…are almost uniformly idiotic. Case in point is the non-binding House resolution recognizing the Ottoman-era massacres of Armenians as genocide. As Deniz Ozemir notes at Passport, Turkey has history that it needs to confront, but for the House of Representatives to play politics with history is not the way to get Turkey to do so. This WaPo editorial rightly calls the resolution that the Foreign Affairs Committee passed by a vote of 27-21 “worse than irrelevant” (via abu muqawama). If only it were simply the type of hollow gesture at which members of Congress so greatly excel at making…
Turkey is very pissed, is well-positioned to put the hurt to US interests over the vote, and as Joshua Kucera reports at EurasiaNet, determined to compel the US to do something to calm its anger.
“The only remedy of yesterday’s mistake is concrete cooperation in the fight against the PKK,” said Egemen Bagis, an MP and foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “I don’t know of any other option that can somehow soften the hearts of 72 million Turks.”
“Some members of the US Congress yesterday wanted to play hardball,” he continued. “I can assure you that Turkey can play hardball. Our experience of having a state is 1,000 years old. The ball is in your court, and you have to show us that Turkey matters. Show us on the PKK, show us on bringing this to the floor or not bringing this to the floor, or other issues.”
I hope the mess they’ve cause is worth the votes and campaign donations in the 2008 elections…
Elsewhere: Curzon notes that this kind of behavior is becoming a pattern for this Congress in his post on the subject.
{ 36 comments }
Turkey will do nothing to hurt its own interests and overreacting will definitely hurt its interests. Turkey needs the USA at least as much as the USA needs Turkey but its nice to see all the realpolitikers getting their nickers in a knot.
Richard:
Couldn’t agree with you more. Turkey will definitely toe the line. Democrats in the House should feel completely free to pursue whatever issue that bring in more donations. The crucial issue is that Hillary and Nancy win back the country in 2008. The rest is irrelevant.
In fact, the whole issue should be transferred to the International Court of Justice, you know, that European outfit. Mr. Gul, or whatever his name is, should be in the dock that used to house Mr. Milosevic. Moreover, the UN should impose sanctions on Turkey until that country makes reparation payments to every country it has every occupied: all former Yugloslav states, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine (Turks used to rule Crimea), Azerbaijan (Azeris are poor Iranians who’ve been forcefully assimilated and have no memory of it), Russia (Turks, known at that time as Pechenegs, invaded Russia many times ), the Caspian Sea (on the way from the Orkhon Valley, Turks polluted the pristine waters there by letting their horses wade in). But more importantly, Turks should be held accountable for the massacre at Gallipoli when they slaughtered 44,092 French, British, Australian, New Zealand and Indian men. And then they had the galls to put up a monument that said this:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=363687681&size=o
This is one rare case where we should follow Europe’s example: push those Turks into the same group as fundamentalist Arabs, Pakistanis and their pupils (a.k.a. Taliban). The world will be much easier to comprehend as a result.
Last but not least: Turkey should set up special courses in Kosovo to help locals unlearn Turkish: Wikipedia says it’s almost the lingua franca there.
The timing here is really amazing. But still, out of those 72 million “Turkish” hearts to be softened now, over 10 million are rather Kurdish I believe…
In other words, while it is of course relevant how sensibly a country confronts its past, some more important questions here could be how the U.S. “confronts” the present (Congress arguably failed to do that), as well as how Turkey “confronts” the near future.
You know, I agree that this resolution is pointless and I have plenty of beefs with the Armenian point of view on this, but I think it’s also shameful for Turkey to try to push us around, threatening a long-term strategic relationship because of a non-binding resolution. There’s something very thuggish and ugly about their refusal to own up to what happened, and to force the US to go along with that is indeed not a way a friend should act. So it’s really rich for the Turks to accuse the US of playing hardball.
Of course this resolution was introduced and pushed by a few congresspeople with big Armenian districts, but it was also admirable — a word rarely used to refer to members of Congress — that many of them who stood to gain nothing politically said they had to stand up for what they saw as the truth.
I, personally, think the Turks are bluffing, but I suspect we’ll never find out because the US will throw in some sort of bone to Turkey to allow Ankara to save face when this resolution passes.
I agree that Turkey is overreacting, but I don’t find the overreaction the least bit unpredictable or beyond what one would expect were other nations (Russia, China, or the US, for example) the target of a similar resolution elsewhere.
I find the situation all-around shameful. Perhaps it is my deep cynicism, but I am more inclined to believe that the members of Congress who voted for the resolution who don’t represent large numbers of Armenians did so as a favor to those representing such districts or because they don’t really feel that they have anything to lose by doing so. I think that the Turkish reaction is irresponsible, short-sighted, and that it reveals deep insecurities.
I think you’re right that we’ll ultimately not see a huge deal of shakeout from Turkey over this. The administration will offer something to calm them down. What bothers me though is that the situation was entirely avoidable and created by folks who don’t have to take any responsibility for cleaning up the mess they’ve made.
Nathan, welcome to politics.
Josh, “when this resolution” passes should be “if this resolution passes”. The last time it got this far was in 2000 when President Clinton called Dennis Hastert, the Republican House Leader who had promised to bring it to a vote, minutes before the vote was to be called and convinced him to drop it from the voting list in the ineterests of “national security”. This time the pressure will be even greater although Nancy Pelosi has been firm so far.
Interestingly, similar resolutions were passed by the House in 1975 and 1984.
Hrant Dink’s son, Arat, and another colleague at AGOS, the newspaper founded by his father, were convicted yesterday of “Insulting Turkishness” under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code for reprinting statements Hrant Dink had made concerning the genocide of the Armenians. The pair received one year suspended sentences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7040171.stm
I’m well aware of how politics works, Richard. That doesn’t mean that the situation isn’t profoundly stupid.
Nathan, I know I’m late but I have to throw my hat in here. Just because we all think Turkey is behaving like a petulant child and inflating its own power (because they’ve never done that before) doesn’t mean we didn’t know they would. The Turkish government is almost freakishly paranoid about the idea of “Turkishness,” which is a big reason why there is so much resistance to the Armenian genocide label — Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder, cannot be impugned.
This reaction was easily predicted, if nothing else because the Turkish government had been telegraphing it for months. Contra what a commenter said, alienating Turkey, with the intention of “lumping them together” with the rest of the Middle East is exactly what we don’t want to do. Unlike most other countries in the region (Lebanon and Israel excepted), Turkey has a vibrant and vocal debate about the proper role of Islam within a modern society. That is a debate that is important to have, and it’s healthy to keep them open to debate.
Intentionally antagonizing one of our more important partners in the war on al-Qaeda is not smart — especially when they’re already on the verge of invading Iraq to get at the Kurdish rebels stupidly launching attacks across the border.
For Congress’ part, it’s dumb all around. If Pelosi is smart, she will let the issue die in committee, and Turkey will send its ambassador back, and everyone will go back to pretending we don’t disagree on the matter.
I’m sorry. I was sure Jessica Luong was being sarcastic. Who would ever make such a radical political decision just because it ‘would make the world easier to comprehend.’ That’s akin to saying, “Kill them all! God will know his own.” That certainly simplifies things.
I will say that the Ottoman Empire was responsible for terrible things. However, I don’t agree that one country should be held responsible for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers [and, in this case, great-grandfathers]. I felt that similarly about the Slave Reparation acts. Civil Rights – that’s the way to fix the problem. Not simply saying “I’m Sorry” and giving money.
This is the worst kind of American politics. It is not our role in this world to pass judgment on other countries. And yet we seem to think that’s the case. Let’s NOT follow Europe down this road. We are living in a very conspicuous glass house, and here we are looking for rocks. It’s a world of glass houses.
That’s the point.
And what does it mean to “own up” to something like a genocide? My belief is that there is no “owning up,” nothing that will be equal to the heinous acts. Holocaust museums do not make anyone think Germany is great place for Jews. The North, for all the fact that it’s where Slaves were running to, is hardly a great place to be black in America.
Making the Turkish government say that they are someone responsible for the actions of the Empire that Came before. Ataturk did not pull any triggers or set measures that are in any way comparable to Hitler or Stalin. Even if it seems the Turks over-idolize Ataturk, I’m inclined to let them. How many other Islamic nation-states and Empires have had such luck? The art proves the artist. Stalin and the like did not fare as well.
SO – to summarize:
Congress — stupidly pointing fingers at the behest of the Californian Armenian enclaves.
Turkey — on equal standing with Russia, America, China, and the like when it comes to genocides.
Ataturk — not a part of this topic. Dude was NOT Ottoman other than nominally. Part of the military that to this day keeps Turkey a secular government.
I’m no Turkish scholar, mind you. But I don’t think we get anywhere by helping an expatriate enclave point fingers across the Atlantic. My own experience tells me that Armenians now hate Turks far more than the Turks reciprocate, and if the tables were turned, dead Turks would be the problem. And I can’t abide racial hatred of any kind. It would be different if I were in grief, or eye-witness to genocide. But grief is not good for reason and logic, our better minds.
That’s a long ramble. I think that Turkey isn’t going to do anything without first having some kind of rapport with Armenia. You can’t apologize to someone that hates you, even when they hate you because you won’t apologize. That seems pretty basic to me. Armenia is in a bad situation, the Armenians abroad are in a bad situation, and being able to blame it all on Turkey helps them avoid fixing it. Similar to way people act themselves in those kinds of situation.
So, in regard to this, “Better to Light a Candle than curse the Darkness.” I would rather applaud future Armenian/Turkish accord then start by holding them accountable for the present situations. I do not hold myself accountable for the poverty of black people in America just because I am white. And if that makes me callous and racist, I disagree.
That being said, Genocide is just a terrible thing to talk about, and its emotional weight is great and terrible. It’s almost impossible not to toe the line and say what you feel, whether or not your opinion is educated, viable, or logical. I am saying this both as a disclaimer and saying that others should not expect the best of each other when topics like this come around. The fact is, judging by last names here, we’re not Armenian. I have some Armenian friends. It’s for them to worry about. My basic point is that there is nothing for us to say – especially since I don’t think these actions will force Turkey to admit to much.
The worst thing would be if Turkey actually DID do something about this. Then the US Congress will stop doing its job altogether [making and fixing policy] and consider it has the power and RIGHT to judge our international partners and would-be allies.
Josh: those members of Congress who voted for the resolution do stand to gain. They are doing a favor; favors are reciprocated. That’s how politics work, not just in Congress and not just in the US.
Joshua: You are right the Turkish government is almost freakishly paranoid about the idea of “Turkishness.” If we look closely at the context, it becomes clear why. Turkishness is a concept, forcefully imposed on the country by the dictator and his band of reformers. As anything artificial, it’s shaky and fragile. Sounds bad. But look at the purpose. Under the Ottoman Empire, the identity was religion-based: you were either a Muslim or not. Everything else was secondary. Kind of similar to the Iraqis today: they see themselves primarily as Sunni or Shia. It was a very moderate regime: the Ottoman Empire offered sanctuary to the Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492. Still, Ataturk would have none of it, he wanted a truly secular state. He had to replace that religion-based identity with a secular one. There was none, so he created this artificial construct. It enabled the fairly liberal, democratic Turkey that exists today. Sure, the political system has tons of shortcomings. But compare it with another country that made the opposite choice: Pakistan. Dictators there replaced the Indian identity with an equally artificial concept of the Pakistani. But theirs is based on religion. Both – Turkishness and Pakistani – are artificial and bad, but we all know which one we prefer.
The struggle in Turkey is far from over. In fact, the fight has intensified of late and the religious politicians have been gaining ground. That’s why the “freakish reaction” on the part of the Turkish government: Turkishness is one of the pillars of their secularism and it’s a shaky pillar.
What is mind boggling is that both Europe and the United States seem hellbent on undermining their allies within the Turkish society. Turkey may be unlikely to side with the crazies in Arab countries and Pakistan. But Ankara could align itself closer with Russia, China, Iran, the immortal Fidel and the ever energetic Hugo. That’d be a net loss for everyone on this planet. Isn’t that obvious?
Here’s a question to everyone: do you think the Congress should call on Armenia to stop enabling Russia’s imperialist designs in the Caucausus?
Here’s some context to that question:
“Faced with the weakening of its positions in pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan, Moscow is thus trying to remain a key regional player by strengthening its ties in Armenia, its sole Caucasian ally.”
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp060902.shtml
and:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/3/E5DD0364-B60C-4868-991C-8BA1E7AD2134.html
As usual Jon Stewart sums it all up nicely on the Daily Show (thanks to jewcy.com):
http://jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/daily_show_bush_and_armenian_genocide
Richard: I’m always impressed with Jon Stewart’s ability to present the many facets of a story and package it in humor and satire – all within a minute or two.
The Los Angeles Times has an informative piece. It’s a bit out of date but on the subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-pope23jan23,0,7434277.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
By now, probably, everyone is dreading to see another post under my name. OK, I’ll make this the last one.
It looks like there is a range of opinions on the issue among the Armenians:
From a Georgetown University newspaper:
Georgetown’s Woodstock Theological Center postponed a speech by Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafyan of the Armenian Church in Turkey because of security concerns, according to one of the event’s co-sponsors.
“The Patriarch got messages from the Armenian Diaspora that there would be some protests at the school, and he informed me about that, and he was scared a little bit about this,” said Dr. H. Ali Yurtsever, the president of the Rumi Forum, an organization that co-hosted the speech.
Mutafyan’s scheduled lecture was controversial because he does not believe Turkey committed genocide against Armenians in World War I, according to Yurtsever, who shares Mutafyan’s opinion.
According to Yurtsever, the Patriarch has received death threats in Turkey because of his views. While he didn’t receive any while in the United States, “Since they [Armenians] are everywhere, he is scared,” he said.
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-09-27/news/turkish-speech-canceled
Mutafyan’s position is a very delicate one as his primary responsibility is to the 70,000 Armenians left in Turkey. He does not hesitate to use the words annihilation or Great Catastrophe (Armenian – Medz Yegehrn) to describe the destruction of the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire by the Young Turks. The word genocide of course is proscribed in Turkey.
He faces huge pressure in Turkey and is under constant police protection because of death threats by nationalist Turks.
Where there is a difference of opinion with other Armenian communities is in the approach to genocide recognition. Mutafyan thinks that it is best to encourage the development of Turkish civil society, democracy and liberal values, and the adhesion to the EU. In this way, he believes Turks will come to terms with their history and Turkish-Armenians will not be scapegoated.
Mutafyan joined Hrant Dink in this approach. Dink was against parliamentary resolutions and genocide-denial laws although he was quite brave in using the word genocide in Turkey. He paid the ultimate price for this and the lesson has not been lost on the Armenians of Turkey.
Ms. Luong, the Armenian Genocide happened. There is no “range of Armenian opinion” on this issue for the same reason that there is no range of opinion about the importance of oxygen.
Taking as an example the differing opinion of one man and concluding from it that there is a “range of opinion” constitutes a false generalization, a fallacy most elementary school students are able to spot.
In fact, it is quite obvious why the the Patriarch would deny the Armenian Holocaust: He lives in Turkey. He is concerned for the lives of his flock and his own life. Hrant Dink was shot for daring to mention the Armenian Genocide just this January, and he was just a journalist. How much more hatred do you think it would inspire if the Patriarch of Armenians in Turkey flatly acknowledged that the Armenian Holocaust did indeed take place? They would tear him limb from limb.
But its not only that the Patriarch knows that acknowledging the Holocaust would put his life and the lives of Armenians in Turkey in serious danger. To boot, the very manner of the election of the Patriarch ensures that no one becomes the Patriarch who would acknowledge the Holocaust, because the Armenian Patriarch of Turkey has to be approved by the government of Turkey.
So, no, there is no range of opinions on the reality of the Armenian genocide, not among Armenians, nor among scholars, nor, for that matter, most of the informed population of planet earth outside of Turkey and, to an extent, even inside Turkey.
Why you would call the reality of the Armenian Genocide into question by claiming that the opinion of one man—in a highly precarious position and whose election is overseen by the Turkish government—constitutes a “range of opinions” about the reality of the Genocide among Armenians is beyond me.
To claim that there is a range of opinions among Armenians, themselves, about the Genocide is to call its ever having taken place into question. Ms. Luong, is that what you are trying to do here?
But that is not the only ill-informed point you make. You ask: “Here’s a question to everyone: do you think the Congress should call on Armenia to stop enabling Russia’s imperialist designs in the Caucausus?”
Ms. Luong, do you think a country with a population of 3 million, scant natural resources, with only two transportation routes in and out and eastern and western borders closed is in any position to tell a former superpower what it can and cannot do? Competent analysts know that a country’s energy sources are one of the most important things to take into consideration when forming an opinion about that country. Had you looked into this matter with regard to Armenia, you would have found out that even cars in Armenia run on natural gas and that this natural gas is provided by Russia and is partly subsidized.
Your question, however, paints Armenians as enablers of Russian Imperialism. According to this logic, if person A puts the proverbial gun to person B’s temple and demands money from him, person B’s acquiescence would constitute his “enabling” crime. How do you come to such brilliant conclusions?
Finally, to add yet another piece of evidence to my contention that I have been developing here, that Ms. Luong has a rather biased and quite possibly racist angle on the Armenian issue, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the author of the article that Ms. Luong links to and calls “dated” yet “informative,” Hugh Pope.
The article is called “Armenia Haunts the Turks Again,” and it is about the murder of Hrant Dink. You will notice that even though Hrant Dink, an Armenian, was shot by a Turk, its the Armenians doing the haunting and the Turks in the position of the haunted. Poor Turks.
In fact, this “informative” article received so many letters by readers outraged by its subtle, though not explicit, denial of the genocide, that the LA Times had to write an explanation of their editorial policy and justify itself: http://tinyurl.com/yqcq5b
In another Hugh Pope original, this time for the WSJ, the author was charged by his interviewee, the Foreign Minister of Armenia, of having twisted his words to make them mean something that he had not said. You’ll find that letter here:
http://tinyurl.com/yu8ep3
And here’s an article that appeared in the Greek News detailing all of the misrepresentations of history that were published in another of Pope’s WSJ articles. It’s called “Hugh Pope: Apologist for Turkey”:
http://tinyurl.com/2tn4up
Hence, for Ms. Luong to call the article that she links to “informative” is a thorough misrepresentation; it is, a more accurately, a very—controversial—article. To pass a controversial article off as an “informative” one is to misinform. Is that what you wanted to do, Ms. Luong?
Armen, this is not a blog of people who are blind and deaf to the horrors the Armenian people have faced. Jessica, Nathan, Joshua, Richard, myself — I think we’re just not out to demonize the Turks, just as we don’t idolize the Armenian people. The suffering that people endure, while unjust and disgusting, does not legitimize their own nationalist agendas or nominate them for sainthood. In the same way, I don’t feel that the suffering of the Jewish people in Europe automatically entitles them to a piece of land previously owned and used by another people, especially when that people were not responsible for that specific period of Holocaust.
The fact is that Holocausts are not new. Systematic killing and torture are only updated by technology. Whether you’re spreading small-box blankets or building mountains of skulls in Central Asia, every part of the world with significant populations has seen the spectre of demonic human treatment rise up from time to time.
My basic point is simple: It’s a bigger logical fallacy to speak of “people” and “races” [like Turks and Armenians] as being unified wholes with homogeneous opinions and beliefs than any false generalization Jessica was responsible for. I have heard Armenians and Turks put forward a lot of debate on the topic. There isn’t quite as much agreement on who was where when to adequately place blame, in my opinion. Just yesterday I read a piece demonizing Enver Pasha for his role in the Armenian Genocide, and stating that his subsequent death in Central Asia under the hands of the Red Army was somehow a ‘hit’ established by Armenians. It even made it onto Wikipedia, where I deleted it since it named no source.
I’m not saying Armenians didn’t die. I’m just saying that your level of conviction does not match the information available, which I totally understand. If you are Armenian as your name implies, understand that as emotionally involved as you are, we are just as emotionally un-involved, and have to go off the facts that we can read and substantiate.
As for small countries telling Russia to do, I don’t know. Georgia certainly tries. The Baltic states seem to have made pretty clean cuts. Uzbekistan certainly doesn’t toe the line the way it used to. And consider Cuba and the US – they live in the shadow of the States, but it hasn’t stopped them from thumbing their own nose at the States at the appropriate times.
In short, I don’t like the emotional tone that we’re heading to. It shows more aplomb and intelligence to assault one’s argument, and not their reasoning ability and motives. Jessica doesn’t want to misinform any more than you do. We each do what we can with what we have in front of us.
Hmmm. I’m not so quick on my feet when something this emotionally difficult comes through.
One more go. Here’s what I think.
Armenian Genocide: Happened.
What can we do about in the US: Nothing we should do. How about apologizing for Amerindian genocide first? Making decisions about what we “officially” believe is a waste of our time. And that’s my opinion.
Michael said: “Jessica, Nathan, Joshua, Richard, myself — I think we’re just not out to demonize the Turks, just as we don’t idolize the Armenian people.”
Please show me where I referred to anything you, Nathan, Joshua, or Richard said. I am at a loss for an explanation as to why you mention the four of you in response to a post that had nothing to do with you.
I referred quite specifically to Jessica, only, and I challenged three specific points of hers:
1. That there is a range of opinions among Armenians about whether the Armenian Holocaust occurred, based on the statements of one Armenian. I disproved this by showing that it was a) based on a fallacious generalization, and b) generalization was based, in the first instance, on the opinion of a man who is not in a position to express his mind freely and who, indeed, was screened for his position to begin with.
I’ll add to this point that if all Americans believe that oxygen is necessary for human life, the source of the consensus is not some national cultural belief but scientific fact, the same way that the Armenian Holocaust is an established fact: that is the reason why there is no “range of opinion” on the topic. Again, clearly, I can observe the prevalence of an idea among a group of people and not be subject to the critique that I have essentialized them because that idea could very well be based on simple fact.
You are confusing what a group knows as a fact with what a group conventionally agrees upon as a fact, then criticizing me for not knowing the difference and essentializing. If you want a better example of the act of essentializing, then I recommend taking a closer look at your presumption that since I am arguing for the verity of the Armenian Holocaust, I must be an Armenian nationalist.
2. That the Armenians “enable” Russian Imperialism. The proof against this notion was quite straightforward, so I won’t repeat it. I will add, however, that, with regard to Georgia, the country has gone through a color revolution (and everything that implies), and Russia did, indeed, cut-off energy exports to the country.
3. That the article by Hugh Pope was “informative.” My contention was that the article was actually mis-informative and I sighted three sources that clearly showed this: An LA Times article justifying their decision to run Hugh Pope’s article; a letter from the Foreign Minister of Armenia officially declaring his feeling that Pope had manipulated his words; and a Greek News article detailed Pope’s historical inaccuracies.
Because all three of Ms. Luong’s points mis-fire in the same direction, as it were, I drew the conclusion that she is biased, or worse, racist.
I hardly think that you can look at the points that I’ve made and the evidence I’ve produced to back them as arguments that are the result of “emotional conviction.” On the contrary, I think their logical and factual bases are quite solid and quite evident.
If you disagree, please do the same and provide a logical and factual basis for your contention.
And, also, you might want to know that I am not at all feeling emotional; as a matter of fact, I am feeling as cool as an Armenian cucumber.
Michael said: “Armenian Genocide: Happened.
What can we do about in the US: Nothing we should do. How about apologizing for Amerindian genocide first? Making decisions about what we “officially” believe is a waste of our time. And that’s my opinion.”
This isn’t simply making decisions about what we officially believe, as if it were for the sake itself alone. This is about the US protecting its citizens.
It is the duty of every nation to protect its citizens. Some of the citizens of the US, the Armenians, were subjected to a brutal genocide. Simply recognizing that the genocide occurred goes a long way in doing this.
And, mind you, Armenians are not asking for military support in going to bomb eastern Turkey, conquer the land, and set-up a government there. What they are asking for is a simple recognition. As citizens of the US, they are—legally—entitled to ask for this; and US lawmakers, for their part, do not waste their time when they listen to the citizens. That’s how I look at it.
Richard: I think the approach favored by Mutafyan and late Hrant Dink is constructive. Thanks for sharing.
Armen: You are attempting to distort my words. Nowhere did I deny the historical truth: the deaths and suffering of the Armenians in 1915 is a historical fact that even Turkey accepts. It would be absurd to deny that. The issue is whether it can be characterized as genocide. On that I’m fully with the US government position as articulated by Mr. Bush the other day. (Never thought I’d support the old man this much.)
I’ve cited two articles, both from US newspapers. You additionally cited the Wall Street Journal. I wouldn’t trust Turkish, Russian, Armenian, Eastern European and even Spanish and Italian press on most issues. I would trust the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal on most issues, though. But you don’t want to even consider them seriously. You don’t mean to say the US media is inherently anti-Armenian?
You are right that Armenia is isolated. Could it be due to its participation in the Nagorno-Karabakh war? You can find what the world thinks of that war in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh#Current_situation
I’m not taking sides here. But do you agree it’s unsurprising that a country finds itself in isolation if it goes to war with one neighbor and has an unsettled, deeply emotional issue with the other?
Georgia also suffered under the Ottoman Empire: at some point its population was reduced to 250,000. Georgia was, in fact, liberated with the help of the Russians. Yet, today Georgia is on very good terms with both former enemies and made a clean break with Russia. Simply because that benefits the Georgian people. Do you think a similar path acceptable to Armenia?
Do you think Russia is a good influence in the Caucasus today? Do you agree that it pursues the divide-and-conquer policy by supporting separatist movements across the region. Furthermore, do you agree that Armenia is Russia’s sole ally in the region?
Also, Russia was in violation of CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) treaty with the amount of the military hardware it stationed on its bases in Georgia. Now, under pressure, it withdrew from those bases. But the hardware has been transferred to a Russian base in Armenia; thus Russia still maintains more weaponry than it’s allowed under CFE. Armenia allowed that to happen. How’s that not enabling? These facts are all in those Radio Liberty and Eurasianet.org reports. Should we now dismiss what Radio Liberty says, too?
Armen, before you make further accusations, here’s a full disclosure: I’m not Turkish, have no Turkish friends or relatives, never been to that country. Same regarding the Azeris. Moreover, I never had positive or negative experiences with Armenians. I may have met some but I wouldn’t know how to tell they are Armenians.
As for the range of opinions, read the BBC forum on the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7040229.stm
I’m afraid you will dismiss that as having been written entirely by Turks masquerading as Armenians.
Richard and Armen: Why wouldn’t Mutafyan simply defect to the West and reveal the truth about Turkish oppression of the Armenians today? I’m not being sarcastic. That has happened before. Many dissidents from behind the Iron Curtain and Cuba have done that. His church, as an institution, wouldn’t collapse without him. But he could become a Dalai Lama-like figure: educating the world about injustices taking place at home?
Michael: Did you mean “small-pox” blankets? Was that in reference to events not in Central Asia but elsewhere?
The House Foreign Relations Committee vote 27/21 on H. R. 106, acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, is a giant step forward for a more perfect democracy here in the United States of America and in the context of our image in the world both for our allies and for our adversaries.
This is the greatest gesture of love and respect to the Turkish people. Our NATO brother-in-arms should know that, just as David Kaczynski brought his brother Theodore John Kaczynski (The Unabomber) to justice, America will not stand idle for deniers of Genocide.
It is a shame that the present administration still opposes this important human rights achievement. It is a disgrace that there are still people amongst us who see no harm in denying a crime for profit.
This administration and its supporters marched into the White House as the defenders of the faith and the family values, they turned up to be a pack of wolves ready to sell America’s honor to criminals.
Sincerely,
Kevork Kalayjian
Sorry, yeah. I meant small-pox blankets, as a reference to one of the means of killing “native savages” from the Americas. Of course, it’s not something that we can blame entirely on the US. Killing the Amerindians off was something many Europeans assumed wasn’t happening, so much as Europeans were merely putting the land to better use and moving the native population to reservations if they refused to become civilized. It’s silly to think that the entire US population of those times was culpable, just as it would be strange to blame all Turks during the first World War for what happened in Armenia.
Jessica, I think you make very strong points on this matter. I’m inclined to believe and respect the journalistic integrity of both the BBC and RFL. I’d be curious to hear what al-Jazeera or other foreign news agencies might have to say on this topic.
Jessica you raise an interesting point about the Armenian Church in Turkey. Patriarch Mutafyan undoubtedly is devoted to his community and will remain with it in Turkey trying to guide and protect it, as did Hrant Dink (while people like Orhan Pamuk left).
However what is not understood is that Turkey closed all theological seminaries, for all religions, in 1969. While Muslim institutions have reopened, Greek and Armenian seminaries have not been allowed to. Secondly, Armenian (this applies to Greeks too) priests from elsewhere are not allowed to minister in Turkey. Finally, Turkish Armenians going abroad to study have not necessarily been allowed to return.
Consequently there is a shortage of Armenian priests in Turkey. Mutafyan, who is the head of the Church in Turkey, leaving would be a devastating blow for the community.
Here is an interesting study by a German academic, Tessa Hoffman, on the situation of the Armenian community of Turkey:
http://www.armenian.ch/asa/Docs/faae02.pdf
Also there are an undetermined number of ‘ Hidden Armenians’ in Turkey i.e. people who do not wish to declare that they are Armenian and are outwardly living as Turks or Kurds. Here is a fascinating French television report on the subject:
http://video.france24.com.edgestreams.net/WB%20EN%20RPTRS%20TURKEY%200427_400.wmv
Kevork, how does passage of a non-binding resolution by a House committee improve US democracy in any way, shape, or form and what exactly does it achieve for human rights?
It simply states an opinion, and as such, is only a different flavor of something like a declaration that unicorns kick ass.
It’s merely a gesture to be followed by nothing the least bit substantive.
Nathan, you will start learning about human rights and take it into consideration in your dealings with other countries when you are working for the State Department.
Respecting human rights is the motherboard of democracy.
Kevork Kalayjian
Actually, Kevork, working for the State Department is not at the top of places I would go to learn about human rights. But that is beside the point. Neither Nathan, nor I, need to be told anything about the subject—even a cursory search through this blog would back that up.
Kevork, the fact that I am inclined to insist an answer to the questions I posed should, I hope, show that the State Department is not exactly at the top of places for which I am interested in working. I would also hope that my firm conviction that respect for human rights requires acts, not words and gestures, demonstrates the same thing.
Diplomacy, [was it Mark Twain who said it?] is the art of saying “Nice Doggie” while you look for a big stick. That’s the State Department’s role in this, I’m afraid.
Richard: Thanks for your comments. I’d think these kind of issues would draw attention of the EU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and, as a result, be covered in the media – something I don’t recall seeing. Let me know if I’ve simply missed it.
State Dept.’s report paints a picture more mixed than your description.
“The authorities monitor the activities of Eastern Orthodox churches but do not interfere with their activities. While the Government does not recognize the ecumenical nature of the Greek Orthodox patriarch, it acknowledges him as head of the Turkish Greek Orthodox community and does not interfere with his travels or other ecumenical activities. The Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul continues to seek to reopen the Halki seminary on the island of Heybeli in the Sea of Marmara. The seminary has been closed since 1971, when the State nationalized all private institutions of higher learning. Under existing restrictions, including a citizenship requirement, religious communities largely remain unable to train new clergy in the country for eventual leadership. Coreligionists from outside the country have been permitted to assume leadership positions.”
Still, if these issues exist, both Greeks and Armenians should take them to int’l bodies; and the liberal part of the Turkish elite should welcome that pressure: it’s good for their democracy. I’m surprised that apparently hasn’t happened.
Michael: Thank you for clarification. While AJE may not be the media monster it’s often presented, they can be openly biased. You can see it in this clip of their coverage of Japanese-Chinese defense spending. That’s one area where, you would think, they could easily afford to be balanced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyFw_8w-G4
Jessica,
You might be interested in historian Niall Fergusons’s opinion piece in the LA Times this morning:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson15oct15,0,2244478.column?coll=la-opinion-center
Ferguson’s conclusion as a historian having reviewed the evidence including the archives of Ottoman ally Austria-Hungary is that it was a genocide. He is however against Resolution H.R. 106:
“Armenian males of military age were rounded up and shot. Women and children were herded onto trains, driven into the desert and left to die. The number of Armenians who were killed or died prematurely may have exceeded 1 million, a huge proportion of a prewar population that numbered, at the very most, 2.4 million, but was probably closer to 1.8 million. With good reason, the American consul in Izmir declared that the fate of the Armenians “surpasse[d] in deliberate . . . horror and in extent anything that has hitherto happened in the history of the world.”
It is absurd, then, that Turkish politicians and some academics (not all of them Turks) insist that the issue is somehow open to debate, though there is certainly room for more research to be done in the Turkish archives. And it is deplorable that writers in Turkey can still be prosecuted for describing the fate of the Armenians as genocide.
Yet I remain far from convinced that anything has been gained by last week’s resolution. Indeed, something may well have been lost.”
His recent book “The War of the World” is well worth reading by the way.
Richard: Thanks for sharing that Op-Ed piece. Niall Fergusons views reflect the complexity of the issue. The Economist has a very thorough article on the subject this week:
http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9987685
Jessica thanks for the link to the piece in The Economist.
For another approach from an Armenian-American see ‘Armenians are Hot’ in the American Spectator:
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12167
Bush OK’s Another Genocide by Opposing Armenian Genocide Resolution
The last time a human rights issue created so much soul searching in America was probably September 22, 1862, when Abraham Lincoln signed a presidential decree for the emancipation of the slaves.
The House Foreign Relations Committee vote 27/21 on H. R. 106, acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, is the emancipation of the survivors of the victims of the genocide. This is a giant step forward for more reverence to human dignity here in the United States of America and in the context of our image in the world both for our allies and for our adversaries.
This resolution is the greatest gesture of love and respect to the Turkish people. Those who advocate denial treat the Turkish people as inferior being not able to handle the truth. Our NATO brother-in-arms should know that, just as David Kaczynski brought his brother Theodore John Kaczynski (The Unabomber) to justice, America will not stand idle for deniers of Genocide.
By opposing this resolution, President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, (the axis of evil) , are giving the green light to the Turkish government to go ahead and commit another genocide against other minorities in Turkey.
All the necessary ingredients are there; there is the PKK which has been declared a terrorist organization; the Kurdish minority living in Turkey could easily be accused of supporting the PKK, George Bush, just like Hitler, has given his blessings to the Turkish generals, by virtually saying: who after all remembers the Armenians?
Opponents of this human rights issue are bigots and racists who do not think that the Turkish people have the common sense and the decency to be treated as civilized human beings. Instead, these deniers are treating the Turks as if they are the ‘Barbarian of the Middle East’ who cannot be expected to behave like people living in Western democracies.
Hence, while we do not deny the Holocaust because we have bases and enlisted personnel in Germany, these people make us believe that we should treat the Turks as sub-human barbarians and let their governments deny a crime so that we can use their bases. What’s next? The 9/11 attacks never happened? Or, was it a civil war?
While other countries are criticized, sanctioned, and attacked when they conquer a neighboring country, according to the US State Department it is OK for the Turkish governments to attack and conquer half of Cyprus. Why? Because, we have to appease our ‘Barbarian Friends’ so that we can keep our bases in their country.
It is a shame that the present administration still opposes this important human rights achievement. It is a disgrace that there are still people amongst us who see no harm in denying a crime for profit.
This administration and its supporters marched into the White House as the defenders of the faith and the family values, they turned up to be a pack of wolves ready to sell America’s honor.
I am proud that my representative, Congressman Eliot Engel, voted for this resolution.
I urge you to make sure that H. R. comes to the House floor and that your representative votes for it!
Well, I also have something to say about the genocide, where it concernes our country the most.
First off, I want to say that I do not believe that a genocide occured.
There is no explainable reason why we would anhiliate the armenians on a genocidal scale.
Second, we are ready to carry this issue on the international court
where both countries will open their archives, and both of the counties historians will discuss the issue.
And, to article 301, in the turkish penalty law, I would say that it not just only refers to “genocide” or “turkishness”, it is the only thing that we have to use as a weapon against islamist, and terrorist propoganda.
And, if we would put that law down, I can assure you, the next day, people will get shot. They will. If someone would come up and speak loudly against my country in a way that is considered as rude, is the most unforgivable blemish for me. I can say, I could not hold myself back. This is not my view of freedom of speech.
The first day we abolish that law, more will come, because people bear such big grudges against us, all will come up and say things that we Turks dont like to hear. A person tried to lower the Turkish flag from the mast in Istanbul and was nearly killed. Another person was shouting slogans in favor of Apo and the PKK, he was lynched to death, before the police could come to rescue him. The Laz, who hate kurds, will take matters in their own hands. The circassians who are very loyal from the foundation of this country will arise. The Turks that have lived side by side with kurds will make moves that they would not do.
As to say, article 301 is necessery, because we would not stand for any speech that degrades our identities, or insults our founding fathers as the islamists like to do, they swear against Atatürk, they spit on our flag, they spit on us.
If they are allowed to speak, I dont know what could possibly happen. I’m not even sure of myself in this issue.
Hrant Dink was not murdered because he spoke for the genocide, he died because one of his phrases that he used in the newspaper of Agos was misunderstood, where he spoke of the poisonous blood of the Turks. He did not clearly meant to insult the turks, he was just using a metaphor or something, but clearly people misunderstood this, and also have taken matters in their own hands. If a misunderstood phrase can result to this, I dont know what literal words against us could cause.
So reconsider this.
Comments on this entry are closed.