenian Americans ` so many of whom are descended
from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and
ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances
of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the
Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of
the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of
State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after
he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of
thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice
my 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.
So much for those facts.
On the very same day that he recognized, eloquently and powerfully,
the holocaust in which Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews, Obama
issued a statement in remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians
murdered by Ottoman Turks--and refused to use the word "genocide."
He acknowledged the 1.5 million Armenians, he said they were
"massacred or marched to their death." He referred to it as "one of
the great atrocities of the 20th century." He even referred to the
Meds Yeghern. "In Armenian, Meds Yeghern means genocide, but only in
Armenian. Better than nothing, of course, but still not quite the G
word," blogger Unzipped wrote, noting perceptively: "Effectively he
recognised the Armenian Genocide for Armenians only (who understand
the meaning of "Meds Yeghern") but not to the outside world."
"It's like talking about the Holocaust without using the word
Holocaust, lest you offend the Germans," Armenian blogger Sevana,
wrote. "As if it's the German's feelings that are important in that
case."
In fairness to Obama, he also did not use the word "genocide" in his
Holocaust address, using the word "atrocity" or its derivatives three
times in various contexts, which enabled him, in a circuitous way, to
link the Holocaust to other genocides, recognize them as such, but
still not use the word: "The Holocaust was driven by many of the same
forces that have fueled atrocities throughout history"; Eisenhower
understood that "if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet
another atrocity" (though it can be argued that textual tap-dancing
around the word genocide is itself a lethal silencer); we must do
"everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took
place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur."
Clever. But is it enough? It's clear what Obama is up to with
Armenians. He's subordinating them to American relations with
Turkey--Turkey, which has turned bullying of western powers over the
Armenian and other issues into a black art. Obama is also mindful of
relations between Turkey and Armenia, which are being normalized after
years of enmity: what this means to the United States isn't just a
happy hand-holding moment, but the potential for a safer route for oil
from the Caucasus through Armenia and Turkey (a route now made
unappetizing by Iranian and Central Asian instability).
Those are all valid geopolitical reasons--if your moral compass swings
between the bony poles of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew
Brzezinski. They're not valid reasons morally or historically.
http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/ 04/25/obama-breaks-his-promise-on-the-armenian-gen ocide.htm
April 25 2009
Obama Breaks His Promise on the Armenian Genocide Saturday April 25,
2009
It's official. As expected, President Obama has broken his promise on
the Armenian genocide.
While campaigning for the presidency, when every vote mattered, Obama,
was unequivocal:
I also share with Armenian Americans ` so many of whom are descended
from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and
ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances
of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the
Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of
the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of
State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after
he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of
thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice
my 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.
So much for those facts.
On the very same day that he recognized, eloquently and powerfully,
the holocaust in which Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews, Obama
issued a statement in remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians
murdered by Ottoman Turks--and refused to use the word "genocide."
He acknowledged the 1.5 million Armenians, he said they were
"massacred or marched to their death." He referred to it as "one of
the great atrocities of the 20th century." He even referred to the
Meds Yeghern. "In Armenian, Meds Yeghern means genocide, but only in
Armenian. Better than nothing, of course, but still not quite the G
word," blogger Unzipped wrote, noting perceptively: "Effectively he
recognised the Armenian Genocide for Armenians only (who understand
the meaning of "Meds Yeghern") but not to the outside world."
"It's like talking about the Holocaust without using the word
Holocaust, lest you offend the Germans," Armenian blogger Sevana,
wrote. "As if it's the German's feelings that are important in that
case."
In fairness to Obama, he also did not use the word "genocide" in his
Holocaust address, using the word "atrocity" or its derivatives three
times in various contexts, which enabled him, in a circuitous way, to
link the Holocaust to other genocides, recognize them as such, but
still not use the word: "The Holocaust was driven by many of the same
forces that have fueled atrocities throughout history"; Eisenhower
understood that "if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet
another atrocity" (though it can be argued that textual tap-dancing
around the word genocide is itself a lethal silencer); we must do
"everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took
place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur."
Clever. But is it enough? It's clear what Obama is up to with
Armenians. He's subordinating them to American relations with
Turkey--Turkey, which has turned bullying of western powers over the
Armenian and other issues into a black art. Obama is also mindful of
relations between Turkey and Armenia, which are being normalized after
years of enmity: what this means to the United States isn't just a
happy hand-holding moment, but the potential for a safer route for oil
from the Caucasus through Armenia and Turkey (a route now made
unappetizing by Iranian and Central Asian instability).
Those are all valid geopolitical reasons--if your moral compass swings
between the bony poles of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew
Brzezinski. They're not valid reasons morally or historically.
http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/ 04/25/obama-breaks-his-promise-on-the-armenian-gen ocide.htm