Tweet
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?
Politics Daily
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/shou ld-the-united-states-recognize-armenian-genocide/
March 3 2010
Despite bipartisanship being so elusive in Washington these days,
one hot button issue obliterates traditional partisan alignments on
Capitol Hill: The contentious debate over how -- and whether -- the
United States government should recognize the Turkish deportation and
slaughter of Armenians during and immediately after the First World War
At issue is House Resolution 232, which would officially recognize
the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottomans as
genocide. The resolution's supporters include a diverse and bipartisan
group of more than one hundred members, including Reps. Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.), Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Frank Pallone
(D-N.J.) and Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.).
The vote is expected to take place Thursday at 10 a.m. in the House
Foreign Affairs Committee (in 2007, a similar resolution passed that
committee but failed on the floor due to heavy lobbying from the Bush
administration and because Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not bring it to
the floor for fear of losing the vote.)
Should the resolution pass the committee, its advocates would then
push for an April floor vote, hoping to coincide with the vote with
"Armenian Genocide Recognition Day" on April 24. But the resolution
also has significant -- and bipartisan -- opposition. A letter
urging congressional colleagues to reject it on the grounds it will
complicate sensitive relations with a NATO ally was recently sent to
the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.),
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and Kay Granger (R-Texas). "A vote on this
resolution will do nothing to rectify the tragedies of the past,"
they wrote, "but it will most certainly have significant negative
consequences on current and future relations with Turkey."
Efforts to pass the resolution probably got a boost this past
Sunday when CBS' "60 Minutes" aired a segment heavily sympathetic
to the Armenian case. The "60 Minutes" segment also included an
embarrassing interview with former Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy, who,
in references to "death marches," said: "Well, I don't think that it
was anything comparable to Auschwitz. This was only deportation. And
things happened on the road."
That is quite an understatement, and official U.S. concern that
something truly terrible took place in Turkey go back to 1915 when
Henry Morganthau, the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire
sent a cable to the State Department describing "a campaign of race
extermination." Additionally, we know that on May 24, 1915, the Allied
Powers of England, France, and Russia issued a statement, accusing,
for the first time ever, a recognized government of committing a
"crime against humanity."
Yet, the question over whether or not the U.S. should pass a resolution
now is complex.
First, there is a dispute over the legal definition of "genocide"
-- a word that did not even exist until 1944. Today, the use of that
word in diplomacy carries legal implications: namely, that it was the
intent of the Ottoman Empire to impose racial, ethnic, or religious
extermination. It is clear that the Ottoman Empire engaged in the
mass killing and deportation of Christian Armenians. But Turks argue
that focusing solely on the suffering of Armenians risks ignoring
the millions of Muslims who also died during World War I -- some at
the hands of Armenians. Moreover, they assert that Armenians were in
open rebellion and were supporting Turkey's enemies during the First
World War.
Today, it is a jailable offense to utter the word, "genocide" in
Turkey, a fact that does little to reassure the world about Turkey's
commitment to diverse opinions and political dissent. Because of their
sensitivity to this issue, recent U.S. presidents have been careful
not to use the word genocide to describe the atrocities. President
Bill Clinton talked of the "deportations and massacres" of Armenians,
and George W. Bush referred to the "forced exile and murder." Last
year, I attended a cultural tour of Istanbul sponsored by the Turkish
Cultural Foundation, and during our initial briefing, it was flippantly
described by one of the speakers as "The 'g' word."
The Armenian diaspora in America is large, and so it is no surprise
that the Armenian lobby in America is bigger and better organized
than the Turkish lobby. In addition, there are many more Americans
of Armenian than Turkish descent. Many of the most vocal members
of Congress in support of the resolution hail from three states,
California, New York, and Massachusetts, with large Armenian-American
populations. To make up for their perceived disadvantage, Turkey
has hired some of the most prominent K Street lobbying and public
relations firms to make their case.
As unlikely as it may seem, they have a case to make: One bone
of contention for the Turks is that the congressional resolution
specifically says the genocide was "conceived and carried out by the
Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923." This is an important sticking point
because the new Turkish republic (founded by Ataturk) was officially
proclaimed on October 29, 1923. Turks maintain that by including the
date 1923 in the resolution, their critics are covertly seeking to
establish officially that atrocities weren't just committed by the
defunct Ottoman Empire, but also by the modern Turkish Republic. They
believe that passage of a resolution worded in this way would begin
to lay the groundwork for Armenia to go to an international court
and sue for reparations, possibly in the form of a land transfer.
There are other reasons to take a closer look at such a resolution. As
America's only Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
said, "And you know, we have not acknowledged yet the genocide that
was committed against the Native American tribes." This statement is
not altogether true -- that pronoun "we" is obviously overbroad, but
it's a fair point to wonder at the reaction among Americans if Turkey's
parliament felt obliged to condemn Americans for "The Trail of Tears."
So why should America take a stand? For one thing, many scholars
believe the Armenian genocide inspired Adolph Hitler, who noted
in 1939 that the world seemed to have forgotten the fate of the
Armenians. Silence, in other words, became complicity -- and helped
set the stage for the Holocaust.
President Ronald Reagan sought such moral clarity. Just as he pointedly
called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," Reagan did not mince words on
this issue. Upon his death, the Armenian National Committee of America
noted: "We will remember President Reagan as the last U.S. President
to properly commemorate the Armenian genocide."
Those opposing the resolution cite realpolitik -- the diplomatic
rationale -- to overlook past transgressions. They say that with two
wars taking place in that part of the world, a secular democracy,
a $12 billion trading partner, and America's strongest NATO ally in
the region should not be insulted in such a manner. Approximately 70
percent of supplies to our soldiers in Iraq go through Turkey, and
most exit strategies for withdrawing troops from Iraq involve going
through Turkey. Partly for this reason, when this issue came up in
2007, the Bush Administration --- along with eight former secretaries
of state - weighed in against the resolution.
The fate of this resolution may now hinge on President Obama. While
campaigning for president, Obama promised to use the word "genocide,"
but in his first trip to Turkey, he did not utter the 'g' word. Still,
he has been ambiguous regarding the upcoming vote, and the Turkish
lobby is worried.
"If by its lack of forceful opposition to the resolution, the Obama
Administration is trying to send a message to Turkey, it's very
unclear what that message is," says David Saltzman, counsel to
the Turkish Coalition of America. "The United States has invested
heavily in the reconciliation process, so frankly, I'm confused why
the administration hasn't come out against Resolution 232."
Politics Daily
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/shou ld-the-united-states-recognize-armenian-genocide/
March 3 2010
Despite bipartisanship being so elusive in Washington these days,
one hot button issue obliterates traditional partisan alignments on
Capitol Hill: The contentious debate over how -- and whether -- the
United States government should recognize the Turkish deportation and
slaughter of Armenians during and immediately after the First World War
At issue is House Resolution 232, which would officially recognize
the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottomans as
genocide. The resolution's supporters include a diverse and bipartisan
group of more than one hundred members, including Reps. Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.), Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Frank Pallone
(D-N.J.) and Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.).
The vote is expected to take place Thursday at 10 a.m. in the House
Foreign Affairs Committee (in 2007, a similar resolution passed that
committee but failed on the floor due to heavy lobbying from the Bush
administration and because Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not bring it to
the floor for fear of losing the vote.)
Should the resolution pass the committee, its advocates would then
push for an April floor vote, hoping to coincide with the vote with
"Armenian Genocide Recognition Day" on April 24. But the resolution
also has significant -- and bipartisan -- opposition. A letter
urging congressional colleagues to reject it on the grounds it will
complicate sensitive relations with a NATO ally was recently sent to
the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.),
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and Kay Granger (R-Texas). "A vote on this
resolution will do nothing to rectify the tragedies of the past,"
they wrote, "but it will most certainly have significant negative
consequences on current and future relations with Turkey."
Efforts to pass the resolution probably got a boost this past
Sunday when CBS' "60 Minutes" aired a segment heavily sympathetic
to the Armenian case. The "60 Minutes" segment also included an
embarrassing interview with former Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy, who,
in references to "death marches," said: "Well, I don't think that it
was anything comparable to Auschwitz. This was only deportation. And
things happened on the road."
That is quite an understatement, and official U.S. concern that
something truly terrible took place in Turkey go back to 1915 when
Henry Morganthau, the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire
sent a cable to the State Department describing "a campaign of race
extermination." Additionally, we know that on May 24, 1915, the Allied
Powers of England, France, and Russia issued a statement, accusing,
for the first time ever, a recognized government of committing a
"crime against humanity."
Yet, the question over whether or not the U.S. should pass a resolution
now is complex.
First, there is a dispute over the legal definition of "genocide"
-- a word that did not even exist until 1944. Today, the use of that
word in diplomacy carries legal implications: namely, that it was the
intent of the Ottoman Empire to impose racial, ethnic, or religious
extermination. It is clear that the Ottoman Empire engaged in the
mass killing and deportation of Christian Armenians. But Turks argue
that focusing solely on the suffering of Armenians risks ignoring
the millions of Muslims who also died during World War I -- some at
the hands of Armenians. Moreover, they assert that Armenians were in
open rebellion and were supporting Turkey's enemies during the First
World War.
Today, it is a jailable offense to utter the word, "genocide" in
Turkey, a fact that does little to reassure the world about Turkey's
commitment to diverse opinions and political dissent. Because of their
sensitivity to this issue, recent U.S. presidents have been careful
not to use the word genocide to describe the atrocities. President
Bill Clinton talked of the "deportations and massacres" of Armenians,
and George W. Bush referred to the "forced exile and murder." Last
year, I attended a cultural tour of Istanbul sponsored by the Turkish
Cultural Foundation, and during our initial briefing, it was flippantly
described by one of the speakers as "The 'g' word."
The Armenian diaspora in America is large, and so it is no surprise
that the Armenian lobby in America is bigger and better organized
than the Turkish lobby. In addition, there are many more Americans
of Armenian than Turkish descent. Many of the most vocal members
of Congress in support of the resolution hail from three states,
California, New York, and Massachusetts, with large Armenian-American
populations. To make up for their perceived disadvantage, Turkey
has hired some of the most prominent K Street lobbying and public
relations firms to make their case.
As unlikely as it may seem, they have a case to make: One bone
of contention for the Turks is that the congressional resolution
specifically says the genocide was "conceived and carried out by the
Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923." This is an important sticking point
because the new Turkish republic (founded by Ataturk) was officially
proclaimed on October 29, 1923. Turks maintain that by including the
date 1923 in the resolution, their critics are covertly seeking to
establish officially that atrocities weren't just committed by the
defunct Ottoman Empire, but also by the modern Turkish Republic. They
believe that passage of a resolution worded in this way would begin
to lay the groundwork for Armenia to go to an international court
and sue for reparations, possibly in the form of a land transfer.
There are other reasons to take a closer look at such a resolution. As
America's only Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
said, "And you know, we have not acknowledged yet the genocide that
was committed against the Native American tribes." This statement is
not altogether true -- that pronoun "we" is obviously overbroad, but
it's a fair point to wonder at the reaction among Americans if Turkey's
parliament felt obliged to condemn Americans for "The Trail of Tears."
So why should America take a stand? For one thing, many scholars
believe the Armenian genocide inspired Adolph Hitler, who noted
in 1939 that the world seemed to have forgotten the fate of the
Armenians. Silence, in other words, became complicity -- and helped
set the stage for the Holocaust.
President Ronald Reagan sought such moral clarity. Just as he pointedly
called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," Reagan did not mince words on
this issue. Upon his death, the Armenian National Committee of America
noted: "We will remember President Reagan as the last U.S. President
to properly commemorate the Armenian genocide."
Those opposing the resolution cite realpolitik -- the diplomatic
rationale -- to overlook past transgressions. They say that with two
wars taking place in that part of the world, a secular democracy,
a $12 billion trading partner, and America's strongest NATO ally in
the region should not be insulted in such a manner. Approximately 70
percent of supplies to our soldiers in Iraq go through Turkey, and
most exit strategies for withdrawing troops from Iraq involve going
through Turkey. Partly for this reason, when this issue came up in
2007, the Bush Administration --- along with eight former secretaries
of state - weighed in against the resolution.
The fate of this resolution may now hinge on President Obama. While
campaigning for president, Obama promised to use the word "genocide,"
but in his first trip to Turkey, he did not utter the 'g' word. Still,
he has been ambiguous regarding the upcoming vote, and the Turkish
lobby is worried.
"If by its lack of forceful opposition to the resolution, the Obama
Administration is trying to send a message to Turkey, it's very
unclear what that message is," says David Saltzman, counsel to
the Turkish Coalition of America. "The United States has invested
heavily in the reconciliation process, so frankly, I'm confused why
the administration hasn't come out against Resolution 232."