Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Denial of the Armenian Genocide
It continues to boggle the mind what the Democratic leadership in Congress will do whenever the Republicans raise the specter of labeling them "soft on terrorism." They approve wiretapping without a court order. They allow for indefinite detention of suspects without charge. They authorize the invasion and occupation of a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us and then provide unconditional funding for the bloody and unwinnable counter-insurgency war that inevitably followed.
Now, it appears, the Democrats are also willing to deny history, even when it involves genocide.
The non-binding resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide attracted 226 co-sponsors and won passage through the House Foreign Relations Committee. Nevertheless, it appears that as of this writing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — in response to pressure from the White House and Republican congressional leaders that it would harm the "Global War on Terrorism" — will prevent the resolution from coming up for vote in the full House.
Call It Genocide
Between 1915 and 1918, under orders of the leadership of the Ottoman Empire, an estimated two million Armenians were forcibly removed from their homes in a region that had been part of the Armenian nation for more than 2,500 years. Three-quarters of them died as a result of execution, starvation, and related reasons.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during that period, noted that, "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact..." While issuing a "death warrant to a whole race" would normally be considered genocide by any definition, it apparently does not in the view of the current administration and Congress of the government he was representing.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed and ratified by the United States, officially defines genocide as any effort "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Raphael Lemkin was the Polish Jewish lawyer who originally coined the term "genocide" in 1944. The earliest proponent of an international convention on its prevention and the punishment of its perpetrators, Lemkin identified the Armenian case as a definitive example.
Dozens of other governments — including Canada, France, Italy, and Russia — and several UN bodies have formally recognized the Armenian genocide, as have the governments of 40 U.S. states. Neither the Bush administration nor Congress appears willing to do so, however.
Ironically, Congress earlier this year overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to acknowledge the German genocide of the Jews. That same Congress, however, appears quite willing to refuse to acknowledge the Turkish genocide of the Armenians.
While awareness of anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to dismiss those who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust to the political fringe, it appears that tolerance for anti-Armenian bigotry is strong enough that it is still apparently politically acceptable to refuse to acknowledge their genocide.
The Turkey Factor
Opponents of the measure acknowledging the Armenian genocide claim argue that they are worried about harming relations with Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and an important U.S. ally.
In reality, however, if the Bush administration and Congress were really concerned about hurting relations with Turkey, Bush would have never asked for and Congress would have never approved authorization for the United States to have invaded Iraq, which the Turks vehemently opposed. As a result of the U.S. war and occupation of Turkey's southern neighbor, public opinion polls have shown that percentage of the Turkish population holding a positive view of the United States has declined from 52% to only 9%.
Turkish opposition was so strong that, despite the Bush administration offering Turkey $6 billion in grants and $20 billion in loan guarantees in return for allowing U.S. forces to use bases in Turkey to launch the invasion in 2003, the Turkish parliament refused to authorize the request. Soon thereafter, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in an interview with CNN in Turkey, expressed his disappointment that the Turkish military had not taken its traditional "leadership role" in the matter, which — given its periodic military intervention in Turkish governance — many Turks took as advocacy for a military coup. Furthermore, in testimony on Capitol Hill, Wolfowitz further angered the Turks by claiming that the civilian government made a "big, big mistake" in failing to back U.S. military plans and claimed that the country's democratically elected parliament "didn't quite know what it was doing."
The United States has antagonized Turkey still further as a result of U.S. support for Kurdish nationalists in northern Iraq who, with the support of billions of dollars worth of U.S. aid and thousands of American troops, have created an autonomous enclave that has served as a based for KADEK (formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist group. KADEK forces, which had largely observed a cease fire prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting consolidation of the quasi-independent Kurdish region, have since been emboldened to launch countless forays into Turkish territory at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Since almost all House members who oppose this non-binding resolution on the Armenian genocide were among the majority of Republicans and the minority of Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion, antagonizing Turkey is clearly not the real reason for their opposition. Anyone actually concerned about the future of U.S.-Turkish relations would never have rejected the Turkish government's pleas for restraint and voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq nor would they vote to continue U.S. funding of the pro-KADEK separatist government in northern Iraq.
Why a Resolution Now?
Another bogus argument put forward by President Bush and his bipartisan supporters on Capitol Hill is that Congress should not bother passing resolutions regarding historical events. Yet these critics have not objected to other recent successful congressional resolutions on historic events: recognizing the 65th anniversary of the death of the Polish musician and political leader Ignacy Jan Paderewski, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Jewish Committee, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp in Poland, or commemorating the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of the Republican Party in Wisconsin, just to name a few.
These opponents of the resolution also claim that this is a "bad time" to upset the Turkish government, given that U.S. access to Turkish bases is part of the re-supply efforts to support the counter-insurgency war by U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. However, it was also considered a "bad time" when a similar resolution was put forward in 2000 because U.S. bases in Turkey were being used to patrol the "no fly zones" in northern Iraq. And it was also considered a "bad time" in 1985 and 1987 when similar resolutions were put forward because U.S. bases in Turkey were considered important listening posts for monitoring the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
For deniers of the Armenian genocide, it is always a "bad time."
The Bush administration, like both Republican and Democratic administrations before it, has refused to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide even took place. For example, under the Reagan administration, the Bulletin of the Department of State claimed that, "Because the historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor is ambiguous, the Department of State does not endorse allegations that the Turkish Government committed genocide against the Armenian people."
Similarly, Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in President Bush's first term, stated in 2002 that "one of the things that impress me about Turkish history is the way Turkey treats its own minorities."
The operative clause of the resolution simply calls upon President Bush "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, and for other purposes." Therefore, if President Bush really doesn't want Congress to pass such a resolution, all he needs to do is make a statement acknowledging the genocide. Not surprisingly for someone with a notorious lack of knowledge of history, however, he has refused to do so. Bush has only gone as far as acknowledging that what happened to the Armenians was simply part of "a horrible tragedy" which reflects "a deep sorrow that continues to haunt them and their neighbors, the Turkish people," even though Turkey has never expressed sorrow for their genocide.
Failure to pass a resolution calling on President Bush to acknowledge the genocide, then, amounts to an acceptance of his genocide denial.
Genocide Denial
Given the indisputable documentary record of the Armenian genocide, it would appear that at least some of those who refuse to go on record recognizing Turkey's genocide of Armenians are, like those who refuse to recognize Germany's genocide of European Jews, motivated by ignorance and bigotry. Claims that it would harm relations with Turkey or that the timing is wrong appear to be no more than desperate excuses to deny reality. If the Bush administration and members of Congress recognized that genocide took place, they should have no problem going on record saying so.
One problem may be that members of Congress, like President Bush, are themselves ignorant of history. For example, the Middle East scholar most often cited by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress as influencing their understanding of the region is the notorious genocide-denier Bernard Lewis, a fellow at Washington's Institute of Turkish Studies. In France, where genocide denial is considered a criminal offense, he was convicted in 1996 following a statement in Le Monde in which the emeritus Princeton University professor dismissed the claim of genocide as nothing more than "the Armenian version of this story." The court noted how, typical of those who deny genocide, he reached his conclusion by "concealing elements contrary to his thesis" and "failed in his duties of objectivity and prudence."
This is not to say that every single opponent of the resolution explicitly denies the genocide. Some have acknowledged that genocide indeed occurred, but have apparently been convinced that it is contrary to perceived U.S. national security interest to state this publicly. This is just as inexcusable, however. Such people are moral cowards who apparently would be just as willing to refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust if the Bush administration told them that it might also upset the German government enough to restrict access to U.S. bases.
Though it has been Democratic members of the House, led by California Congressman Adam Schiff, who have most vigorously led the effort this time to recognize the Armenian genocide, opposition to acknowledging history has been a bipartisan effort. In 2000, President Bill Clinton successfully persuaded House Speaker Dennis Hastert to suppress a similar bill after it passed the Republican-led Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 40-7 and was on its way to easy passage before the full House. Currently, former Democratic House leader Dick Gephardt has joined in lobbying his former colleagues on behalf of the Turkish government. And now, the current Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, despite having earlier promised to place it before a vote of the full House, appears ready to pull the bill from consideration.
Not only is this a tragic affront to the remaining genocide survivors and their descendents, it is also a disservice to the many Turks who opposed their government's policies at that time and tried to stop the genocide, as well as to contemporary Turks who face jail by their U.S.-backed regime for daring to acknowledge it. If the world's one remaining superpower refuses to acknowledge the genocide, there is little chance that justice will ever be served.
Adolf Hitler, responding to concerns about the legacy of his crimes, once asked, "Who, after all, is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" Failure to pass this resolution would send a message to future tyrants that they can commit genocide and not even have it acknowledged by the world's most powerful countries.
Indeed, refusing to recognize genocide and those responsible for it in a historical context makes it easier to deny genocide today. In 1994, the Clinton administration — which consistently refused to fully acknowledge Armenia's tragedy — also refused to use the word "genocide" in the midst of the Rwandan government's massacres of over half that country's Tutsi population, a decision that delayed the deployment of international peacekeeping forces until after 800,000 people had been slaughtered.
As a result, the fate of the resolution on the Armenian genocide is not simply about commemorating a tragedy that took place 90 years ago. It is about where we stand as a nation in facing up to the most horrible of crimes. It is about whether we are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of lies. It is about whether we see our nation's glory based on appeasing our strategic allies or in upholding our longstanding principles.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.)
© 2007 Foreign Policy In Focus
46 Comments so far
Show AllAs in the past, there are still some states that are trying to obtain political and economic benefits through the Armenian community. In some countries monuments have been erected to accuse Turks and Turkey of committing a genocide; in others, decisions with the purpose of the recognition of the so called genocide are included on the parliamentary agendas; and even in some other countries these decisions have been approved by the parliaments. These issues, which should have been left to historians are becoming a means of self interest in the hands of ambitious politicians.
Ever since the emergence of the Armenian problem, Armenian terrorists have never hesitated to kill and massacre. The aim of these terrorists, who insist on ignoring all the historical facts, is to publicise their claims for the so called Armenian genocide and the demands of Armenians, all over the world. The ultimate goal is “Great Armenia”.
In order to realise their “Great Armenia” dream, Armenians and their supporters have put their “Four T” plan into operation, which exploits the replacement of Armenians and presents it as a genocide to the whole world.
The objective of this plan is to make propaganda about the so called genocide, to have it recognised, to obtain indemnity and to acquire land from Turkey.
The Armenian problem was created by the states that wanted to attain their own goals by separating the Ottoman Empire. Today, the Armenian problem is a baseless, artificial and designed problem, which is still kept on the agenda by the same states which have different names now, so as to realise their evil intentions on Turkey.
Those, who hope to obtain benefits with these false claims and accusations are not the Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, who live in the borders of the Turkish Republiç and who are completely free to practice all their traditions and religious customs. They are the Diaspora Armenians who are physically and emotionally away from the Armenian lands where people are suffering from starvation; They are the opportunistic politicians who provoke their own citizens for dangerous and futile adventures so as to get more votes. The injustice done to Turkey by these opportunists who disregard all historical facts for gaining political and economic advantages must be stopped.
for more:http:www.noapology.siteclipse.com
The so called Armenian Genocide and 100 years of Armenian lobbying by the Armenian diaspora to make it labelled as genocide...
More to read from BBC. Why does the row continue?
Armenians are one of the world's most dispersed peoples. While in Armenia, Genocide Memorial Day is commemorated across the country, it is the diaspora that has lobbied for recognition from the outside world. The killings are regarded as the seminal event of modern Armenian history, and one that binds the diaspora together.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm
The biggest lie of the century which has been created by the Armenian lobbyists with a yearly budget of 100 billion dollars. If you are interested in learning more about the true story of the so called "Armenian genocide" please look at the following links.
During the first world war Armenians living in the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire joined he invading ennemies like France and Russia since they believed in the promises of Russians and French that they would have their own state around the holy mountain of Ararat which is exremely important for Armenians since they believe that they are the only descendants of Noak. The holy mountain Ararat is in eastern part of Turkey. Please check the following link the Turkish holy mountain Ararat is on Armenians flag:
http://www.armenica.org/armenia/gerb.html
Since Armenians joined the foreign invading armies in 1915 and started a war against their own people, namely Ottomans the authorities at that time decided that Armeniens living in the eastern parts of the Ottoman empire would be moved to Syria which was still an Ottoman region at that time. The whole population of Armenians at that time in the Ottoman Empire were 1 million people. Armenians exagerate and say that 1.5 million Armenians died at that time just to have a legitimicy for their stories. The fact is that alltogether 5 million Ottomans died during the 1.world war because of the fact that Armeniens joined invading countries and killed their own people Ottomans in their own country.
Another important issue is that Turkish Republic was created 1923 and did not even exist in 1915. Turkey is only one of the 25 sovereign countries which have been built of the resolution of the Ottoman Empire.
Another point is:
Should Italy take responsibility for the things which possibly have happened during the Roman Empire?
Should Austria take responsibility for the things that possibly have happened during the Habsburg Imperium?
What is the secret behind the Armenien issue, the so called Armenian genocide? More to read about:
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html
http://www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com/indexi.php
and
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/
A remnant of this "genocide" and some kind of proof of it is our parents telling us, when we were children who didn't want to finish our dinner, "Think of the starving Armenians."
The REAL REASON the Armenian genocide will remain unacknowledged is APAIC.
According to the "lobby" there is one and only one genocide that matters ~ the evil Nazi genocide of Jews. Nevermind the countless Poles, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, dissenters,Russians, POWs,etc. the only victims of the Nazi holocaust were the chosen people (as far
as the casual American reader is led to believe).
And this in a nutshell is why our congress is consigning the genocide of Armenians to the dustbin of history.
And yes this is important and yes I do want congress and "my" government to take moral positions, it makes it so much easier to get things done in "our" gov. when there are precedents. (Besides being the right thing to do).
MollyJ,
I believe I read somewhere that Dennis Kucininch and Russ Feingold have each initiated efforts to impeach or censure Bush/Cheney. But they are marginalized as extreme liberals in the popular mind, as if there existed an affirmative action program that required a few of them in Congress. The "mainstream" culture is seen as magnanimous to even include them in the proceedings. The propaganda machine is now so powerful one has to wonder if democracy will ever come into being.
I always appreciate Stephen Zunes because he always brings excellent insight into global situations. I think he has pinpointed real and important reasons why this issue is such a "second class citizen".
I am going to say why I am hard pressed to get very excited at all about genocide resolutions that coming out of this American congress. Notwithstanding Zunes articulate and impressive discussion of why we should be concerned about it, this Congress with it's willful ignoring of the human rights abuses of this president simply is not credible to talk about anyone's genocide. This IS "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or maybe even better, CLEAN OUT YOUR OWN CLOSETS FIRST--THEY SMELL BAD.
Right now if Democrats wanted to convince me of their credibility on human rights everyone of them should be competing to start impeachment proceedings on Bush & Cheney, they should be talking constantly about reinstatement of habeus corpus and closing the embarassment of Gitmo and reempowering the FISA courts.
Their notable silence on these right here, right now American human rights abuses makes anything they have to say about anyone elses human rights abuses simply a pitiful specter of DENIAL.
Our pitiful congress needs to clean up the mess this prez has made of America and then they can get back to pontificating on other nation-states faults.
Conrad: The Democrat bashing is 100% merited and richly deserved.
Yes, the Republicans are slightly worse. At least at this writing. However there's nothing that tells me that a Hillary Clinton administration will be one bit more humane than the Bush Administration. We will still have the Neo-Con World Order dictating foreign policy. We will still have an eroding economy. We will still have the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other spy law abrogations against due process and the Constitution. We'll still have the same war in the MidEast, the same suckling servitude to Big Oil. The same carnage. The same everything.
When Pelosi proudly proclaimed that Impeachment is off the table, she threw away her credibility, and with the recent Congressional grovelings before Bush over spy laws, the Democratic Congress spit in the face of the voters who empowered them in November 2006.
With their attitude toward the constitution, they shouldn't just be bashed. They should be thrown out of office, and into prison.
Well, Poet, if "we" ever did try to clean up our own collective act, we would be greeted by those who benefit from that act not being cleaned up saying, "How dare we criticize the so-called genocide of the Indians when we deny the Armenian genocide."
This is not a zero sum game where you can only object to one injustice. In fact, not recognizing the Armenian genocide will be used as an excuse for denying other genocides.
Injustice is no excuse for injustice.
Militant Liberal--
I'm not sure what the point of your rebuttal to my objection to an Armenian genocide resolution by the House in light of the congressionally sanctioned consistent policy of genocide against Native Americans going back centuries in the United States.
As you point out the pervasiveness of genocide throughout the world makes just about any resolutiohn by just about any people purely hypocritical posturing. Much more impressive would be our cleaning up of our own collective acts instead of criticizing those of others.
Genocide is nothing new. Just the scale of it has expanded with industrialized methods of controlling and killing people. The American government has waged a protracted genocidal campaign against the native Americans. We've so internalized our bigotry that we don't even object to the continued use of offensive nicknames by sports teams. We don't even see the irony in it.
Jimmy Carter told us that what is presently happening in Darfur is not genocide. Maybe 90 years from now, they'll settle the semantic question. Killing people is wrong. Killing people on a large scale is evil. It's hard to find words to measure the wrongness of it.
I wonder if they'll someday be a sports team called the "Istanbul Armenians" or the "Berlin Fightin' Jews". I can't think of one for Darfur. Maybe someone who reads this can help.
A German acquaintance of mine worked as a tour guide in Turkey in the 80s (he speaks Turkish and Kurdish). They were at a site with the ruins of a church and someone - who later turned out to be an agent provocateur - asked about it. My friend truthfully related it to the Armenian genocide and ended up in a prison in Diyarbakir (high altitude, very cold, known for torture) for three years. Turks today are indoctrinated about their history, a very nice 32 year old Turkish fellow member of my martial arts club believes all the shit his government dishes out, he outright denied my friend's experiences. The Turks even bought a chair at Princeton University for one of their genocide deniers.
I highly recommend David Barsamian's radio programs at http://alternativeradio.org on the subject, his mother is one of the survirors of the death march.
Comparisons of 'genocides' is just a "race to the bottom" when examining the sad and Universal human-propensity to seek a self-interest and/or retribution Collectively -- Murder is 'bad', Mass-Murder/Genocide is 'bad times headcount'.
To avoid Genocide requires an internal-discipline/'choice' in not engaging in self-interests via the collective-disinterest/punishment of any 'other' -- the avoidance of such self-aggrandizement for any collective-Interest. But, we are born "social-animals" -- we need someday to build upon that to identify primarily as a Species. Once 'socialized' into any real or imagined sub-grouping, we then can and will easily-choose to rationalize 'gain at other's-expense', and we'll all do-so and repeatedly (until and unless NOT doing-so is a more highly-valued and Common-Goal (Commondream?) than the motivations/Gains from 'Socializing').
We all inhabit a Glass-House...
In response to Poet, that's an amusing point about the "Bureau of Amish Affairs". However, American Indian tribes have a special juridical character as "dependent sovereignties" not applicable to the Amish. As a private religious group, the Amish have no standing to be parties to treaties with the American government. Whether we want the federal government to do something TO the Indians or FOR them, we need the BIA. Remember that there was once a Freedman's Bureau that wasn't particularly helpful to the freedman but was loathed by their oppressors. If we're not already doing so, we ought to have a practice of always staffing the upper level of the BIA with American Indians. It ought to be the Indians' representative to the federal government at least as much as the other way around.
As for the main point, made over and over again above, it doesn't seem sensible to tell the descendants of survivors of the Armenian genocide: "Sorry, we're too guilty of the same thing to care about what happened to your ancestors. Go away." The Turk genocide-deniers should be denied the moral comfort of silence. Their complaints that the issue needs more study sounds like the same guff spouted by creationists and tobacco companies. And don't forget that the Turks also committed a somewhat smaller mass slaughter of Armenians in the 1890s. However, I'd be happy to support prior resolutions that expressed our government's sorrow and guilt for the sufferings of American Indians and black Americans. We might as well throw in resolutions for other foreign massacres since 1800, with American complicity or negligence noted where applicable: the Rwandan Tutsis during the Clinton era, the Japanese in China 1937-45, Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs 1948-49, the Iraqi Arab massacre of Kurds (really not PC at the moment), Britain's deliberate inaction during horrible famines in Ireland and India during the 19th century, Belgian atrocities in the Congo around 1900 and Germany's slaughter of non-Jewish Russians 1941-44, including the mass starvation of Leningrad. Did I forget anyone? I'm excluding the Communist auto-genocides of Cambodia in the 1970s, China in the 1960s and the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
It is asking too much for Bush to recognize the Armenian Genocide at the time when he's committed one in Iraq. Better Congress pass a resolution to stop the one that's in progress, and the one that's impending in Iran.
So much about Mr Zunes's talk about our "longstanding principles". Obviously not long enough to reach the present time.
I very much want to contribute, but my posting keeps getting censored.
Please be kind enough to follow this link for my contribution:-
http://web.aanet.com.au/webspace/BloodForOil/Postings/holoc.txt
HOLOCAUST DENIAL - Denial of Genocide?
Here is a document, by the pentagon, delivered to the government in January 22, 1991. It says that Iraq has plenty of water, but the water is dirty and needs to be processed to make it potable. The document goes on to predict that if the water treatment plants were destroyed, or the power plants needed to operate the water treatment plants were destroyed, that there would be widespread disease if not epidemics of disease as a result.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
The US government proceeded to destroy all Iraq's water treatment plants and power plants during gulf war 1. Then, for an entire decade they used sanctions, based on lies, to deny Iraq the parts needed to repair the water treatment plants and the power stations. Things that were needed were declared dual use and denied.
The lack of food that did kill people so much as the lack of clean water. The majority of patients in Iraq's hospitals were stricken with amoebic dysentery, gastroenteritis and other waterborne diseases. 1.5 million people died, 500,000 of them were children.
http://www.iraqwaterproject.com/docus/attack_water.htm
http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm
http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/distribution.html
In the last 4 years, another 1.2 million have been killed, and another 4 million made into refugees.
Should not the parliament condemn any attempt to deny this genocide. Our government are still carrying out this genocide, and our media are denying it. Especially Zionist Rupert Murdoch, who thinks that holocaust denial is the greatest sin.
Forget the holocausts of old, because we are still busy committing genocide now!
Curmdgeon is just wrong in saying that "most renowned historians of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, have refused to call this great tragedy a genocide." Almost all serious scholars of this subject agree that it was a genocide. The man who invented the term "genocide" (Lemkin) has explicitly stated that this event was what prompted him to do so. The only historians who deny this are Turks in Turkey and those on their payroll outside of Turkey.
The Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, is publishing, along with the Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian, materials concerning tribunals after the end of WWI to prosecute the perpetrators of the genocide of the Armenians. There is an article in Wikipedia about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_Tribunals). Akcam & Dadrian's book will include evidence gathered for the tribunals.
The Turkish suggestion of new studies is nothing new. This is constantly repeated by the government of a country where the mere publication of a mention of the genocide of Armenians results in imprisonment. This is the case even now. Deniers of the genocide of Jews in Europe also suggest such new studies but such suggestions are properly seen as the subterfuges they are. There is an incredible amount of documentation of the Armenian genocide that have been published. Historians have studied it and have drawn their conclusions.
Some posters are twisting my words. I am not suggesting that the US Congress should not pass the resolution. It should do that and more. Those who suggest that Congress should address all the other genocides first only suggest this when Congress considers the Armenians. I never hear of them suggesting attention to these other wrongs at any other time. They are using these excuses solely for the purpose of protecting Turkey's "honor".
I am tired of thinking and talking about the Turks and their crimes. I would gladly stop if this were solely a historical matter. Even now, Turkey blockades Armenia, damaging its economy. Even now, Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to destroy historical Armenian monuments and graveyards in parts of historical Armenia they conquered and depopulated. Even now, Azerbaijan threatens war to take back the Armenian populated Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) while loudly proclaiming that the Armenians murdered the Turks instead of the opposite truth. An Azeri officer who recently broke into the room of a sleeping Armenian officer at a Nato meeting in Hungary and hacked him to death is considered a national hero in Azerbaijan. The boy who murdered the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is celebrated in videos and songs as a Turkish hero.
Taner Akcam says that the reason he continues to push for recognition of the genocide of Armenians is that this is only way Turkey will be able to become a modern democracy. Naturally, the Bush regime would hate to see that happen. If Congress will tell the truth about one thing, it should be encouraged. Maybe it will be more willing to tell the truth about other things then.
One more thing - I see a lot of Democrat bashing here. The Democrats are, as they have always been, a profound disappointment to anyone expecting a real opposition party. But it should be remembered that the Republicans are slightly more guilty of all the things the Democrats are being accused of here. This Democrat bashing is opportunistic and in bad faith. Such criticism would be fair if both parties were cricized. I also see people who are justifiably angry with Pelosi using this to beat up on her. People doing this usually seem to be only vaguely aware of the Armenian genocide. Those people should stick to criticizing her for what they really object to and not muddy the water. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
This resolution was never about high-minded principles. As has been pointed out by others, there are many equally worthy injustices Congress could pass non-binding resolutions to recognize, if they were so inclined (and had nothing better to do). It's naive to think that the current geopolitical situation had nothing to do with the timing of this bill's reintroduction.
Nancy Pelosi is weak, period. She doesn't have the guts to at least try to impeach a highly unpopular and brazenly criminal Executive Branch, nor does she have the fortitude to see through this recent attempt to provide Turkey with the diplomatic cover it needs to open a new front in Iraq, destabilize the North, and hinder America's efforts to expand its Middle East adventurism.
She tried playing with fire and ended up burning her little fingers without even lighting the match. I'd say she's on par with Bush for incompetence.
"Now, it appears, the Democrats are also willing to deny history, even when it involves genocide."
Nothing new about that. Most of our pre-2000 war crimes are blithely ignored by Democratic party flacks. The US has not apologized to humanity for the genocide at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is routinely defended because it occurred under a Democratic commander in chief. The sick joke that was known as "World War I" has yet to be seriously questioned or repudiated by modern-day progressives. The carnage in Southeast Asia is generally blamed upon Richard Nixon instead of upon the author of the war, Democrat LBJ.
Washington was right when he warned us about the dangers of political parties.
Don`t we have enough to worry about with the slaughter of our own young military and the Iraqi people without getting into what someone else did a hundred years ago? What will history say about our death and destruction with the endless occupation of Iraq for our own purposes? It is time Bush and Congress started doing the necessary actions and forget the useless resolutions and posturing. Sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It is a travesty to let our own nation go to ruin while our assets are being wasted in a fools errand.
Mike Corbeil above is spot-on.
The USA has been built on the bones of the predecessor Indian nations, and substantial indoctrination continues -- most Americans thus refuse to acknowledge facts. Systematic and continuous distortions include the detestable use of "discovery" with Columbus, to use of imagery such as American Indians scalping innocents while on the warpath.
"To civilize others" simply has them share our deceits.
Pointing the finger and proclaiming the guilt of others long dead, while avoiding our own present crimes, is hypocritical and counterproductive to human progress. Bloody-handed "Freedom fighters" include our forefathers. The present Turkish Government is no more guilty than dozens of other governments and nations.
There is no easy solution. Search your own heart. Shall we simply list and acknowledge the horrors of human cruelty from the days of the Bible and epic poems to what is continuing now? Shall we lump all the massacres together as bygones and work toward a better future, yet nurtured by plunder?
Today I travel; an area new to me promises discovery.
A message for Stevie boy:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't!!!!
It might be interesting to check how many $$$$ were donated by the Armenian-American people gave to get this to Congress.
Congress is neither an expert on Ottoman history, nor a judge.
The United States Congress does not have the authority, the means or
the resources to pass a definitive judgment with respect to a particular group of people and with respect to a complex set of events that occurred nearly 100 years ago in a distant part of the world, during a world war that claimed the lives of over 50 million.
Whether the Armenian case constitutes genocide remains a matter of dispute.
In fact, most renowned historians of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, have refused to call this great tragedy a genocide.
There are those who say it is the Armenians who are running away from it by refusing to accept the Turkish government's proposal to establish a Joint History Commission.
Had Armenia responded to this offer made in 2005 and repeated by the
Turkish Prime Minister time and again, perhaps by now there would have been progress in establishing the truth. This truth will include the massacres of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Muslims at the hands of Armenian rebels in cohorts with the armies of other nations, primarily Russia, and perhaps herein lies the answer to the reluctance of the Armenians and other interested parties.
It is NOT in the interest of the United States to get involved in this controversial issue, and certainly not do so based on one-sided,
distorted and hand-picked facts presented to Congress by the
multi-million dollar Armenian lobbies in the United States.
The obsessive lobbying behind these resolutions year after year
prevented reconciliation between Armenians and Turks, and they
continued to plant seeds of hatred in young minds.
Noted Armenian-Americans such as author William Saroyan who stated publicly that the facts concerning genocide were murky at best and should be put aside in the interests of humanity, were shunned and ostracized by their own community until they recanted.
There is no question that the slaughter of Armenians in 1894-6 and 1915 was genocide and that the Turkish government has proven as deceitful in its denial of past crimes as the Japanese. However, for this Congress, which is in the eyes of most of the world perpetuating slaughter of equal magnitude and equally ignoble motivation, to condemn it is hypocrisy of the most shameless kind. Only by coupling this resolution with a withdrawal from, and commitment to the reconstruction of, Iraq, restoration of constitutional and human rights, indictment and prosecution of war criminals up to and including Bush can we claim the moral standing to condemn a 92 year old holocaust. It will not be viewed in the Muslim world as a coincidence that the Turks and Kurds who perpetrated this outrage were Muslims, and the victims Christians. They will rightly point out that the confessional shoes are on the other feet in Iraq and Afghanistan today. So why we are so concerned about this historical tragedy and not Rwanda, the Japanese occupations of China and Korea, and others? they will rightly ask. Once again, not the way to win hearts and minds.
People who think Americans should pay attention to the Armenian genocide or genocide of Armenians, by Turkey, in the early 20th century, such people are really not thinking in whole terms. For one thing, the U.S. is majorly guilty of mass-murdering genocide against like 97% of the First Nations Americans and forever refusing to honour the treaties between the U.S. govt and the FN. Secondly, the U.S. is majorly guilty for mass genocide in African countries, such as Rwanda and now, and ongoing for many enough years already, Congo, information about which Keith Harmon Snow provides a LOT of and at his website, www.AllThingsPass.com . Thirdly, the U.S. is committing like near-total genocide and major destruction in Iraq. Fourthly, consider the U.S. wars of aggression in Southeast Asia, Vietnam, etc. Fifthly, consider that the major dictatorial state crimes against Chileans and/or Argentinians not many decades ago was very U.S.-backed and -ensured, and that this is close enough to genocide to be called genocide; and that the U.S. has been guilty for other horrors in various South American countries. Sixth, consider that the Israeli genocide of Palestinians is also U.S. genocide of Palestinians. Seventh, consider the war of totally criminal aggression of the U.S. on Afghanistan, but also on Lebanon. Eigth, let's not forget the totally criminal war act coup d'etat by the US, as leader, and France and Canada, against the totally legitimate democratic govt of Haiti, hellbent crime against President Aristide and the poor of Haiti. ETC. Etc. Etc.
Those, btw, are not ordered to reflect which cases I find more important, but the cases of current events, which includes Haiti, for this story is NOT over and corrected yet, these take top priority; because they are CURRENT.
The U.S. govt and media can't really be expected to treat the genocide of Armenians as genocide, for then the U.S. genocides of far more innocents would have to be recognized, and that's something the U.S. govt and media are NOT going to do; except when a reporter is ... extraordinarily honest.
So why Zunes wrote this article, now this causes me to wonder. Are his lights on or off? What sphere does he live in, disneyland, where America is beautiful, honest, the land of only honourable people, etc., etc.?
I care about the Armenians and ALL innocents, but given the far more extreme crimes of the U.S., I have to say, "Who cares about the genocide of the Armenians nearly a century ago?". Even if it was happening today, the U.S. has NO moral grounds to stand on for pointing its fingers at ANYONE else. The U.S. has absolutely NO merit, being totally devoid of morality and moral grounds; not having any right at all to preach to anyone.
I care about the Armenians, but I hope they are more realistic than Zune is with this article of his.
In the context this world is in today, I don't understand why people would concern themselves about such history as the genocide of Armenians a century ago. We NEED to stop the genocides being committed by the USA today, and to have the U.S. govt, present and prior, answer for their genocidal crimes, FIRST and foremost of all.
That is the realistic perspective; although it is not realistic to think that we will get the U.S. govt, present and prior, to answer for its, their crimes.
Congress refuses to stop the war on Iraq, and Zune is concerned about Congress not recognizing a genocide far less bad than the genocides of the U.S., and committed a century ago, to boot.
We feel good about ourselves when we care, but it's better to care in REALISTIC terms; not fancifully.
Congress is HELLBENT. What good do you expect from HELL? If any, then you live in American disneyland.
IMHO.
This could probably be better stated, in some respect anyway, but the message should still be understandable; I think.
We stand on principles: we trade on values.
_______________________________________________________________________________
fresh1, thanks for this observation. I have been seeing this dynamic and going around and around with it in recent months, but I couldn't put my finger on "values" as the yang to the yin of principle.
It's like being given a missing jigsaw puzzle piece, which I will now hammer into my own thought processes whether it really fits or not. ;)
RichM,
"In other words, Pelosi can stop bills from being voted on, when she wants to.
Dem Party apologists might ask themselves, why didn't she stop the war funding bills in a similar manner? Why didn't she stop the FISA spying bill?"
Thunderous applease, "Hear, hear" from the galleries.
As best I can tell, the death toll of Armenians due to the Turkish genocide is in the ballpark of the death toll of Iraqis due to the US [fill in appropriate term here].
Surely there are more important things Pelosi & Co. could be doing right now?
What an immense waste of verbiage! Stephen Zunes has better things to do with his time and his talents than try to claim that congress is full genocide-deniers. The argument does not hold water: 226 of them *were* ready to back the bill, and I'll bet that not a single one has changed his or her mind about the historical facts.
The historical facts are the same, its only the perceived costs of making a statement that have changed. Previously most of those congress-persons probably did not see any cost to condemning genocide. I'm sure it looked like a no-brainer to them. Now they know that there is a political cost, and they are not prepared to pay it. It just shows how cheaply they value truth-telling.
We stand on principles: we trade on values. Clearly, human rights are not principles for congress, telling the truth is not a principle, opposing genocide is not a principle-- its a value, something that can be traded away, something that can be offset by sufficient pressure.
And this leads directly to the issue raised by Conrad-- do we really want Congress to confront this kind of issue? Doesn't it just cheapen the issue, given that congress places such a low value on human rights that its offset by vague political threats by a valuable but hardly indispensible ally?
Note that in response to pressure from the White House, Pelosi "...will prevent the (Armenian genocide) resolution from coming up for vote in the full House."
In other words, Pelosi can stop bills from being voted on, when she wants to.
Dem Party apologists might ask themselves, why didn't she stop the war funding bills in a similar manner? Why didn't she stop the FISA spying bill?
The slaughter of thousands of Armenians should have been acknowleged years ago and the White House and House Speaker are just playing politics which leaves no room for principle. What will they have to say now that the Turks are marching toward Iraq and our servicemen and women become targets? And what will they have to say when more Armenians are slaughtered? It's all about what we can gain in oil and bases. Principle and Truth is off the table when it comes to this administration.
While awareness of anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to dismiss those who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust to the political fringe, it appears that tolerance for anti-Armenian bigotry is strong enough that it is still apparently politically acceptable to refuse to acknowledge their genocide.
Yet again, the crime gangs occupying Washington show their hostility to the principle of universality by defining a hierarchy of racial value. A strategically valuable race should be defended while another race is strategically insignificant. Vote Hillary for president to preserve the system of "excellence".
This, of course, was yet another display of the Democratic Party's pattern of retreat and submission. The Party, at least as represented in Congress, has a weather vane in place of a set of principles.
What the Turks need to be told, at least until they acknowledge their past, is what Richard von Weiszcacker, former President of what was West Germany, told a gathering of young people, in regard to the Nazis. He informed them that, not even having been born at the time, they were certainly not guilty for the Nazi era and its atrocities. But, he said, as Germans, they had (and still have) a moral responsibility for their history. [Something Americans need to understand in regard to slavery and to the genocidal approach to the American Indians.] As one more incentive to persuade the Turks that it is long past time for them to acknowledge their slaughter of Armenians and Assyrians in 1895 and in 1915-1918, this resolution was appropriate.
Dichterfreund,
I am not consigning the genocide to "history", but rather consigning the argument about it to "historians" (intead of Congress)--and there's a big difference.
To have one arm of our country begging to use Turkey for military purposes, and another arm trying to publicly slap Turks for their sins -- at the same time -- is nuts. As for Democrats, they'd be far better off without this ever having been an issue in Congress, instead of advancing it, then withdrawing it, and leaving open the whole issue of "hurting our troops" if indeed Turkey boots us out of running supplies through their country. Historians were appropriate. Half-supported resolutions are not.
Why bring this up now??? Turkey has made excursions into Northern Iraq. The neocons have an agenda of splitting Iraq up into three. See Haim Saban and the Saban Center's report for a soft partition of Iraq written by Michael O'Hanlon.
Now that being said what happened to the Armenians was horrible and should be acknowledged. However, it should not be used as a tool for other secret agendas and the timing of this is rather interesting.
Apart from the tragic fact of the Armenian genocide itself, the way in which the issue was handled by the Democrats suggests that they are suffering from occupational psychosis.
Yes, the agenda, timing, etc. are problematic, but once a resolution commemorating genocide is proposed, what does it say about a party who will then come to a screeching halt and instead say "fuhgeddaboutit"? That they were against Armenian genocide before they were for it? It is, IMO, another proof that our political elite has so lost touch with acting on principle that they fumble and fail when they try. As soon as they are challenged in the political arena, they revert to too-clever-by-half political tactics, give up the ghost of principle, and settle back on their haunches to be hit on the nose again.
I expect that the knee-jerk Democratomaniac apologists will characterize this as "flexibility" or some similar rationalization.
Terms like the politically incorrect "Chinese Fire Drill", or "Keystone Kops" come to mind.
Gene T,
"If a "non-binding resolution" were introduced in Congress declaring what white "Euro-Americans" did to Native Americans a genocide ("Nits produce lice; kill them all"), what do you think the vote would look like?"
You'd have the Vichycrats running outside to put their hands over their heartst & sing God Bless America at the mere thought.
Considering the profit continually extracted from lands that were to be under indigenous government in the US -- no nukes for the USA otherwise -- it'll remain something that's mentioned by those naughty history professors.
Daniel David reveals his troll-hobby once more by consigning the Turkish genocide to "history".
As for Nancy Too-Few-Votesi . . . never did a politician so early & eagerly sign her own passport to oblivion . . .
If a "non-binding resolution" were introduced in Congress declaring what white "Euro-Americans" did to Native Americans a genocide ("Nits produce lice; kill them all"), what do you think the vote would look like? .
See Daniel David's comment above.
What makes the Turkish genocide of Armenians different from these other cases is that it continues even now. Thousands of Armenians were killed in a pogrom in Turkey as late as 1955. There would undoubtedly be more now if there were any Armenians left in rural Turkey. The only Armenians left in Turkey are in Istanbul were mass murder would be hard to hide. Even so, Hrant Dink (an Armenian living in Istanbul) was murdered this year for talking about this and it is clear that elements of the Turkish government were behind this murder.
The mostly Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh (that is the Russian name, the real name of the area is Artsakh) fought their way free of Azerbaijan because Armenians were being driven out of the area by the Azeris (who are ethnically Turkish). The Azeri response in Azerbaijan was another pogrom with several hundred Armenians killed.
The Turks who killed Armenians in 1915 are gone but current Turkish law still makes it illegal to mention these killings. The position of the apologists seems to be "We never killed you and if you don't shut up, we'll kill you again."
Actually, I'm somewhat ambivalent about asking the US Congress to pass this resolution. They've enthusiastically supported governments engaged in ethnic cleansing when those governments were/are perceived as allies. They only seem to talk about genocide when they are looking for an excuse to bomb someone. This will really say more about the US than Turkey.
What about atrocites committed against the Native American tribes, what about French "genocide" in Algeria ????
What about Dutch/Belgian/Portugese/British atrocities in Africa and Asia. What about stalins pogrom against the chechens? I don't see congress passing resolutions against them!!!!
Those Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones
Okay, let's put turn the tables--let's just say for grins and giggles that the Turkish parliment passed a resolution ocndemning the genocide carried out by the United States against its Native Americans. A genocide which continues to this very day through the activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (Someone once said tht the reason the Amish are able to thrive and prosper while surrounded by an alien culture was that there was no "Bureau of Amish Affairs".)
Most of the politicians, punditry, and citizens would react with,"who do you think you are, considering what you did to the Armenians in your own midst>". In fact, if the Congress wanted to exercise itself in condemantion of genocide, it would be better served by starting with its own guilt rather than raising their collective middle fingers of contempt at others.
Somebody has pointed out that virtually nobody alive in Turkey today participated in any events there in 1915, just as nobody alive in America today participated in slavery here before the civil war. Would we expect the legislatures of other countries to be debating our bad 19th century history? Seems to me this is the business of historians, not Congress.
I agree with what doughyden has said as far as impeachment goes. The Bush regime absolutely will not stop until they have consolidated as much power in the chief executive as possible and given that chief executive sole power to declare war on whomever they desire to attack. This regime MUST be removed before they can further damage the fabric of this nation and before the government is allowed to be completely attuned to Nazi-styled fascism.
The Democrats are so weak-willed and susceptible to the bullying of Republicans that it's become pathetic. The Democrats are in fact APPEASERS of president Bush and his fascist backers, allowing them to reign terror on the world without check.
IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS NOW!!!
WHO CARES? This was genocide, whether or not the American Congress calls it so. A resolution would not change ONE FACT. There simply MUST be more important things......
Nothing that happens up there surprises me any more. Speaker Pelosi would deny that she's a woman if she thought women would be labelled soft on terrorism.
If the shrub does go ahead and effectively declare war on Iran, I will hold Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers directly responsible. It is they who have been to cowardly to put impeachment on the table. Immediate removal from office is the only way to stop these madmen. If congress won't do it, other means must be found. I believe that our founding document, the Declaration of Independence says that "governments are instituted . . . to secure [certain inalienable] rights." It goes on to state that whenever government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people--that's us, guys--"to alter or abolish it." Down with the whole damn thing, I say. The president is at war with the USA, and congress will do nothing to stop it.