Tweet
Pasadena Star News, CA
April 26 2009
Guest View: Just one choice for genocide
Posted: 04/25/2009 08:01:48 AM PDT
There were a number of reasons President Obama might have, like George
Bush, formally denied the Armenian Genocide again this year.
And by not calling it genocide in the statement he released on Friday,
he did just that, and we're terribly disappointed in his decision. He
made some strong points - but again stepped back from telling the full
truth about what happened in 1915.
The president can argue America should continue to defer to the
Republic of Turkey's position on the genocide, which is that it never
happened. Second, he could argue that the geo-politics, the need for
Turkish assistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, make the Armenian Genocide
a taboo that cannot be broached, at least not now. Third, he could
assert that the genocide is a matter of the historical record and so
it should not be considered in the political arena.
The president could make these arguments. But on each score, he's
wrong.
The president's first option of deferring to Turkey has a rich
precedent at the White House. The modern history of outsourcing
American foreign policy with respect to the genocide of Armenians was
begun in the Reagan era under George Schultz. It was an August 1982
edition of the State Department Bulletin that announced that the
"historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor is ambiguous."
>From this obscure document, administration after administration has,
contrary to the scholarly record, engaged in a transparent exercise of
denying genocide every April, the month we mark the anniversary of the
Genocide. What makes this policy so awkward is that it ignores that
our nation's humanitarian campaign in response to the genocide set the
stage for the 20th-century development of American international human
rights work.
Presidents continue to make the "not now" argument and defer, for
another more convenient day, the truth. This approach has,
perennially, found fertile ground in the halls of Congress and the
confines of the West Wing. Mike Pence, R-Ind., took this approach in
2007 after admitting that there was a genocide at a congressional
hearing, explaining that "with American troops in harm's way dependent
on critical supply routes available through an alliance that we enjoy
with the nation of Turkey, I submit that at this time, this is not the
time for this nation to speak on this dark chapter of history." This
same argument is carted out annually, with a dull familiarity, no
matter the circumstances in the Middle East.
The last and most precious option is to argue that you can't legislate
history by declaring a genocide and that Armenians and Turks ought to
work this difficult matter among themselves. White House spokesman
Gordon Johndroe under George W. Bush explained this best when he
argued that the determination of whether "the events constitute a
genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation."
President Obama touched on this argument when he made the following
remark to Turkish parliamentarians in Ankara earlier this month: "I
know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of
1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views,
it's 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."
The argument that a conflict requires a resolution does have
merit. What that argument ignores, in this instance, is that the crime
of genocide demands justice.
President Obama could have shaped and defined his administration's
position on the most essential human rights subject of our time - the
crime of genocide. He also could continue the practice of kow-towing
to Turkey by denying the reality of the genocide. This would continue
a Bush-era tradition of our nation outsourcing to Turkey its policy on
the Armenian Genocide.
The better option for America, the moral option, the option consistent
with our values, is for President Obama to soon affirm the Armenian
Genocide, even after choosing not to last week. America's complicity
in Turkey's genocide denial is bound to collapse one day. What better
president to end the big lie than an improbable messenger of hope -
Barack Obama.
Raffi Hamparian was formerly a senior legislative assistant on foreign
affairs matters for Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J. He lives in San Marino
with his wife and three daughters.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinio ns/ci_12225632
April 26 2009
Guest View: Just one choice for genocide
Posted: 04/25/2009 08:01:48 AM PDT
There were a number of reasons President Obama might have, like George
Bush, formally denied the Armenian Genocide again this year.
And by not calling it genocide in the statement he released on Friday,
he did just that, and we're terribly disappointed in his decision. He
made some strong points - but again stepped back from telling the full
truth about what happened in 1915.
The president can argue America should continue to defer to the
Republic of Turkey's position on the genocide, which is that it never
happened. Second, he could argue that the geo-politics, the need for
Turkish assistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, make the Armenian Genocide
a taboo that cannot be broached, at least not now. Third, he could
assert that the genocide is a matter of the historical record and so
it should not be considered in the political arena.
The president could make these arguments. But on each score, he's
wrong.
The president's first option of deferring to Turkey has a rich
precedent at the White House. The modern history of outsourcing
American foreign policy with respect to the genocide of Armenians was
begun in the Reagan era under George Schultz. It was an August 1982
edition of the State Department Bulletin that announced that the
"historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor is ambiguous."
>From this obscure document, administration after administration has,
contrary to the scholarly record, engaged in a transparent exercise of
denying genocide every April, the month we mark the anniversary of the
Genocide. What makes this policy so awkward is that it ignores that
our nation's humanitarian campaign in response to the genocide set the
stage for the 20th-century development of American international human
rights work.
Presidents continue to make the "not now" argument and defer, for
another more convenient day, the truth. This approach has,
perennially, found fertile ground in the halls of Congress and the
confines of the West Wing. Mike Pence, R-Ind., took this approach in
2007 after admitting that there was a genocide at a congressional
hearing, explaining that "with American troops in harm's way dependent
on critical supply routes available through an alliance that we enjoy
with the nation of Turkey, I submit that at this time, this is not the
time for this nation to speak on this dark chapter of history." This
same argument is carted out annually, with a dull familiarity, no
matter the circumstances in the Middle East.
The last and most precious option is to argue that you can't legislate
history by declaring a genocide and that Armenians and Turks ought to
work this difficult matter among themselves. White House spokesman
Gordon Johndroe under George W. Bush explained this best when he
argued that the determination of whether "the events constitute a
genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation."
President Obama touched on this argument when he made the following
remark to Turkish parliamentarians in Ankara earlier this month: "I
know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of
1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views,
it's 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."
The argument that a conflict requires a resolution does have
merit. What that argument ignores, in this instance, is that the crime
of genocide demands justice.
President Obama could have shaped and defined his administration's
position on the most essential human rights subject of our time - the
crime of genocide. He also could continue the practice of kow-towing
to Turkey by denying the reality of the genocide. This would continue
a Bush-era tradition of our nation outsourcing to Turkey its policy on
the Armenian Genocide.
The better option for America, the moral option, the option consistent
with our values, is for President Obama to soon affirm the Armenian
Genocide, even after choosing not to last week. America's complicity
in Turkey's genocide denial is bound to collapse one day. What better
president to end the big lie than an improbable messenger of hope -
Barack Obama.
Raffi Hamparian was formerly a senior legislative assistant on foreign
affairs matters for Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J. He lives in San Marino
with his wife and three daughters.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinio ns/ci_12225632