Tweet
New York Times
March 5 2010
Speaking Not as an Armenian¦
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
Congress has invariably refused to take any serious measure against
genocide while it is underway. So is it progress that the House
Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday to condemn the 1915 genocide
of Armenians? Is it worthwhile for Congress to deal with genocide at
some level, even if it's 95 years late?
First, a few requisite disclosures. I am partly Armenian (my father
created Kristof out of Krzysztofowicz, which was a Polonized version
of Hachikian, a good Armenian name). My ancestors were in Poland and
Romania, not in the Ottoman empire, so there are no family stories
about the genocide. But I do think the evidence is clear that genocide
is the right word for what happened, and that's why I always refer to
it as the Armenian genocide. It's also true that Turkey has a problem
acknowledging its brutality toward both Armenians and Kurds, although
it has also gotten much better about this in the last decade. I've
discussed the issue with Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan a couple of
times, and he is light years ahead of his predecessors (and still a
few light years behind what is needed).
The problem is that I don't really see what business the 1915 genocide
is of Congress, especially at a time when it can't address so many
urgent problems of today. If Congress starts getting derailed by
looking at past iniquities, it'll never get to present business. And
it's not as if the resolution will help Armenians anywhere. On the
contrary, the backlash will probably harm the recent thaw in
Turkey-Armenian relations, which really was an important development
for the region. That Armenian-Turkish reconciliation is something that
Congress could have passed a resolution to support.
Politicians, Barack Obama included, often talk when in campaign mode
about the Armenian genocide, because they want Armenian-American
votes. But in office, they try to kill these resolutions rather than
gratuitously offend an ally. That's why Secretary Clinton passed word
at the last minute that the resolution was a bad idea.
Is it silly for Turkey to be offended by the resolution? Yes, but we'd
probably be offended if all of Europe started passing resolutions
denouncing our 19th century genocidal policy toward Native Americans,
or our early 20th century quasi-genocide in Philippines. We should be
trying to nurture Turkey further along its path of conciliation toward
Armenians and the Kurds. Smacking them ' even for real historical sins
' isn't a great way to do that. Anybody who thinks that diplomacy is
about telling the truth doesn't know diplomacy.
Already today, I've had a couple of emails saying that the real story
here is that Israel is trying to punish Turkey for its harsh
criticisms since the Gaza invasion of late 2008. (According to
Ha'aretz, Israel went from opposing the resolution to neutral.) That
narrative is likely to take hold in the Islamic world and encourage
the fundamentalists and nationalists in Turkey. Bolstering Turkish
nationalism doesn't sound like the best way to honor victims of the
Armenian genocide.
So if Congress wants to pass resolutions, why doesn't it pass one
condemning United States passivity in 1915 as the genocide was
happening? Our embassy in the Ottoman Empire was sending back cables
making clear the scale of the slaughter and pleading for action, but
President Woodrow Wilson didn't want to get involved. So before we go
and muddy waters abroad, some self-criticism might be useful.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/ 05/speaking-not-as-an-armenian/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
March 5 2010
Speaking Not as an Armenian¦
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
Congress has invariably refused to take any serious measure against
genocide while it is underway. So is it progress that the House
Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday to condemn the 1915 genocide
of Armenians? Is it worthwhile for Congress to deal with genocide at
some level, even if it's 95 years late?
First, a few requisite disclosures. I am partly Armenian (my father
created Kristof out of Krzysztofowicz, which was a Polonized version
of Hachikian, a good Armenian name). My ancestors were in Poland and
Romania, not in the Ottoman empire, so there are no family stories
about the genocide. But I do think the evidence is clear that genocide
is the right word for what happened, and that's why I always refer to
it as the Armenian genocide. It's also true that Turkey has a problem
acknowledging its brutality toward both Armenians and Kurds, although
it has also gotten much better about this in the last decade. I've
discussed the issue with Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan a couple of
times, and he is light years ahead of his predecessors (and still a
few light years behind what is needed).
The problem is that I don't really see what business the 1915 genocide
is of Congress, especially at a time when it can't address so many
urgent problems of today. If Congress starts getting derailed by
looking at past iniquities, it'll never get to present business. And
it's not as if the resolution will help Armenians anywhere. On the
contrary, the backlash will probably harm the recent thaw in
Turkey-Armenian relations, which really was an important development
for the region. That Armenian-Turkish reconciliation is something that
Congress could have passed a resolution to support.
Politicians, Barack Obama included, often talk when in campaign mode
about the Armenian genocide, because they want Armenian-American
votes. But in office, they try to kill these resolutions rather than
gratuitously offend an ally. That's why Secretary Clinton passed word
at the last minute that the resolution was a bad idea.
Is it silly for Turkey to be offended by the resolution? Yes, but we'd
probably be offended if all of Europe started passing resolutions
denouncing our 19th century genocidal policy toward Native Americans,
or our early 20th century quasi-genocide in Philippines. We should be
trying to nurture Turkey further along its path of conciliation toward
Armenians and the Kurds. Smacking them ' even for real historical sins
' isn't a great way to do that. Anybody who thinks that diplomacy is
about telling the truth doesn't know diplomacy.
Already today, I've had a couple of emails saying that the real story
here is that Israel is trying to punish Turkey for its harsh
criticisms since the Gaza invasion of late 2008. (According to
Ha'aretz, Israel went from opposing the resolution to neutral.) That
narrative is likely to take hold in the Islamic world and encourage
the fundamentalists and nationalists in Turkey. Bolstering Turkish
nationalism doesn't sound like the best way to honor victims of the
Armenian genocide.
So if Congress wants to pass resolutions, why doesn't it pass one
condemning United States passivity in 1915 as the genocide was
happening? Our embassy in the Ottoman Empire was sending back cables
making clear the scale of the slaughter and pleading for action, but
President Woodrow Wilson didn't want to get involved. So before we go
and muddy waters abroad, some self-criticism might be useful.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/ 05/speaking-not-as-an-armenian/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress