Tweet
SOME TRUTHS TRUMP EVEN CRUCIAL ALLIANCES TURKISH SENSITIVITIES HAVE LED US ASTRAY ON GENOCIDE.
Jonathan Zimmerman
Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100615_Some_truths_trump_even_crucial_alliances. html
June 15 2010
Does historical truth matter? Should we tell the truth even if it
hurts? Or should we set it aside to serve our present-day purposes?
I've been wondering about those questions ever since Israeli commandos
attacked a Turkish aid flotilla bound for Gaza, killing nine people.
U.S. officials worried that the raid would further strain our delicate
relations with Turkey, which has been a crucial American ally for
many years. Turkey provides airspace for our military exercises,
bases for supplying our troops, and - most important - a bulwark
against terrorism and extremism in the Middle East.
And, nearly a century ago, Turkey committed genocide.
There, I said it. So did Barack Obama, when he was running for
president. But after he came to power, Obama changed his tune.
Lest he alienate the Turkish government, Obama has refrained from
using the term genocide to describe Turkey's massacre of roughly 1.5
million Armenians in 1915.
But I think he should. Turkey did commit genocide, as every credible
historian acknowledges. By avoiding the term, we will make it easier
for other regimes to engage in genocide. And it will be harder for
us and the rest of the world to hold them to account.
That seems to have been Obama's own position back in January 2008,
when he promised to recognize the Armenian genocide if elected
president. "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal
opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact,"
Obama declared. "An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort
the historical facts is an untenable policy."
But earlier this spring, when a House committee passed a resolution
condemning the genocide, White House officials lobbied lawmakers to
reject it. Obama called Turkish President Abdullah Gul to emphasize
his opposition to the measure, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton - who also supported acknowledging the genocide during her
presidential campaign - pledged that the administration would "work
very hard" to prevent the bill from reaching a vote by the full House.
The same thing happened in 2007, when the Bush administration
persuaded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to block a vote on a genocide
resolution. Its reason? We needed Turkey to help us win the global
"war on terror."
We needed Turkey in 2000, too, when Bill Clinton squelched a similar
resolution on the grounds that Turkish military bases were helping
us patrol the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. And we needed Turkey
in 1985 and 1987, when it provided posts for monitoring the Soviet
Union - and two other genocide resolutions went down to defeat.
Does anybody see a pattern here? The United States will always need
Turkey for one reason or another. But we also need to tell the truth
about the Armenian genocide, lest we sacrifice our credibility on
the world stage.
More than 20 countries - including France, Canada, Switzerland,
and Sweden - have recognized the Armenian genocide. So have 29,000
Turks who risked government imprisonment and harassment by signing
a petition apologizing for the episode last year.
The United States has officially condemned Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust. How can we tout Turkey as a
buffer against Iranian nuclear ambitions while turning a blind eye
to Turkey's own genocide denial?
Or consider the situation in Darfur, which the Obama administration
has rightly described as a genocide. Why do Sudanese murders in Darfur
meet the standard, but Turkish massacres of Armenians don't? When we
refrain from condemning one genocide, we make it harder to sustain
the case against others.
To understand why, consider the words of the leader of the most
notorious genocide in history, Adolf Hitler. In 1939, Hitler assured
his military advisers that his planned "depopulation" of Poland would
be quickly forgotten. "Who, after all," Hitler asked, "speaks today
of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
We are. And we must. Even in the wake of the Gaza raid - and even at
the cost of our friendship with Turkey - we need to tell the truth
about every genocide, past as well as present. Anything less will
set the stage for more.
From: A. Papazian
Jonathan Zimmerman
Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100615_Some_truths_trump_even_crucial_alliances. html
June 15 2010
Does historical truth matter? Should we tell the truth even if it
hurts? Or should we set it aside to serve our present-day purposes?
I've been wondering about those questions ever since Israeli commandos
attacked a Turkish aid flotilla bound for Gaza, killing nine people.
U.S. officials worried that the raid would further strain our delicate
relations with Turkey, which has been a crucial American ally for
many years. Turkey provides airspace for our military exercises,
bases for supplying our troops, and - most important - a bulwark
against terrorism and extremism in the Middle East.
And, nearly a century ago, Turkey committed genocide.
There, I said it. So did Barack Obama, when he was running for
president. But after he came to power, Obama changed his tune.
Lest he alienate the Turkish government, Obama has refrained from
using the term genocide to describe Turkey's massacre of roughly 1.5
million Armenians in 1915.
But I think he should. Turkey did commit genocide, as every credible
historian acknowledges. By avoiding the term, we will make it easier
for other regimes to engage in genocide. And it will be harder for
us and the rest of the world to hold them to account.
That seems to have been Obama's own position back in January 2008,
when he promised to recognize the Armenian genocide if elected
president. "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal
opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact,"
Obama declared. "An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort
the historical facts is an untenable policy."
But earlier this spring, when a House committee passed a resolution
condemning the genocide, White House officials lobbied lawmakers to
reject it. Obama called Turkish President Abdullah Gul to emphasize
his opposition to the measure, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton - who also supported acknowledging the genocide during her
presidential campaign - pledged that the administration would "work
very hard" to prevent the bill from reaching a vote by the full House.
The same thing happened in 2007, when the Bush administration
persuaded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to block a vote on a genocide
resolution. Its reason? We needed Turkey to help us win the global
"war on terror."
We needed Turkey in 2000, too, when Bill Clinton squelched a similar
resolution on the grounds that Turkish military bases were helping
us patrol the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. And we needed Turkey
in 1985 and 1987, when it provided posts for monitoring the Soviet
Union - and two other genocide resolutions went down to defeat.
Does anybody see a pattern here? The United States will always need
Turkey for one reason or another. But we also need to tell the truth
about the Armenian genocide, lest we sacrifice our credibility on
the world stage.
More than 20 countries - including France, Canada, Switzerland,
and Sweden - have recognized the Armenian genocide. So have 29,000
Turks who risked government imprisonment and harassment by signing
a petition apologizing for the episode last year.
The United States has officially condemned Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust. How can we tout Turkey as a
buffer against Iranian nuclear ambitions while turning a blind eye
to Turkey's own genocide denial?
Or consider the situation in Darfur, which the Obama administration
has rightly described as a genocide. Why do Sudanese murders in Darfur
meet the standard, but Turkish massacres of Armenians don't? When we
refrain from condemning one genocide, we make it harder to sustain
the case against others.
To understand why, consider the words of the leader of the most
notorious genocide in history, Adolf Hitler. In 1939, Hitler assured
his military advisers that his planned "depopulation" of Poland would
be quickly forgotten. "Who, after all," Hitler asked, "speaks today
of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
We are. And we must. Even in the wake of the Gaza raid - and even at
the cost of our friendship with Turkey - we need to tell the truth
about every genocide, past as well as present. Anything less will
set the stage for more.
From: A. Papazian