Tweet
OBAMA CONTRIBUTING TO THE TURKISH CAMPAIGN, PERPETUATING TURKEY'S MASSIVE LIE: THE HUFFINGTONM POST
Panorama.am
19:06 27/04/2010
Politics
The Huffingtonm Post published "Anything but Genocide: Obama, Turkey,
and the Armenian Holocaust" article by US bloger and publicist Michael
J.W. Stickings.
In his article the author makes critical reference to the US Barack
Obama April 24 address. "I appreciate the fact that President Obama
used the proper Armenian term, Meds Yeghern ("Great Catastrophe"),
when referring on Saturday to the Armenian massacre at the hands of
the Turks, which took place between 1915 and 1917, but it is telling
that he refused to call it what it was: genocide," he says.
Citing some parts from Obama address, Michael J.W. Stickings says:
"Yes, it was "one of the worst atrocities" of the last century. Yes,
an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed. Yes, it was "a
devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people." Yes,
"we must keep its memory alive." But that's not good enough."
Obama's use of Meds Yeghern "is an elegant dodge to avoid using the
'g-word' -- but the substance of what he states about what happened
gives no comfort to those who cling to the Turkish official version,"
says Harvard University's Andras Riedlmayer. "1.5 million Armenians
were rounded up and massacred or marched to their death. Despite the
passive construction, that assumes intentionality," the author says.
"Nevertheless, such nuance was not appreciated by the Armenian American
lobby group, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which
rapped Obama for "disgraceful capitulation to Turkey's threats" and of
"offering euphemisms and evasive terminology to characterize this crime
against humanity," in a press release Saturday," Michael J.W. Stickings
writes highlighting that he has written about this issue a couple of
times: "I was critical of Bush, but I've been critical of Obama, too."
The writer expresses his discontent over the US President-in -Office
this way:
"I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as
deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous
administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that
what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those
ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations,
which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.
For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny
the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for
one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit
that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time
as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that
is truly appalling.
In other words, while I suspect that Obama knows full well that it
was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of
collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing
to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking
Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and
all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?
Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone
calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no
matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S.
and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand
and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and
threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over
non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives),
but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America?
Please.
Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the
Turks to go ..., well, you know.
Diplomatically, of course."
Panorama.am
19:06 27/04/2010
Politics
The Huffingtonm Post published "Anything but Genocide: Obama, Turkey,
and the Armenian Holocaust" article by US bloger and publicist Michael
J.W. Stickings.
In his article the author makes critical reference to the US Barack
Obama April 24 address. "I appreciate the fact that President Obama
used the proper Armenian term, Meds Yeghern ("Great Catastrophe"),
when referring on Saturday to the Armenian massacre at the hands of
the Turks, which took place between 1915 and 1917, but it is telling
that he refused to call it what it was: genocide," he says.
Citing some parts from Obama address, Michael J.W. Stickings says:
"Yes, it was "one of the worst atrocities" of the last century. Yes,
an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed. Yes, it was "a
devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people." Yes,
"we must keep its memory alive." But that's not good enough."
Obama's use of Meds Yeghern "is an elegant dodge to avoid using the
'g-word' -- but the substance of what he states about what happened
gives no comfort to those who cling to the Turkish official version,"
says Harvard University's Andras Riedlmayer. "1.5 million Armenians
were rounded up and massacred or marched to their death. Despite the
passive construction, that assumes intentionality," the author says.
"Nevertheless, such nuance was not appreciated by the Armenian American
lobby group, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which
rapped Obama for "disgraceful capitulation to Turkey's threats" and of
"offering euphemisms and evasive terminology to characterize this crime
against humanity," in a press release Saturday," Michael J.W. Stickings
writes highlighting that he has written about this issue a couple of
times: "I was critical of Bush, but I've been critical of Obama, too."
The writer expresses his discontent over the US President-in -Office
this way:
"I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as
deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous
administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that
what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those
ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations,
which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.
For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny
the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for
one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit
that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time
as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that
is truly appalling.
In other words, while I suspect that Obama knows full well that it
was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of
collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing
to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking
Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and
all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?
Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone
calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no
matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S.
and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand
and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and
threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over
non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives),
but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America?
Please.
Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the
Turks to go ..., well, you know.
Diplomatically, of course."