Tweet
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_articl e/mickeyz05122009
Press Action
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama and the Denial of Genocide
By Mickey Z.
Writer-activist David Boyajian's investigative articles and
commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S.,
Europe, Middle East, and Armenia and the Newton Tab and USA Armenian
Life newspapers named him among their `Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007.' So,
when Barack Obama paid a visit to Turkey last month, it seemed like a
good time to ask Boyajian for his take on the new president's approach
to the issue of the Armenian genocide.
Mickey Z: This April, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise
#511, namely to explicitly acknowledge the Armenian genocide as
U.S. President. What happened on his recent visit to Turkey? What
are the ramifications of his breaking this promise?
David Boyajian: President Obama visited Turkey from April 6 to 7,
where he did not use the word `genocide' when referring to the 1.5
million murders committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against its
Armenian citizens from 1915-1923. As a candidate, Obama had promised
several times to do so. His statement in Turkey that he had `not
changed his views' - implying he still believes it was genocide - was
still a clear breach of his promise to use the `G word.' It was a case
study in verbal gymnastics and political duplicity and should be
studied in political science courses. Obama's broken promise
obviously eroded his credibility. The same holds true for Vice
President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, as
senators, supported the Armenian genocide resolution. They've since
fallen disgracefully silent. Dr. Samantha Power should also be
embarrassed. She's the National Security Council's genocide expert
and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. As a campaign advisor to Obama,
she made a video telling Armenian Americans that as president, Obama
would definitely acknowledge their genocide. `Take my word for it,'
she said.
Appeasement of a genocide-denying country such as Turkey is bad policy
because its message is that genocides can be committed without
consequence. Appeasement also erodes U.S. credibility on human rights
and its stated desire to be a leader in genocide prevention. Unlike
what lobbyists for Turkey would have U.S. believe, Armenian genocide
affirmation by America would not harm U.S. national interests. Turkey
depends on the U.S. for weapons systems, support for billions in loans
from the International Monetary Fund, security guarantees through
NATO, advocacy for Turkish membership in the European Union, and more.
Some 20 countries, including Canada, France, and Switzerland, as well
as the parliaments of the EU and the Council of Europe, have
acknowledged the Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced much
more a Turkish temper tantrum in retaliation.
MZ: Two days prior to Armenian Genocide Remembrance day - which
annually falls on April 24 - Turkey and Armenia announced that they
had agreed to a `roadmap' to normalize relations. What was the
significance of this timing? What does the `roadmap' contain?
DB: Behind the scenes, the U.S. State Department had long been
twisting Armenia's arm to agree to a so-called `roadmap' with Turkey
before President Obama issued what has become a customary `April 24
statement' by U.S. presidents marking Armenian genocide memorial day.
The `roadmap,' announced on April 22, provided political cover for
Obama to not use the `G word' on April 24. That is, since there was
now supposedly a roadmap for normalization of relations - no matter
how vague and hurriedly slapped together - Obama could say that he did
not want to upset Turkey and the touted-as-highly-delicate
Turkish-Armenian negotiations by using the `G word.' Notice that Obama
did not consult with Armenian-Americans or Armenia about this. So
much for promises and moral principles. It's disgraceful that Obama,
simply to help Turkey save face, not only broke his promise, but
showed blatant disregard for the activists - not just Armenians - who
labored so hard for many years for the cause of recognizing all
genocides.
Armenia has always said that it was ready to normalize relations with
Turkey - which would include Turkey's re-opening its border with
Armenia - without pre-conditions. Suddenly, however, Armenia has had
pre-conditions imposed on it in this `roadmap.' According to the
Turkish press, the `roadmap' allegedly contains pre-conditions such
as: Armenia's agreeing to a joint commission to examine the veracity
of the Armenian genocide - yes, you heard right, Armenia's formal
recognition of current Turkish boundaries - which contain the Armenian
homeland, and, possibly, Armenia's accepting Turkish mediation in the
conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijan over the disputed Armenian
region of Karabagh - which is absurd since Azerbaijan and Turkey are
allies. It appears that Armenia's president, whose electoral
legitimacy is in question, has been worn down in these negotiations by
Turkey, the West, and possibly even Russia. And because the Armenian
president is grappling with his legitimacy, he is not heeding the
cautions being voiced by the people of his own nation about the
`roadmap.'
MZ: The U.S. administration and mainstream media would have us
believe that Turkey is seeking to `reconcile' with Armenia. Is
`reconciliation' really a possibility, or have we misunderstood what's
going on?
DB: The word `reconciliation' in relation to Armenian-Turkish
relations is largely an invention of U.S. policymakers, their
emissaries, and the mainstream media who take their cues from them.
What the U.S. and Europe would like to see is a more stable Caucasus -
that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia - with open borders. Open
borders, you see, would facilitate laying more oil and gas pipelines
that would originate in the Caspian Sea region and proceed west to
Turkey and then to energy-hungry Europe and Israel. The U.S. and
Europe don't want to put it quite that crudely - no pun intended - so
they try to depict Armenia and Turkey as possibly `reconciling' and
thus resolving all their differences. Turkey closed its border with
Armenia in 1993 out of sympathy with its ally Azerbaijan, which was in
a war with the Armenians of Karabagh, a historically
Armenian-populated autonomous area within Azerbaijan that Stalin
handed to Azerbaijan. Turkey has also been infuriated that Armenia
and Armenians worldwide have been demanding that Turkey acknowledge
the genocide it committed against Armenians.
Turkey has to acknowledge the genocide or there will never be peace
between it and Armenia. And although the Armenian government has not
put forth any claims for reparations arising out of the genocide, or
for territory, many Armenians do have these goals. They cite the
Treaty of Sèvres of 1920, which provided for Armenian sovereignty over
Armenian lands upon which Turkey committed the genocide, and which
have since been incorporated into what is now eastern Turkey.
MZ: The countries of the Caucasus are Armenia, Georgia, and
Azerbaijan. Most Americans, including the mainstream media, could not
find these small countries on a map. Why are Russia and the U.S. -
the latter being thousands of miles from the region - so interested in
these three small countries?
DB: The Caucasus is truly Ground Zero in Cold War II, the ongoing
conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. - along with Europe and
the NATO military alliance - regard Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan
as middlemen between the West and the gas and oil-rich regions around
the Caspian Sea. The West has already laid gas and oil pipelines from
Azerbaijan through Georgia and then on to Turkey and the west. The
U.S. wanted those and future pipelines to bypass Russia and Iran
because those two countries could shut such pipelines to pressure the
U.S. and others. The only possible pipelines routes, therefore, are
through Georgia or Armenia. But Turkey shut its border with Armenia
in 1993, and Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia even earlier
due to the conflict between it and the de-facto Armenian region of
Karabagh. That left Georgia as the only place for these Western
pipelines. After the Russian-Georgian was last year, however, opening
an alternative route has become more urgent. That largely explains
the West's renewed interest in Armenia. Conversely, Russia sees the
Caucasus as within its traditional sphere of influence, and regards
U.S. and European interest in the region as hostile acts.
Simultaneously, NATO has been pushing into the region. Georgia,
Azerbaijan, and to some extent even the ex-Soviet republics on the
other side of the Caspian Sea, are on the path to joining NATO.
Russia was already upset that, following the Cold War, NATO had
absorbed the former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. NATO is
now attempting, in effect, to do the same thing on Russia's southern
border. Russia fears that it will eventually be virtually surrounded
by NATO. As a result, we have Cold War II: The U.S. and NATO are
trying to push into the Caucasus and Central Asia, while Russia is
trying to keep them out.
MZ: Why is Israel interested in the Caucasus, and what role is that
country playing? Why are Israel and the pro-Israel lobby dead set
against recognition of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. Congress?
DB: Israel is interested in getting some of the oil and gas that flow
out of the Caspian Sea region. That is, from countries such as
Azerbaijan, oil and gas flow west through Georgia, and then on to
Turkey and other countries, possibly including Israel. After all, the
U.S. and Turkey, which are important players in these pipelines, are
obviously also very friendly with Israel. Israel also welcomes all
non-Arab supplies of energy since they would make its Western allies
less dependent on Arab oil and gas. And Israel has long had what it
calls its Periphery Policy. Historically, Israel has not had good
relations with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, to serve as
counterweights, Israel befriends those countries further away,
especially Muslim countries that aren't necessarily sympathetic to
Israel's Arab neighbors or Palestinians. Azerbaijan, the only Muslim
nation in the Caucasus, and some Muslim nations to the east, such as
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, are such countries. Fortuitously for
Israel, they also possess significant deposits of gas and oil.
For decades, Israel and Turkey have had very good relations, mainly
because they have a common ally, the U.S., and common adversaries,
namely Arab nations. In the 1990's, Israel and Turkey signed a number
of military, economic, and political agreements that solidified their
relationship. Even before that, but particularly after that, Turkey
felt that it did not have sufficient lobbying muscle in Washington.
So the Turks asked Israel to convince some of the pro-Israel lobby -
the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others - to
serve as advocates for Turkey. The Jewish lobby groups agreed. So
these groups, as part of their deal with Turkey, deny or call into
question the Armenian genocide and work to prevent U.S. acknowledgement
of that genocide. These groups won't tolerate anyone questioning of
the Holocaust, and yet hypocritically work against acknowledgment of
the Armenian genocide. Interestingly, for the last 2 years, Armenian
Americans have exposed the ADL's hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for
example, fourteen cities severed ties with an anti-bias program
sponsored by the ADL because of the latter's hypocritical and
anti-Armenian stance (see NoPlaceForDenial.com). Armenians are
determined to challenge genocide denial whenever it occurs.
MZ: Is there a problem with the way the mainstream media has been
covering Armenian issues?
DB: Yes. The mainstream media have several problems. First, they know
very little about the Caucasus or Armenians. Reporters tend,
therefore, to copy each other and repeat clichés and falsehoods - such
as that Armenia and Turkey are on the verge of a historic
`reconciliation.' Media also tend to accept at face value the
propaganda issued by Western governments whose interest in the
Caucasus is - let's be frank - not `reconciliation,' democracy, or
human rights, but rather self-interested economic, political, and
military political penetration of the Caucasus.
Turkey has about 30 times more people and territory, and 50 times more
Gross Domestic Product, than Armenia. The power differential is
enormous. Turkey has infinitely more allies in Western media,
governments, think tanks, and multi-national corporations - and knows
how to use them. Commentators who have a vested interest in touting
Turkey for their own political and even financial reasons have
particularly come out of the woodwork to deride legitimate Armenian
demands. But we rarely hear commentators speak of how a small country
that has been the victim of genocide, that has had most of its
territory stripped from it, and that has been blockaded by the denier
of that genocide - Turkey - is being threatened by that very same
unrepentant denier. Mainstream media largely fail to appreciate the
foregoing facts. Hopefully, Mickey, this interview will help the
media and your readers understand the issues and the region a bit
better.
##
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Press Action
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama and the Denial of Genocide
By Mickey Z.
Writer-activist David Boyajian's investigative articles and
commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S.,
Europe, Middle East, and Armenia and the Newton Tab and USA Armenian
Life newspapers named him among their `Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007.' So,
when Barack Obama paid a visit to Turkey last month, it seemed like a
good time to ask Boyajian for his take on the new president's approach
to the issue of the Armenian genocide.
Mickey Z: This April, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise
#511, namely to explicitly acknowledge the Armenian genocide as
U.S. President. What happened on his recent visit to Turkey? What
are the ramifications of his breaking this promise?
David Boyajian: President Obama visited Turkey from April 6 to 7,
where he did not use the word `genocide' when referring to the 1.5
million murders committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against its
Armenian citizens from 1915-1923. As a candidate, Obama had promised
several times to do so. His statement in Turkey that he had `not
changed his views' - implying he still believes it was genocide - was
still a clear breach of his promise to use the `G word.' It was a case
study in verbal gymnastics and political duplicity and should be
studied in political science courses. Obama's broken promise
obviously eroded his credibility. The same holds true for Vice
President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, as
senators, supported the Armenian genocide resolution. They've since
fallen disgracefully silent. Dr. Samantha Power should also be
embarrassed. She's the National Security Council's genocide expert
and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. As a campaign advisor to Obama,
she made a video telling Armenian Americans that as president, Obama
would definitely acknowledge their genocide. `Take my word for it,'
she said.
Appeasement of a genocide-denying country such as Turkey is bad policy
because its message is that genocides can be committed without
consequence. Appeasement also erodes U.S. credibility on human rights
and its stated desire to be a leader in genocide prevention. Unlike
what lobbyists for Turkey would have U.S. believe, Armenian genocide
affirmation by America would not harm U.S. national interests. Turkey
depends on the U.S. for weapons systems, support for billions in loans
from the International Monetary Fund, security guarantees through
NATO, advocacy for Turkish membership in the European Union, and more.
Some 20 countries, including Canada, France, and Switzerland, as well
as the parliaments of the EU and the Council of Europe, have
acknowledged the Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced much
more a Turkish temper tantrum in retaliation.
MZ: Two days prior to Armenian Genocide Remembrance day - which
annually falls on April 24 - Turkey and Armenia announced that they
had agreed to a `roadmap' to normalize relations. What was the
significance of this timing? What does the `roadmap' contain?
DB: Behind the scenes, the U.S. State Department had long been
twisting Armenia's arm to agree to a so-called `roadmap' with Turkey
before President Obama issued what has become a customary `April 24
statement' by U.S. presidents marking Armenian genocide memorial day.
The `roadmap,' announced on April 22, provided political cover for
Obama to not use the `G word' on April 24. That is, since there was
now supposedly a roadmap for normalization of relations - no matter
how vague and hurriedly slapped together - Obama could say that he did
not want to upset Turkey and the touted-as-highly-delicate
Turkish-Armenian negotiations by using the `G word.' Notice that Obama
did not consult with Armenian-Americans or Armenia about this. So
much for promises and moral principles. It's disgraceful that Obama,
simply to help Turkey save face, not only broke his promise, but
showed blatant disregard for the activists - not just Armenians - who
labored so hard for many years for the cause of recognizing all
genocides.
Armenia has always said that it was ready to normalize relations with
Turkey - which would include Turkey's re-opening its border with
Armenia - without pre-conditions. Suddenly, however, Armenia has had
pre-conditions imposed on it in this `roadmap.' According to the
Turkish press, the `roadmap' allegedly contains pre-conditions such
as: Armenia's agreeing to a joint commission to examine the veracity
of the Armenian genocide - yes, you heard right, Armenia's formal
recognition of current Turkish boundaries - which contain the Armenian
homeland, and, possibly, Armenia's accepting Turkish mediation in the
conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijan over the disputed Armenian
region of Karabagh - which is absurd since Azerbaijan and Turkey are
allies. It appears that Armenia's president, whose electoral
legitimacy is in question, has been worn down in these negotiations by
Turkey, the West, and possibly even Russia. And because the Armenian
president is grappling with his legitimacy, he is not heeding the
cautions being voiced by the people of his own nation about the
`roadmap.'
MZ: The U.S. administration and mainstream media would have us
believe that Turkey is seeking to `reconcile' with Armenia. Is
`reconciliation' really a possibility, or have we misunderstood what's
going on?
DB: The word `reconciliation' in relation to Armenian-Turkish
relations is largely an invention of U.S. policymakers, their
emissaries, and the mainstream media who take their cues from them.
What the U.S. and Europe would like to see is a more stable Caucasus -
that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia - with open borders. Open
borders, you see, would facilitate laying more oil and gas pipelines
that would originate in the Caspian Sea region and proceed west to
Turkey and then to energy-hungry Europe and Israel. The U.S. and
Europe don't want to put it quite that crudely - no pun intended - so
they try to depict Armenia and Turkey as possibly `reconciling' and
thus resolving all their differences. Turkey closed its border with
Armenia in 1993 out of sympathy with its ally Azerbaijan, which was in
a war with the Armenians of Karabagh, a historically
Armenian-populated autonomous area within Azerbaijan that Stalin
handed to Azerbaijan. Turkey has also been infuriated that Armenia
and Armenians worldwide have been demanding that Turkey acknowledge
the genocide it committed against Armenians.
Turkey has to acknowledge the genocide or there will never be peace
between it and Armenia. And although the Armenian government has not
put forth any claims for reparations arising out of the genocide, or
for territory, many Armenians do have these goals. They cite the
Treaty of Sèvres of 1920, which provided for Armenian sovereignty over
Armenian lands upon which Turkey committed the genocide, and which
have since been incorporated into what is now eastern Turkey.
MZ: The countries of the Caucasus are Armenia, Georgia, and
Azerbaijan. Most Americans, including the mainstream media, could not
find these small countries on a map. Why are Russia and the U.S. -
the latter being thousands of miles from the region - so interested in
these three small countries?
DB: The Caucasus is truly Ground Zero in Cold War II, the ongoing
conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. - along with Europe and
the NATO military alliance - regard Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan
as middlemen between the West and the gas and oil-rich regions around
the Caspian Sea. The West has already laid gas and oil pipelines from
Azerbaijan through Georgia and then on to Turkey and the west. The
U.S. wanted those and future pipelines to bypass Russia and Iran
because those two countries could shut such pipelines to pressure the
U.S. and others. The only possible pipelines routes, therefore, are
through Georgia or Armenia. But Turkey shut its border with Armenia
in 1993, and Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia even earlier
due to the conflict between it and the de-facto Armenian region of
Karabagh. That left Georgia as the only place for these Western
pipelines. After the Russian-Georgian was last year, however, opening
an alternative route has become more urgent. That largely explains
the West's renewed interest in Armenia. Conversely, Russia sees the
Caucasus as within its traditional sphere of influence, and regards
U.S. and European interest in the region as hostile acts.
Simultaneously, NATO has been pushing into the region. Georgia,
Azerbaijan, and to some extent even the ex-Soviet republics on the
other side of the Caspian Sea, are on the path to joining NATO.
Russia was already upset that, following the Cold War, NATO had
absorbed the former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. NATO is
now attempting, in effect, to do the same thing on Russia's southern
border. Russia fears that it will eventually be virtually surrounded
by NATO. As a result, we have Cold War II: The U.S. and NATO are
trying to push into the Caucasus and Central Asia, while Russia is
trying to keep them out.
MZ: Why is Israel interested in the Caucasus, and what role is that
country playing? Why are Israel and the pro-Israel lobby dead set
against recognition of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. Congress?
DB: Israel is interested in getting some of the oil and gas that flow
out of the Caspian Sea region. That is, from countries such as
Azerbaijan, oil and gas flow west through Georgia, and then on to
Turkey and other countries, possibly including Israel. After all, the
U.S. and Turkey, which are important players in these pipelines, are
obviously also very friendly with Israel. Israel also welcomes all
non-Arab supplies of energy since they would make its Western allies
less dependent on Arab oil and gas. And Israel has long had what it
calls its Periphery Policy. Historically, Israel has not had good
relations with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, to serve as
counterweights, Israel befriends those countries further away,
especially Muslim countries that aren't necessarily sympathetic to
Israel's Arab neighbors or Palestinians. Azerbaijan, the only Muslim
nation in the Caucasus, and some Muslim nations to the east, such as
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, are such countries. Fortuitously for
Israel, they also possess significant deposits of gas and oil.
For decades, Israel and Turkey have had very good relations, mainly
because they have a common ally, the U.S., and common adversaries,
namely Arab nations. In the 1990's, Israel and Turkey signed a number
of military, economic, and political agreements that solidified their
relationship. Even before that, but particularly after that, Turkey
felt that it did not have sufficient lobbying muscle in Washington.
So the Turks asked Israel to convince some of the pro-Israel lobby -
the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others - to
serve as advocates for Turkey. The Jewish lobby groups agreed. So
these groups, as part of their deal with Turkey, deny or call into
question the Armenian genocide and work to prevent U.S. acknowledgement
of that genocide. These groups won't tolerate anyone questioning of
the Holocaust, and yet hypocritically work against acknowledgment of
the Armenian genocide. Interestingly, for the last 2 years, Armenian
Americans have exposed the ADL's hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for
example, fourteen cities severed ties with an anti-bias program
sponsored by the ADL because of the latter's hypocritical and
anti-Armenian stance (see NoPlaceForDenial.com). Armenians are
determined to challenge genocide denial whenever it occurs.
MZ: Is there a problem with the way the mainstream media has been
covering Armenian issues?
DB: Yes. The mainstream media have several problems. First, they know
very little about the Caucasus or Armenians. Reporters tend,
therefore, to copy each other and repeat clichés and falsehoods - such
as that Armenia and Turkey are on the verge of a historic
`reconciliation.' Media also tend to accept at face value the
propaganda issued by Western governments whose interest in the
Caucasus is - let's be frank - not `reconciliation,' democracy, or
human rights, but rather self-interested economic, political, and
military political penetration of the Caucasus.
Turkey has about 30 times more people and territory, and 50 times more
Gross Domestic Product, than Armenia. The power differential is
enormous. Turkey has infinitely more allies in Western media,
governments, think tanks, and multi-national corporations - and knows
how to use them. Commentators who have a vested interest in touting
Turkey for their own political and even financial reasons have
particularly come out of the woodwork to deride legitimate Armenian
demands. But we rarely hear commentators speak of how a small country
that has been the victim of genocide, that has had most of its
territory stripped from it, and that has been blockaded by the denier
of that genocide - Turkey - is being threatened by that very same
unrepentant denier. Mainstream media largely fail to appreciate the
foregoing facts. Hopefully, Mickey, this interview will help the
media and your readers understand the issues and the region a bit
better.
##
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress