Tseghaspanut’yun And Obama
This will have to be a brief post, but before I stop posting for the next couple of days I do want to say a few words about Obama and recognition of the Armenian genocide. Alex Massie has a good post on the matter, and a new LA Times story gives the usual reasons for the administration’s shifting position. I have written quite a lot on this question, and I remain in favor of the recognition resolution. However, as I mentioned in my first column for The Week, U.S.-Turkish relations are abysmally poor, and there is some slight chance that the new administration’s positions on Iraq withdrawal and entering into talks with Iran will create some opportunity to repair the damage of the last six or seven years.
Last year, there was no prospect of any such improvement, which made the timing of the resolution seem less important. The vociferous and dishonest lobbying by pro-Ankara forces remains infuriating, the appalling shilling for Turkish revisionism on the American right remains a mark of shame, and it continues to be outrageous that one of our allies dictates what symbolic resolutions our Congress can or cannot pass. On those points, I will make the same arguments that I made last year when the occasion arises.
However, there is now also a possibility that Ankara will be opening up the border with Armenia after almost twenty years, and as a mere otar I submit humbly that this is more important for Armenians today and for the Republic of Armenia. It may be time for Diasporan Armenians to heed the words of the murdered Hrant Dink, who urged the Diaspora to focus on building up the Republic of Armenia. Sadly, it was the very words he was using to urge Diasporan Armenians to focus on the present and future that were used against him and which an irresponsible Turkish nationalist media used to whip up a frenzy against him that resulted in his death. Out of respect for the work that Hrant Dink did, Armenians should seize the opportunity to improve Turkish-Armenian relations in the present. The Armenian community should certainly not give up on commemorating and recognizing the genocide, and there will be a time for Congress to do this, but both Armenia and America will be better served if recognition by Congress is delayed at least a year.
P.S. The same goes for any presidential declaration on the subject.
Update: To address the reported frustration of Rep. Schiff, who has been a tireless supporter of recognition, I would add a few more points. Yes, it is true that many opponents of the resolution in the past have made a similar, “Wait for a better time” argument, and I understand how precarious this argument is. After all, supporters of recognition have been stymied by making this sort of argument year after year, but I do think things have changed in a couple important ways. First, reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia seems more likely than it has at any time in the last decade, and for the first time in decades there is a President and a majority in Congress sympathetic to recognizing the genocide. I think it is slightly better to delay so that relations with Ankara can recover a point where genocide recognition would not end up being the last straw that severely damages the alliance.
And then again perhaps the United States should take no position on this question. We are already deeply ensnared in the Jewish/Muslim mudfight. Involvement in another will not help our position in this region.
But it’s not as if the answer to the question is really in doubt. It is disputed, but that is not the same thing. Ankara is willing to blackmail us as a way of ensuring that our government repeat the false version of history that they want to teach inside their country. If it is arguably Turkey’s business to engage in such revisionism, it ought to be our business, not theirs, what resolutions our own legislative branch can pass. Many other Western states with much better relations with Near Eastern states than we have already recognized the Armenian genocide years ago. Our government drags its feet on this because pro-Turkey and pro-Israel advocates bring enough pressure to bear along with Ankara’s threats to make Washington back down. It’s embarrassing and it ought to end. As a practical matter, I am willing to see the resolution delayed, but that’s all.
It is not the function of Congress to author an encyclopedia, or a global history. ‘Because it’s true’ does not demand a Congressional resolution. If every true statement requires such a resolution, Congress would have time for nothing else.
But it’s not as if the answer to the question is really in doubt. It is disputed, but that is not the same thing.
I’ve been puzzling over what this can mean. It seems to imply that those who disagree with you aren’t human, or in some way their doubts don’t ‘count’ as real doubts.
These sorts of resolutions have nothing to do with truth. It’s not as if legislators have time to research the underlying question and reach a considered judgment. If a legislature passes one it is because certain influences have prevailed. If many legislatures have done so, then we know these influences have prevailed many times. It tells us nothing about the underlying issue.
These resolutions are part of the epiphenomena of democracy. They do no harm beyond wasting a bit more of the taxpayers’ money. What good do they do?
David Tomlin makes my point better than I did. I see no point in Congress playing into the hands of any ethnic grievance lobby. The Irish, Jews, Armenians, and Greeks need to learn that becoming an American means turning your back on your tribe.
I also fail to see the point in a resolution regarding an event almost a century old. Surely the time to speak out about crimes is while they are going on, not after all the victims are beyond hope. Otherwise, why not a resolution condemning the Turkish sack of Byzantium?
Turkey and Armenia are Democracies of a sort. I doubt however that they see the passage of our meaningless congressional resolutions with the yawning disregard that we do. Their version of Democracy may be different than ours. They may see the actions of our legislature as a serious statement of national resolve instead of the what it is – meaningless posturing for the benefit of the locals.
“I’ve been puzzling over what this can mean. It seems to imply that those who disagree with you aren’t human, or in some way their doubts don’t ‘count’ as real doubts.”
It’s because nobody who has thoroughly researched the subject could honestly disagree. The Holocaust is disputed by a few, but whether it actually occurred is not in doubt. The same could be said of, well, most of history against the devotees of “New Chronology.”
It’s not as if someone sponsored this out of a spirit of idleness or the desire to be a busy-body. This reflects the legitimate desires of a significant number of Americans to commemorate and acknowledge a horrific crime against their ancestors, and in light of the suffering of Ottoman Christians of various confessions during this and earlier periods it is bizarre that people see this as solely being an Armenian issue.
“Otherwise, why not a resolution condemning the Turkish sack of Byzantium?”
Probably because no one disputes that the sack took place, and no one denies that it was brutal, and so far as I know no one blames the Byzantines for atrocities committed against them. There is an active campaign to deny that the Armenian genocide was what it was, and it involves blaming the Armenians for their own suffering or minimizing the losses.
” It seems to imply that those who disagree with you aren’t human, or in some way their doubts don’t ‘count’ as real doubts.”
That is ridiculous. Anyone who doubts that the Armenian genocide was a genocide either doesn’t know the subject, has been treated to heavy doses of propaganda or is in denial. People can continue to dispute things that are obviously true long after the issue has been settled by evidence.
AC:
It’s because nobody who has thoroughly researched the subject could honestly disagree.
Daniel Larison:
Anyone who doubts that the Armenian genocide was a genocide either doesn’t know the subject, has been treated to heavy doses of propaganda or is in denial.
Thank you. I understand the meaning now.
My point was that our Congress has no business in taking positions that have no practical value to the whole of the American people. It’s simply pointless for our Congress to pronounce on events of a century ago, perpetrated by another government. It is especially so when the resolution in question irritates an ally to no good purpose.
My view of conservative governance is that our Congress should confine itself to those matters that touch upon the wellbeing of American citizens. By inserting itself into cause celebes’s, Congress postures without any positive result.
You may be right that there are others besides Armenians who keep this issue alive. I gather that many Zionists want to deny the Armenian holocaust while keeping the memory of their own forever in our face. Well, that’s what you get when the congress gets into the business of posturing to the world. Hasn’t the endless catering to the Jews over Israel taught us a lesson? Theodore Roosevelt warned against the danger of hyphenated Americans with dual loyalties. Almost a century later we need to take heed.
Rereading your comment I feel it necessary to mention that i have little doubt that the Turks did great violence to the Armenians and other Christians. I’ll stipulate that is was of the magnitude alleged. The fact that the Turkish Government and others deny these allegations is no reason for our government to take a position either way.
You state that the Turks are “Blackmailing” us on this issue, and forcing us to teach their view of their history. Governments can take strong exception to the acts of other governments. They can follow up with policies in response. Neither is blackmail. As far as I know, the United States has no official history of Turkey. We don’t even have one for ourselves thank God. So all this talk about History is a bit much.
As for the sack of Byzantium, I’m sure the Turks have an equally self-laudatory version of that event as well. So why not a resolution? Let’s not forget the Muslim invasion of Visigothic Spain while we’re at it. I’m rather fond of them.
They threatened to cut off military supplies from the north to our forces in Iraq and close Incirlik to our planes if we passed a symbolic resolution. That’s blackmail.
By the same token, the fact that the Turkish government takes exception to this resolution should not be the reason for our government not to take a position on this question.
Gordianus:
My point was that our Congress has no business in taking positions that have no practical value to the whole of the American people. . . . especially so when the resolution in question irritates an ally to no good purpose. . . . My view of conservative governance is that our Congress should confine itself to those matters that touch upon the wellbeing of American citizens. By inserting itself into cause celebes’s, Congress postures without any positive result.
Not to tag-team, but I think this deserves a hearty ‘hear, hear’!
You state that the Turks are . . . forcing us to teach their view of their history. . . . As far as I know, the United States has no official history of Turkey. We don’t even have one for ourselves thank God. So all this talk about History is a bit much.
That’s another good point. For the ‘teach their view of history’ complaint to be valid, two things would have to be true:
A – That significant numbers of people get their education from Congressional resolutions.
B – That the Turks were asking for a resolution supporting their view.
Neither is true, let alone both.
The first point brings me back to the reason I think the whole thing is silly. Congress is a body of legislators, not of history professors. Their opinions on this matter carry no particular weight, even if we expected them to vote their opinions rather than their political interests.
Let’s not forget the Muslim invasion of Visigothic Spain while we’re at it.
And we could really piss off the Zionists with a resolution condemning Joshua for sacking Jericho. Some people deny that too.
Let’s not forget the first known genocide, of the Neanderthals by the Cro-Magnons.
Daniel Larison:
They threatened to cut off military supplies from the north to our forces in Iraq and close Incirlik to our planes if we passed a symbolic resolution.
The Turks are under no obligation to permit such use of their territory and airspace. They do us a favor, and have every right to ask a favor in return. Moreover, the favor they do is both valuable to us and costly to them – politically costly, as last I heard the arrangement is not popular there – while the favor they ask costs us nothing.
By the same token, the fact that the Turkish government takes exception to this resolution should not be the reason for our government not to take a position on this question.
It’s a fine reason, particularly since there is no positive reason for us to take a position.
Thank you Daniel for shedding some light on this topic and for your support.
A lot of people here are absolutely right, why should the US-we care about this issue that happened almost 100 years ago. We have more important things to take care of especially at this point in time right? This might sound like the logical thing to do but is it the right moral path? While we are preaching the world how they should respect human rights and spread democracy and at the same time we are afraid to confirm a simple fact because of another country is blackmailing us – this does not spread a good message to the world.
We are the leaders in the world and we should act like one. Just imagine if tomorrow God forbid something happened in US and Americans were subject to Genocide. You had to flee to another country while 2/3 of your people are killed and all your hard work is taken away from you. You settle in another country, raise your children and establish a good life. Wouldn’t you want the world to know what happened to your family and people? If there is no recognition there is no closure, It is like having an open wound and even worse an open wound with salt in it because this is how Armenians feel every time the Armenian Genocide is denied.
This is not an “ethnic” issue like many of you claimed. This is a moral issue which should concern every human being.
It is because of neglecting past Genocides new ones happen. Simply saying “Never again” is not going to do anything, Look at the Rwanda and Darfur where people are being killed as I type. If we want our country to be an example for the world we have to act. It takes a selfless act to change the world.
Genocide is the worst crime against humanity and we have to everything to prevent these crimes from happening and much worse being actively denied which is what the Turkish government has been doing for decades.
As a grandson to survivors of the Armenian Genocide, I read your post with great interest. While relations between Turkey and the Republic of Armenia remain a salient point with Diasporan Armenians, recognition of the Genocide should be unconditional as this is a human rights issue as opposed to a political one. What President Obama fails to understand along with previous adminstrations is that predicating recognition on such conditions only perpetuates the problem and gives comfort to Turkey’s role in denying responsibility for its past. Using that as a benchmark for recignition is not only a disservice to the victims of the Armenian Genocide, but also to advocates currently trying to prevent such atrocities from occuring today like in Darfur.
“This reflects the legitimate desires of a significant number of Americans to commemorate and acknowledge a horrific crime against their ancestors”
I’ve a question; does the US have some sort of maintained list of genocides that have happened throughout the world? Is there some any legal reason why the US is duty-bound to accept Armenia as a genocide?
I’m no expect on the killings itself, so I’ll leave that to others to decide. If we have some form of list, then we must be truthful whether it is politically expedient or not. If we are doing this just to placate the Armenian community, then it must be seen as a political chip and balanced against US interests in regard to Turkey.
Alex_M:
It is because of neglecting past Genocides new ones happen.
spechdimaldji:
. . . not only a disservice to the victims of the Armenian Genocide, but also to advocates currently trying to prevent such atrocities from occurring today like in Darfur.
Thank you both. At last you have answered the question neglected by Larison, by Welch, and, initially, by Massie – What good is the resolution supposed to do?
I expect this resolution and its many companions will be about as effective as the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Alex_M:
A lot of people here are absolutely right, why should the US-we care about this issue that happened almost 100 years ago.
You mock us, while mostly ignoring our arguments.
Just imagine if . . . [snip hypothetical] . . . Wouldn’t you want the world to know what happened to your family and people?
I might have more pressing concerns. In any case, this seems to contradict the other argument, that it’s somehow imperative for Congress to pass this resolution because ‘the world’ already knows that it’s a ‘simple fact’.
If I wanted the world to know what happened to my family, I would write an article or a book. I think that would be a little more effective than lobbying national legislatures for resolutions.
If there is no recognition there is no closure . . .
Why are national legislatures the only acceptable sources of recognition?
It is like having an open wound and even worse an open wound with salt in it because this is how Armenians feel every time the Armenian Genocide is denied.
Perhaps this is true of some Armenians. But a resolution won’t keep anyone from denying, so taken literally this is a non-sequitur. And, just a legislature is not a college of historians, neither is it a group therapy session. It is not responsible for making everybody feel good.
This is not an “ethnic†issue like many of you claimed.
Many? Only Gordianus has said anything remotely like that. To be specific, he wrote:
I see no point in Congress playing into the hands of any ethnic grievance lobby. The Irish, Jews, Armenians, and Greeks need to learn that becoming an American means turning your back on your tribe.
My perspective is a bit different, as I don’t much mind that such resolutions get passed from time to time. They are a minor inefficiency of democracy.
While we’re counting, a total of seven people have posted on this thread so far. Three clearly support the resolution, AC seems to be on that side but hasn’t explicitly taken a position, nait42 so far reserves judgment, and only Gordianus and I have come out explicitly against it.
This is a moral issue . . .
I agree, but in the opposite of the way you are claiming. It would be a moral lapse, albeit a minor one, for a legislator to vote on such a matter unless he has personally done that thorough research that AC mentioned, or at least had it done for him by staff members that he personally trusts.
. . . which should concern every human being.
Utter nonsense. Most people are never going to do the thorough research that would entitle them to an opinion on the matter, and they are under no obligation to do so. Or are you claiming they are morally obliged to take your word? If so, how would you justify such arrogance?
Alex_M:
Genocide is the worst crime against humanity . . .
Is it worse to kill a thousand for an ethnic motive, than to kill a million for a political one? I don’t think so.
And, of course, one needn’t kill anyone to be guilty of genocide.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Genocidal acts can include distributing contraceptives or facilitating trans-ethnic adoptions. Of course, it isn’t really nice to do such things with the intent to reduce the size of a targeted ethnic group, but there are many worse crimes.
Preoccupation with ‘genocide’ absurdly reifies and exalts ethnic identification. Mass killing is mass killing. Political scientist R. J. Rummel has coined the term ‘democide’. But ‘genocide’ gets all the attention, I suppose because ethnic identity is more important than actual people.
This thread began with my questioning of the advisability of our congress taking a position, any position. Daniel’s response treated the question in the manner of an academic debate in which truth was the issue, rather than national policy.
I can well understand the impulse that would draw attention to the terrible events of 1909-1923. But these are impulses not policy. In what manner is the American public served by the exercise of such pronouncements by Congress? How are the sufferings of the Armenians different than that of many others in the preceding century, such that our government must take special mention of them? And if we must make an issue of their suffering how many more groups have a claim on our attention?
At the risk of sounding heartless, I say sentimentality is a dangerous thing when applied to official discourse. We can plainly see where our elected officials favoring of one victim group over another has lead in the Middle East. Have we learned nothing of from the example of Truman’s emotional recognition of Israel in 1948? The business of Congress is to manage the affairs of our Republic for the benefit of the American people. Rebukes to long dead regimes are childish and mischievous.