Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama and the Denial of Genocide
The Obama administration, citing its relations with Turkey, has pledged to block the passage in the full House of Representatives of a resolution passed this past Thursday by the Foreign Relations Committee acknowledging the 1915 genocide by the Ottoman Empire of a 1.5 million Armenians. Even though the Obama administration previously refused to acknowledge and even worked to suppress well-documented evidence of recent war crimes by Israel, another key Middle Eastern ally, few believed that the administration would go as far as to effectively deny genocide.
Following the committee vote, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that "We are against this decision," and pledged that the administration would "work very hard" to prevent the bill from coming to the floor. Despite widespread support for the resolution by House Democrats, she expressed confidence that the administration would find a means of blocking the resolution, saying, "Now we believe that the U.S. Congress will not take any decision on this subject."
As candidates, both Clinton and Barack Obama had pledged that their administrations would be the first to formally recognize the Armenian genocide. Clinton acknowledged that this was a reversal, but insisted that circumstances had "changed in very significant ways." The State Department, however, has been unable to cite any new historical evidence that would counter the broad consensus that genocide had indeed taken place in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. The official excuse is that it might harm an important rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. However, there is no indication the Armenian government is at all concerned about potential negative fallout in their bilateral relations over a resolution passed by a legislative body in a third country.
More likely, the concern is over not wanting to jeopardize the cooperation of Turkey, which borders Iran, in the forthcoming enhanced sanctions against the Islamic republic.
Back in 2007, a similar resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide also passed through the House Foreign Relations Committee. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised that she would allow it to come for a vote. With 226 cosponsors - a clear majority of the House - there was little question it would pass. However, in response to claims by the Bush White House and Republican congressional leaders that it would harm the "Global War on Terror," Pelosi broke her promise and used her power as speaker to prevent a vote on the resolution. She will also certainly buckle under pressure from an administration of her own party.
The Historical Record
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.
According to Henry Morgenthau, U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during that period, "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, this apparently isn't the view of the Obama administration.
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." The earliest proponent of such an international convention was Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer who originally coined the term "genocide" and identified the Armenian case as a definitive example.
Dozens of other governments - including Canada, France, Italy, and Russia - and several UN bodies, as well as 40 U.S. states, have formally recognized the Armenian genocide. The Obama administration does not, however, and is apparently determined to prevent Congress from doing so.
Congress has previously gone on record condemning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to acknowledge the German genocide of the Jews. Congress appears unwilling, however, to challenge Obama's refusal to acknowledge the Ottoman genocide of the Armenians. While awareness of anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to marginalize those who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust, tolerance for anti-Armenian bigotry appears strong enough that it's still considered politically acceptable to deny their genocide.
The Turkey Factor
Opponents of the measure argue that they're worried about harming relations with Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and an important U.S. ally. However, the United States has done much greater harm in its relations with Turkey through policies far more significant than a symbolic resolution acknowledging a tragic historical period. The United States clandestinely backed an attempted military coup by right-wing Turkish officers in 2003, arming Iraqi and Iranian Kurds with close ties to Kurdish rebels in Turkey who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Turkish citizens. The United States also invaded neighboring Iraq. As a result, the percentage of Turks who view the United States positively declined from 52 percent to only 9 percent.
Generations of Turks have been taught that there was no Ottoman genocide of the Armenians, but that there were scattered atrocities on both sides. Indeed, most Turks believe their country is being unfairly scapegoated, particularly when the United States refuses to label its treatment of American Indians as genocide or acknowledge more recent war crimes. As a result, some argue that a more appropriate means of addressing the ongoing Turkish denial of historical reality would be through dialogue and some sort of re-education, avoiding the patently political device of a congressional resolution that would inevitably make Turks defensive.
Failure to acknowledge the genocide, however, is a tragic affront to the rapidly dwindling number of genocide survivors as well as their descendents. It's also a disservice to the many Turks who opposed the Ottoman Empire's policies and tried to stop the genocide, as well as the growing number of Turks today who face imprisonment by their U.S.-backed regime for daring to publicly concede the crimes of their forebears. For example, Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish novelist who won the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature, was prosecuted and fled into exile to escape death threats after making a number of public references to the genocide.
Some opponents of the resolution argue that it is pointless for Congress to pass resolutions regarding historical events. Yet there were no such complaints regarding resolutions commemorating the Holocaust, nor are there normally complaints regarding the scores of dedicatory resolutions passed by Congress in recent years, ranging from commemorating the 65th anniversary of the death of the Polish musician and political leader Ignacy Jan Paderewski to noting the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of the Republican Party in Wisconsin.
The Obama administration insists that that this is a bad time to upset the Turkish government. However, it was also considered a "bad time" to pass the resolution back in 2007, on the grounds that it not jeopardize U.S. access to Turkish bases as part of efforts to support the counter-insurgency war by U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. It was also considered a "bad time" when a similar resolution was put forward in 2000 because the United States was using its bases in Turkey 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's always a "bad time."
While the passage of the resolution would certainly lead to strong diplomatic protests from Turkey, it is dubious that there would be much of a rupture between Ankara and Washington. When President Ronald Reagan, a major backer of the right-wing military dictatorship then ruling Turkey, once used the term genocide in relation to Armenians, U.S.-Turkish relations did not suffer.
The Obama administration, like administrations before it, simply refuses to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide even took place. As recently as the 1980s, 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." Even more recently, Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in President George W. Bush, 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 Obama "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 the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution." Therefore, if Obama really doesn't want Congress to pass such a resolution, all he needs to do is make an executive order acknowledging the genocide. Despite whatever excuses one wants to make, failure to do so amounts to genocide denial.
Genocide Denial
Given the indisputable record of the Armenian genocide, many of those who refuse to recognize Turkey's genocide of Armenians, like those who refuse to recognize Germany's genocide of European Jews, are motivated by ignorance and bigotry. The Middle East scholar most often cited by 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.
Not every opponent of the current resolution explicitly denies that there was genocide. Some acknowledge that genocide indeed occurred, but have apparently been convinced that it's detrimental to U.S. security to state this publicly. This is still inexcusable. Such moral cowardice is no less reprehensible than refusing to acknowledge the Holocaust if it were believed that doing so might upset the German government, which also hosts critical U.S. bases.
Obama is not the first Democratic president to effectively deny the Armenian genocide. 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. President Jimmy Carter also suppressed a Senate effort led by Bob Dole, whose miraculous recovery from near-fatal wounds during World War II was overseen by an Armenian-American doctor who had survived the genocide.
Interestingly, neoconservatives - quick to defend crimes against humanity by the Bush administration, the Israeli government, and others - are opportunistically using Obama's flip-flop on this issue as evidence of the moral laxity of Democrats on human rights.
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?" Obama is sending a message to future tyrants that they can commit genocide without acknowledgement by the world's most powerful country.
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 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 contributed to the delay in deploying international peacekeeping forces until after the slaughter of 800,000 people.
As a result, the Obama administration's position on the Armenian genocide isn't simply about whether to commemorate a tragedy that took place 95 years ago. It's about where we stand as a nation in facing up to the most horrible of crimes. It's about whether we are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of lies. It's about whether we see our nation as appeasing our strategic allies or upholding our longstanding principles.


19 Comments so far
Show AllHypocrisy -- thy name is America.
Oh course the Plutocracy refuses to admit Armenian genocide any more than it will the genocide of the Native American race. That might soil the unblemished record of American moral superiority, vital to the enslavement of its own people.
If cracks appear in that facade, some daylight might filter into the societal darkness of United States dumbocracy; the careful suppression of a social consciousness by the American public.
My sympathies to the remaining survivors of the Armenian genocide and the descendants. May you forgive us for our government.
Gary
"The final plea for any form of brutality in these days is that it tends to the survival of the fittest; and very properly this plea has been advanced in favor of the system which is the sum of all brutalities. But the retort is prompt and final. If this were indeed so, if the richest were the best, there would never have been any social question. Disparities of condition would have been willingly endured, which were recognized as corresponding to virtue or public service. But so far is this from being the case that the competitive system seems rather to tend to the survival of the unfittest. Not that the rich are worse than the poor, but that the competitive system tends to develop what is worst in the character of all, whether rich or poor. The qualities which it discourages are the noblest and most generous that men have, and the qualities which it rewards are those selfish and sordid instincts which humanity can only hope to rise by outgrowing."
-- Edward Bellamy, Plutocracy or Nationalism -- Which? Address at Tremont Temple May 31, 18899.
The terminology is the problem. Everyone knows that genocide and halocaust victimhood is an exclusively Jewish prerogative. To award similar status to others would infringe on Zionist self-justification claims for their vengeful oppression of those whose land they wish to steal. That's the real reason why official recognition of the Armenian genocide cannot be allowed to pass.
At least the "chosen people" have a deified real estate agent on their side according to the book they wrote on the subject. U.S. thefts of other people's land and resources lack even that dubious sanction.
Exactly. And we mustn't take the spotlight off of the Jewish suffering even for one moment, lest people start questioning their own treatment of the Palestinians . . . especially since Israel now faces another potential genocide at the hands of those evil Iranians and their huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
Everybody does it - subjugate an annoying resident population to death. Gee, these moral minorities are always plopped square on the good stuff, like minerals, water, or grazing land. Starve them until they can be drowned in a bathtub. The US can't really acknowledge or condemn the genocides of other regimes without 'fessing up to the genocides at home, or in territories. History can be ugly; the best way to clean it up is in the bright light of day.
The U.S. is getting very accomplished at rewriting history.
FDR/Truman killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians in their cities, culminating with two nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ & Nixon killed 3 million Vietnamese between the 1950's and 1973. We even offered nuclear weapons to the French in 1954 to use on the Vietnamese.
Nixon invaded Cambodia in 1970 and enabled Pol Pot to kill a million Cambodians.
Nixon & Kissinger enabled Pinochet to murder tens of thousands of Chileans and the Argentinian generals to kill or "disappear" tens of thousands of their own people.
Ford & Kissinger enabled hundreds of thousands of Indonesians and East Timorese to be murdered.
Reagan/Bush I supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War, helping kill more than a million.
The Bush I/Clinton sanctions & bombings and the Bush/Cheney shock & awe & occupation have helped kill nearly two million Iraqis.
Starting with Carter & Brzezinski, the U.S. has been killing tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Afghanis since the late 1970's.
All U.S. administrations supply the weapons used by Israel to kill thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
Obama is simply following his illustrious predecessors.
"But why do they hate us?"
Hey, ED. You omitted mentioning the genocide and infanticide called passover committed by the jewish god.
There was no Armenian genocide because the US may need to use military bases in turkey to further its attempted domination of the middle east.
Exactly right Kent Shaw. The US needs Turkey to "further its attemped domination of the middle east," including, as a corollary effort, Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. Making the world safe for genocide, on the land, on the sea, in the air.
Manifest destiny includes many such episodes. Wounded Knee represents one such episode. Custer's demise at the Battle of Little Bighorn was just a hiccup in the sequence. It is interesting that Hurt Locker wiped out Avitar in the run for oscars. We all have the desire to save our selves by destroying others.
Ray Berthiaume
Wasn't there a bigwig in Iran who claimed Hitler never exterminated 6 million Jews? So Obama is now in his camp?
Until the President of the United States of America can stand up in Congress and, in front of the world, apologize for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the tribes inhabiting the North American continent by the Europeans as they created a nation from the "wilderness",
nothing is going to work.
Nothing.
None of the rest of the nonsense that is underway means anything because it will all disappear quickly once it is done.
Then peace will be possible because the underlying lie will have been put to rest.
To be fair, for any other US president, this would be hypocricy,....for Obama, this is simply the continuation of the "don't look back" policy.
In the US application of the Doctrine of Discovery is as recent as 2005. In 2009 the Episcopal Church and the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Sociarty of Friends (Quakers) repudiated it.
Its a start. Reading one or two of the ancient documents leading to the 1847 Macintosh case in the US is worth knowing about.
http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/
Thinking about going to Brazil for the Olympics?
On Friday 140 organizations sent a letter to president Lula of Brazil calling for a halt to the mega dam being "shoved down the throat"of the peoples of Xingu. Ethnocide for the sake of dam that will hardly be able to produce power during the dry season, elimination of peoples not only from process, but being counted, no accountability ....
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/5160
Then there are the Guarani Kaiowá being murdered, concentrated in small camps so that their land can be used for sugar cane for ethanol, slave labor; cattle (Brazilian JBS freezer slaughterhouse just bought US Smithfield and Pligrims Pride -boycott these producers)
Of course the 'situation has changed' since the candidates pledged to recognize the Armenian genocide: theya re president & sedretary of state & the word genocide belongs exclusively to one specific application during WWII, and to use it anywhere else will reap the charge of anti-semitism because that would suggest some equivalence between imperial slaughters & Zion exercises a permanent veto on such language . . . .
This president we've got is so bad I can't even keep up with the list of failures.
Obama, slow down, would ya?
Get a few right. My wrist are getting tired compiling your abysmal policies.
Remember, it is not genocide, only collateral damage...unless THEY are doing it to YOU!
Pass the barf bag.
Whoa - hold your horses.
The reason Turkey is p------about the genocide is that the story has yet to be told.
Genocide is only the the Armenian side of the coin. And even some Armenians do not buy the genocide charge - especially some with relatives who lived there at the time. There is much evidence that the Armenians slaughtered Turkish women & children while their menfolks were off fighting.
etc, etc, etc - the whole situation was murky at best. Starvation ruled - the Turkish soldiers were just as beset by lack of food as the Armenians.
There's a little too much 'he said, she said' for the US to be taking sides.
I remember William Saroyan being shunned by his community for traveling to Turkey and then mentioning he met Armenians there who refuted the genocide by Turkey. They all mentione dthe terrible times and atrocities - but ALL sides were guilty - not just the Turks.
Saroyan was forced to recant what he felt was the truth in order to make a living and return home as he related to my father at the time.