Tweet
WHY WON'T THEY CALL IT GENOCIDE?
Socialist Worker Online
http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/21/call-it-gen ocide
May 21 2009
David Boyajian is a writer-activist whose investigative articles and
commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S.,
Europe, the Middle East and Armenia. The Newton Tab and USA Armenian
Life newspapers named him among their "Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007."
While Barack Obama was visiting Turkey last month, journalist Mickey
Z.--a frequent contributor to CounterPunch, ZNet and MRZine, whose
writings also appear at his Mickey Z.: Cool Observer Web site--asked
Boyajian for his take on Obama's approach to the issue of the Armenian
genocide.
President Barack Obama speaks with Armenian, Turkish and Swiss foreign
ministers in Istanbul (Pete Souza)
THIS APRIL, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise number
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?
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
adviser 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 us 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 European Union and the Council of Europe,
have acknowledged the Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced
much more a Turkish temper tantrum in retaliation.
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?
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."
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?
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.
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?
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 war 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.
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?
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 1990s, 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 (ADL), 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 two years, Armenian Americans have
exposed the ADL's hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for example, 14
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.
IS THERE a problem with the way the mainstream media has been covering
Armenian issues?
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.
Socialist Worker Online
http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/21/call-it-gen ocide
May 21 2009
David Boyajian is a writer-activist whose investigative articles and
commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S.,
Europe, the Middle East and Armenia. The Newton Tab and USA Armenian
Life newspapers named him among their "Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007."
While Barack Obama was visiting Turkey last month, journalist Mickey
Z.--a frequent contributor to CounterPunch, ZNet and MRZine, whose
writings also appear at his Mickey Z.: Cool Observer Web site--asked
Boyajian for his take on Obama's approach to the issue of the Armenian
genocide.
President Barack Obama speaks with Armenian, Turkish and Swiss foreign
ministers in Istanbul (Pete Souza)
THIS APRIL, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise number
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?
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
adviser 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 us 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 European Union and the Council of Europe,
have acknowledged the Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced
much more a Turkish temper tantrum in retaliation.
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?
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."
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?
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.
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?
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 war 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.
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?
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 1990s, 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 (ADL), 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 two years, Armenian Americans have
exposed the ADL's hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for example, 14
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.
IS THERE a problem with the way the mainstream media has been covering
Armenian issues?
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.