Tweet
SHOULD OBAMA MARK ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CENTENARY?
Commentary Magazine
March 25 2015
Michael Rubin
Every year, the Armenian Diaspora marks April 24 as the anniversary
of the Armenian genocide. Traditionally, senators representing states
with large Armenian communities--California, Massachusetts, and New
Jersey, for example--seek to pass a formal resolution commemorating
the genocide. Out of fear of angering Turkey, however, presidents
and secretaries of State have traditionally avoided the word genocide.
As senator, for example, Barack Obama was a vocal supporter of
commemorating the genocide. In 2008, he declared, "America deserves
a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and
responds forcefully to all genocides," and added, "I intend to be
that president." Once he won the Oval Office, he avoided doing so
just as his predecessors had, instead using the formulation "one
of the worst atrocities of the 20th century." Likewise, as senator,
John Kerry was solicitous of the Armenian community and its demands
to recognize the mass murder of the Armenians as genocide, but upon
becoming America's top diplomat, let's just say he was with them
before he was against them. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, was as hypocritical: Her claim to fame has been as a
scholar of genocide and a moral voice castigating the United States
for refusing to acknowledge genocide for diplomatic reasons. Prior to
becoming an advisor to Barack Obama, she criticized American passivity
with regard to the Armenian genocide and, as UN ambassador, she hasn't
hesitated to get on Twitter or issue statements that take a tougher
line than Obama. But on the Armenian issue? Crickets.
The forthcoming anniversary is, of course, special: It marks
the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. For Turkey,
which seeks to prevent formal recognition abroad, it is a perfect
storm. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown himself to be an
anti-Semitic and corrupt dictator. And parliamentarians from his
Justice and Development Party as well as Turkey's court journalists
and access-craving intellectuals have, with their blind support,
shown themselves equally culpable, if not supportive of Erdogan's
noxious vision.
And while Turkey has long been able to count on a strong lobby in
Washington, there is no real Turkey lobby anymore. Some congressmen
may have kept their names on the Congressional Turkey Caucus roster
but, as one congressman recently put it, "that's a nothing burger."
Ankara and its paid lobbyists understand that when push comes to shove,
few congressmen will stick their necks out for Turkey.
So what should Obama do? Here things are more complicated. Genocide
studies has always been more a political discipline than an academic
one. Few members of that field research in the primary languages
or step foot in archives. Area specialists are a bit more divided
on whether what transpired against the Armenians was state-directed
or spontaneous, and whether it was directed against all Armenians or
just those living in areas through which the frontlines of World War
I passed. While no one denies the deaths of hundreds of thousands if
not more than a million Armenians, Guenter Lewy, Edward Erickson,
and Bernard Lewis have all questioned the popular narrative that
assumes genocide. After all, more than fifteen million people died
around Europe as a result of the war.
While there will be pressure on Obama to confirm genocide on the 100th
anniversary of the arrest of 250 Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul
on April 24, 1915, perhaps a better question is why politicians should
be in the business of arbitrating history.
While Erdogan's offensive behavior in recent years means that few
will shed tears if Turkey suffers a rebuke in a vote few care about
outside of the Turkish and Armenian communities, the very fact that
contemporary Turkish politics could influence such a vote underlines
why politicians should not be the judges of history. Ultimately,
liberated from facing another election and caring very little for
his peers of either party, Obama may use the 100th anniversary
commemorations to officially put the imprimatur of the president of
the United States behind the idea that what occurred in the Ottoman
Empire a century ago was genocide. But, ultimately, such a statement
will be meaningless to the understanding of events or the facts of
the case. For that, political grandstanding and polemic will always
matter far less than careful historical research and debate.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/25/should-obama-mark-armenian-genocide-centenary/
Commentary Magazine
March 25 2015
Michael Rubin
Every year, the Armenian Diaspora marks April 24 as the anniversary
of the Armenian genocide. Traditionally, senators representing states
with large Armenian communities--California, Massachusetts, and New
Jersey, for example--seek to pass a formal resolution commemorating
the genocide. Out of fear of angering Turkey, however, presidents
and secretaries of State have traditionally avoided the word genocide.
As senator, for example, Barack Obama was a vocal supporter of
commemorating the genocide. In 2008, he declared, "America deserves
a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and
responds forcefully to all genocides," and added, "I intend to be
that president." Once he won the Oval Office, he avoided doing so
just as his predecessors had, instead using the formulation "one
of the worst atrocities of the 20th century." Likewise, as senator,
John Kerry was solicitous of the Armenian community and its demands
to recognize the mass murder of the Armenians as genocide, but upon
becoming America's top diplomat, let's just say he was with them
before he was against them. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, was as hypocritical: Her claim to fame has been as a
scholar of genocide and a moral voice castigating the United States
for refusing to acknowledge genocide for diplomatic reasons. Prior to
becoming an advisor to Barack Obama, she criticized American passivity
with regard to the Armenian genocide and, as UN ambassador, she hasn't
hesitated to get on Twitter or issue statements that take a tougher
line than Obama. But on the Armenian issue? Crickets.
The forthcoming anniversary is, of course, special: It marks
the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. For Turkey,
which seeks to prevent formal recognition abroad, it is a perfect
storm. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown himself to be an
anti-Semitic and corrupt dictator. And parliamentarians from his
Justice and Development Party as well as Turkey's court journalists
and access-craving intellectuals have, with their blind support,
shown themselves equally culpable, if not supportive of Erdogan's
noxious vision.
And while Turkey has long been able to count on a strong lobby in
Washington, there is no real Turkey lobby anymore. Some congressmen
may have kept their names on the Congressional Turkey Caucus roster
but, as one congressman recently put it, "that's a nothing burger."
Ankara and its paid lobbyists understand that when push comes to shove,
few congressmen will stick their necks out for Turkey.
So what should Obama do? Here things are more complicated. Genocide
studies has always been more a political discipline than an academic
one. Few members of that field research in the primary languages
or step foot in archives. Area specialists are a bit more divided
on whether what transpired against the Armenians was state-directed
or spontaneous, and whether it was directed against all Armenians or
just those living in areas through which the frontlines of World War
I passed. While no one denies the deaths of hundreds of thousands if
not more than a million Armenians, Guenter Lewy, Edward Erickson,
and Bernard Lewis have all questioned the popular narrative that
assumes genocide. After all, more than fifteen million people died
around Europe as a result of the war.
While there will be pressure on Obama to confirm genocide on the 100th
anniversary of the arrest of 250 Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul
on April 24, 1915, perhaps a better question is why politicians should
be in the business of arbitrating history.
While Erdogan's offensive behavior in recent years means that few
will shed tears if Turkey suffers a rebuke in a vote few care about
outside of the Turkish and Armenian communities, the very fact that
contemporary Turkish politics could influence such a vote underlines
why politicians should not be the judges of history. Ultimately,
liberated from facing another election and caring very little for
his peers of either party, Obama may use the 100th anniversary
commemorations to officially put the imprimatur of the president of
the United States behind the idea that what occurred in the Ottoman
Empire a century ago was genocide. But, ultimately, such a statement
will be meaningless to the understanding of events or the facts of
the case. For that, political grandstanding and polemic will always
matter far less than careful historical research and debate.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/25/should-obama-mark-armenian-genocide-centenary/