What in the hell is the point of the recent effort of the Democratic Congress to declare the actions of the Turkish government against the Armenian minority a genocide? This, by the way, is concerning events that transpired in 1914, at about the onset of World War I, in which Turkey was the major ally of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Bear in mind, this was almost a century ago. Of course, it seems driven in large part by an Armenian lobbyist group here in the US. On the surface, it appears that it may indeed have been genocide. More than a million Armenians died because of Turkish policies. Those who claim it was genocide say it is the first example of such in the modern world. Others insist that it is not all that cut-and-dried. According to them, the Armenian massacre occurred to a large degree because of serious provocations initiated by Armenian dissidents.
Whether it was or was not, my question remains-why now? This has been a well-known historical event for some time amongst historian circles. Could the Democratic Congress possibly come up with a worse time to dredge this up, now that Turkey is in an uproar over the Kurds? Many of them live south of the Turkish border in the north of Iraq. Many other Kurds live within Turkish borders and are agitating for their own independent nation. We have generally supported those Kurds in Iraq, to the Turks chagrin.
Worse, there has been a lot of activity across the shared border of Turkey and Iraq, and Turkey for its part has even ventured into Iraqi-Kurdish territory in order to quell incursion forces into their country. As sensitive as the current situation is, then, what worse time to come up with a Congressional declaration to the effect that the Armenian massacres by the Turks were genocide. This in effect surmises that the Armenian deaths were more than merely results of rebellion and war-they were an outgrowth of a specific Turkish policy that deliberately aimed for the extermination of the Armenians.
What is next, a Congressional declaration that the Old Testament accounts of the Israelites massacre of the Canaanites is evidence of a planned genocide of the Canaanite peoples? Why in the hell not, that is exactly what it was? Who cares that it happened more than three thousand years ago? Are not the current citizens of Israel every bit as responsible for the consequences of this Israelite policy, of genocide against the Canaanites, as the current citizens of Turkey are for what that nation did a century ago to the Armenians? If not, why in the hell not?
I say one assertion is every bit as valid as the other is. Nevertheless, the question remains, why dredge this up-why now?
I guess the Canaanites need to think about establishing a Washington based lobbyist group. If there were any of them left, I’m sure they would.
6 comments:
Okay, a few things here-
1. As a future French historian who has gotten roped into becoming a future French/Mediterranean historian, I can attest that the debate is basically over in Mediterranean historiography- a number of recent works have provided overwhelming evidence that there was indeed a genocide of Armenians in 1915. The Turks tried to eradicate the Armenians. Period. Perhaps the best work on the issue is 'A Shameful Act' by Taner Akcam. And it's not too much to say that the evidence is so overwhelming that historians who dispute the genocide are simply lying. And, nearly always, working for the Turkish government.
2. It's for you to decide why a genocide from about 65 years ago is worth remembering, but one from 90 years ago is not.
3. The House has been trying to pass this sort of resolution for at least a decade now. In fact, I remember Reagan declaring it a genocide back in the 80s. So, this argument that Congress waited until now to 'hurt the troops', which I've read in several places, is totally disingenuous. I'd imagine what we're seeing here is a sad attempt to shift the blame for a bungled war effort to whichever Democrat is available.
4. Besides, it's bizarre for people to make Turkey out to be our critical ally. They can bitch all they want, but Turkey needs the US a lot more than we need them. Secondly, Turkey is as about as anti-American a culture as you're going to find anyway. We just don't need them. When Turkey tried to block us from getting Saddam back in 2003, we managed just fine. In fact, the idea that Turkey is going to invade the Kurdish part of Iraq, and cause us even more trouble, is more proof that we needn't worry about offending them. The Turkish government sucks. I'm amazed at this idea that we dare not offend them.
Rufus,
I find it hilarious that the very same people who don't want the war in Iraq are all gung-ho to go to war against Turkey.
I'm sorry, have we met?
Yeah, I've supported this war for six years now. I don't think it's going very well, but I still think it's better for us to be there than abandon the country to civil war. So, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, or why I should give a shit.
But thanks for playing.
Rufus-
You're right that there is no difference in recognizing the Holocaust and the Armenia atrocity.
What is different is that the actual perpetrators of the Holocaust were tried and convicted in the Nuremburg trials.
The Turkish perpetrators of the Armenian genocide were, regrettably, never brought to trial, at least not that I'm aware of.
The point is, there is no point to this. Such a resolution may make a worthy statement, but that is about all it can accomplish. There are no people left to try, and we have no way to force the Turkish government to pay reparations. Even if we could, who would they pay them to?
Also, I am far from a fan of the Turkish government, and this was not an attempt to defend them. I just think the US Congress would better spend its time on current problems, hopefully in a sensible way.
I don't say that the Democrats are doing this to hurt the troops either, though I know some have said that. But, at the same time, it is a fact that we are having considerable diplomatic problems with Turkey right now, and this is just not the time to be dredging this up. It's just not helping the current situation, to say the least.
Maybe after our present problems ar adequately addressed, this wouldn't be such a hot button issue, but as of right now, it is just the wrong time, and is helping no one, including the Armenians, by the way, both those living today, and the victims of years ago.
Sonia-I don't think anyone is wanting a war with Turkey. Well, nobody that is reasonable is wanting that, at any rate.
Of course, nobody wants a war with Turkey. Least of all Turkey. The US military might have trouble fighting guerrillas- but all militaries do- however, they don't have trouble fighting other militaries. The US still has the strongest military in the world, by a long shot, and it's likely that Europe would join in with the US if Turkey attacked. But, Turktey's not that stupid.
As for the timing, fine, the issue can wait until the war is over. But, it's still not going away for the same reason that battles from decades ago still matter in Jerusalem- there's never been any resolution between Turkey and Armenia- whose government sucks too by the way- and until there is, the area's going to be a hot spot. One of the admirable things about the neoconservatives was that they believed in the ability of the US to use its strength to create peace and stabiliy in the world. They were sometimes wrong, and even sometimes bat-shit crazy, and admittedly, their day in the sun is over. But this doesn't mean that US policy should now be guided purely by realpolitik either.
Besides, if Turkey wants to put the issue in the past, they can stop jailing people for using the words 'Armenian' and 'genocide' together in a sentence.
Rufus-
Yes, it's mainly about timing, as I implied in the post tile.
It also bears mentioning that we are dealing with two different governments. The Ottomon Empire that committed the atrocities is not the same as the democratic, secular government of Turkey today.
Don't misunderstand this. It would be great if the Turks could come to terms with their past in a positive way, and some day they will have to, whether they want to or not.
At the same time, this is a country made up of a large portion of conservative Muslims, though it is a secular country, and a democratic one, which is a rarity in the Muslim world.
There are however Islamic fundamentalists who would like to establish their power in the nation, and something like this might well ratchet up the fervor of their followers and increase their popularity, and possibly their overall influence.
And I know, that is the kind of Realpolitik, as you say, that I myself personally find distasteful, and yet at times it is unavoidable.
By the way, don't underestimate the Neocons ability to engage in their own brand of Realpolitik, however prettier the package they attempt to wrap it in.
Post a Comment