Let’s give Turkey a feel-good tongue-lashing: it’s bound to prevent further genocide
This Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in modern memory. Perhaps that’s because it has accomplished so very little.
Then again, perhaps that lack of success is a good thing, seeing the caliber of many of the bills and resolutions it has tried to pass.
Congressional resolutions are often odd ducks, mostly nonbinding and essentially irrelevant, a collection of affirmations or condemnations of this and that, passed to get members on record as being as pro or con whatever the issue might be.
On the surface, the proposed Congressional resolution passed already by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and condemning the Turks for the Armenian massacre of about ninety years ago, occupies the moral high ground. But the resolution’s sponsors and spokespeople—who seem to be primarily Democrats, although I can’t be sure since I can’t get a head count of just how much Republican support it has—are acting in reckless disregard of its possible consequences.
Or maybe they know full well what they are doing, and this is only the latest ploy in their campaign to stick it to Bush while undermining the Iraq war effort, as Jed Babbin asserts here. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has been attempted by the House under Pelosi’s dubious leadership.
The timing is certainly suspect; I can’t think of anything especially pressing about condemning an event that occurred so long ago. But Pelosi’s reasoning goes as follows:
While [the Armenian massacre] may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur, it did within recent memory in Rwanda, so as long as there is genocide there is need to speak out against it.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that if one seeks to condemn genocide in Darfur or Rwanda, then it would be a good idea to condemn genocide in Darfur or Rwanda, not in Turkey almost a century ago.
Whether the Armenian massacre in question actually was genocidal in intent is a matter of some contention, although there’s little question the killings were widespread, horrific, and caused enormous suffering to the Armenian community.
But right now Turkey is an important ally—and, what’s more, the present Turkish government isn’t engaged in any sort of genocide—or even contemplating it, as far as I know. Pelosi’s peculiar idea that condemning a genocide that occurred in Turkey around the time of World War I might somehow discourage those doing the killing in present-day Darfur is ludicrous on its face, an exercise in transparent rhetoric.
So, what is Pelosi’s answer to critics of the resolution who suggest it would—and in fact already has—harmed our relationship with ally Turkey? These possibilities are merely “hypothetical,” says Pelosi.
Along with Turkey’s non-hypothetical recall of its ambassador to Washington, here are some of those hypothetical repercussions we certainly need not trouble ourselves about:
Some political analysts here say that irreversible damage has been done to the already strained relations between Turkey and the United States. In a random-sample survey of more than 1,000 adults conducted in Turkey early this year by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based nonprofit group, 73 percent of Turks surveyed said that if the House passed the resolution, their opinion of the United States would decline, while 83 percent said that they would oppose Turkish assistance to the United States in Iraq….
Incirlik Air Base in eastern Turkey, a NATO installation, is a strategic logistics and transfer center for the American military operations in Iraq, and Turkish trucks carrying supplies for allied forces pass into Iraq daily. Analysts say they expect such activity will be slowed, if not halted completely, should relations between the countries worsen.
But this is of no concern to Pelosi; perhaps such results are what she craves.
And what is Pelosi’s stated goal, besides magically changing the consciences of the present-day killers in Darfur through the mighty power of the nonbinding Congressional resolution? Why, our own consciences—our clean hands, our narcissistic need to feel good about ourselves:
Holding a vote on condemning the massacre, even many years after the fact, is “about who we are as a country,” Pelosi told ABC television.
Attempts to condemn the Turks for the Armenian massacre are not new. In fact, a similar effort was made back in 2000, and was opposed by—surprise, surprise!—none other than then-President Clinton:
When the issue last arose in 2000, a similar resolution also won approval by a House committee, but President Bill Clinton then succeeded in urging a Republican speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, to withdraw the measure before the full House could vote. That time, too, Turkey had warned of canceling arms sales and withdrawing support for American air forces then patrolling northern Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations.
I guess our consciences weren’t in as much need of cleaning back then. But, if anything, these defense issues related to Turkey are more important now, not less. What else has changed? Passing the resolution would hurt the efforts of a Republican administration rather than a Democratic one. I guess that doesn’t have as much feel-good value.
Didn’t Pelosi tell us it was about the children? Now it’s about the Armenians. Wish she’d make up her mind.
I think I’d have to ask if there are Armenians currently living in Turkey who are being subjected to genocide or other forms of discrimination. If so, then they are the only ones we can help and we can’t do it by making empty gestures. Too late for the dead ones – they are no longer our problem.
All my Armenian friends call these events genocide. There is no exceptions; this is a single question that means more to the nation self-conscience than anything else. But for Turks cult of Mustafa Kemal is also the central issue: the focal point of national unity. To call him criminal (which he certainly was) is a mortal outrage.
There is some ambiguity in the very definition of genocide: one position is that any murder motivated by ethnic identity of victims is genocide; another – that this qualification requires also intent to exterminate some ethnic group. International law is not clear at this point. The first rather often takes place in ethnic clashes and wars; the second is a policy, governmental or of other entity, applied to hapless victims. What took place in Ottoman empire was a policy, but the main goal was ethnic cleanse, made with extreme brutality and sadism. Honestly, I do not know, how to qualify it now.
“Honestly, I do not know, how to qualify it now.”
The point being, of course, that it’s useless and pointless to try–anything we say now means no more to the dead than anything else. This is simply grandstanding by moral cretins who hope to gain points with an increasingly credulous base–a base who will snatch at any morsel that condemns the “other side”. The Dems are constantly wailing about the prospect of “civil war” in Iraq; I fear by their actions here that the prospect of civil strife at home is getting more likely.
Really, do they believe in anything other than political advantage?
Stumbley,
I must respectfully disagree regarding its meaning, because its meaning is not for the dead but for the living. The Armenian people have tried for generations to have the world recognize this for what it was, an attempt at genocide. It is as important to them as the Holocaust is to the Jews. The mistake made was that it has taken so long to acknowledge it.
Unfortunately, there is also the point that Neo has made. Yes, the military agreements with Turkey are crucially important, though they have proved less than perfect allies in this conflict (remember their obstruction at the start of the war). It isn’t that our consciences need cleaning now, and didn’t before, it is that expediency has been chosen over and over again rather than what is right. So once more we should be expedient?
Do I believe the Dems have ulterior motives? Absolutely.
Pelsoi continues the sage of America is living A nightmare with no end in sight.
“because its meaning is not for the dead but for the living.”
Of course…but the living have no need of the apology. Much like “reparations” for slavery…any of those truly harmed are beyond caring; it’s only for those who want to hold a grudge for centuries.
Non-binding resolutions are the masturbatory fantasies of Congressional tin gods, nothing else.
Hi –
You know, the founding fathers were rather clever fellows. They tried to make sure that Congress’ role in foreign policy was limited to paying the bills and ratifying treaties, because they *knew* that Congress would at probably be filled with idiots who were way out of their depth and had no business meddling with the affairs of state.
This congress proves their point eloquently.
There is no meaning in their resolution: the question is one for historians to settle, not politicians. The Armenians have a vested interest for it to be settled one way; the Turks have a vested interest for it to be settled another way.
Congress, in its *infinite* wisdom, has decided to side with the Armenians.
To quote the Church Lady: Now, isn’t that special.
There is nothing here but ulterior motives and political opportunism, not merely with Congress, but with the Armenians as well.
This will become the benchmark of stupidity. Pelosi and Ried may not know it, but they are creating a legacy of incompetence and stupidity of the likes not seen since Jimmy Carter.
Barf.
Partisan Politics tells Neoneocon to jump, and she asks “how vociferously would you like me to deny genocide?”
the turks are thin-skinned like most muzlims.
they should all grow up.
we shouldn’t have to be PC with our allies.
we should call a spade a spade and genocide… genocide.
appeasing the turks would be wrong.
if they want to side with iran and russia, fine.
we can relocate our bases. bulgaria and hungary would be fine.
the turk response emphasizes why thgey don;t belong in the EU.
they are no longer the nation of attaturk. but of khomeini.
I feel very bad for the Armenians murdered by the Turks but there is little to done for people dead for 90 years and we now have live U.S. soldiers dependent upon supply routes that run through present day Turkey. My moral outrage over the deaths of people who have long been in the grave diminishes in relation to my concern over American soldiers now in harm’s way who may be endangered by the Democrats’ intransigence on this issue. If this is not incompetence and stupidity on the part of the Democrat leaders then it is a false moral posturing in order compromise the effort in Iraq and force a withdrawal, as Ralph Peters suggests, and that is a travesty.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/playing_politics_with_genocide.htm
“We can relocate our bases. bulgaria and hungary would be fine.”—reliapundit
Well that is an excellent idea, but how did you plan to get the required stuff from the new Point ‘A’ to the desired Point “B” ?
By air OVER Turkish space, perchance ? Or were you planning on simply beaming it into Iraq by a new previously secret delivery system. Can’t fly over Syria which is the only other route available.
Not that Turkey would deny overflight rights for military aircraft but they COULD.
And all for a silly meaningless attempt to pander to Armenian voters.
The very definition of stupidity.
Jimmy: once again your partisanship blinds you to what I’ve actually said here. I’ve linked to good old liberal PBS on the question of whether the Armenian massacres fit the definition of genocide or not, in that they may or may not have been motivated by the intentional obliteration of a people.
I do not have enough information to decide whether I think the Armenian massacre was technically genocide or not; perhaps it was. At any rate, it was certainly a terrible case of mass murder, which is enough for me to deplore it.
That has nothing to do with the thrust of this post, which is the political use at this time of a worthless and self-serving resolution about it.
The problem hasn’t been clearly identified. Do we want to proclaim that we are on the side of the angels or do we want to promote reconciliation between Armenians and Turks based on honestly dealing with the past. If the latter is what we really want then the former is not the way to get there.
I just read an interview in Die Welt with Vamik Volkan, who is a Turkish Cypiot by birth and emeritus professor of psychology at UVa. He was discussing loss of identity as a reason for troubles between the EU and Turkey. He said that Europeans are troubled by losing their national identities in the EU and consequently feel very threatened by the idea of Turkey joining. Likewise, Turks still suffer from the identity loss caused by the fall of the Ottoman empire. Attaturk was able to compensate, but with his death, there was a void filled partly by a reliance on tribal identies. All of these factors are now playing in Turkish politics.
Volkan has several books (“Blind Trust,” “Bé¶oodlines”) listed at Amazon. His work covers more than just Turkey, but he seems especially knowlegeable about what is going on there.
I wonder if any of Nancy’s advisors are aware of Volkan. I plan to put at least one of his works on my reading list.
they are no longer the nation of attaturk. but of khomeini.
Although the Turkish government is dominated by an Islamist party, their system of government is still entirely secular.
The average urban Turk hates the Islamists with a passion. The average urban Turk is also a Muslim. Turkey offers proof that a country that’s 99% Muslim can have a secular government.
In any case, if Nancy Pelosi wants to prove that she’s still on moral high ground, she can support a resolution condemning her Syrian friends for the Hama massacre. Then we can move on to the New York Times, whose Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, Walter Duranty, downplayed the millions killed by Stalin’s purges. Duranty lied, Russians died.
We have a real problem with these progressive partisans who cannot seem to infer when they are being duped by their own good intentions into accepting cynical ploys for personal power. This is a very good example, and yet another reason why I shall not vote Democrat in the forseeable future. If you cannot play the Oriental game, then you should not presently believe you should rule the United States of America. It’s not my fault that’s the way it is. As an opponent of mine online admitted prior to the Iraq War, he eventually disclosed that he didn’t want us to get involved in Iraq because he’d done business in the Arab states for a couple of decades and didn’t “want us to get involved in that sh*t” – meaning a totally incompetent and chaotic society bound by intractable and byzantine prejudices, plots, affections, and other rules. Well, we’re involved; Osama bin Laden made sure of that. So unless you want to concede the field to these folks, you should suck it up, and acknowledge that In The World Prior to the Communist Paradise prudence, and therefore geopolitical morality, compels the strong hand to occasionally accede to the sentiments of barbrians who hold strategically meaningful ground.
Everyone knows the Turks slaughtered the Armenians. To require recourse to some sort of “definition” is a form of cowardice and should be spat on: the effect is all. I agre with you: it is deplorable, and their may not be a strong enough condemnation for it in the vocabulary. But here we are, in October 2007, with Kurdish PKK pushing their luck and killing Turkish civilians and military personnel, with Turkish troops on the border, with Turkish artillery firing into Iraqi mountains, with Iraq itself having gained a fragile improvement, of which the Kurds are a large part. In such a situation, you honestly believe condemning a century old Holocaust needs to happen, right now? This week? Really?
Dang, multilateralism is harsh. As always, if you want to be ‘multilateral’ and popular with the world. you have to kow-tow to tyrrany (even if it is historical tyranny).
This one is a no-brainer for Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats: it combines moralistic posturing with a good chance of harming American interests abroad. The only thing missing is anti-semitism!
If you intend to deal with people at all, you must respect their sensitivity. The Armenian genocide problem is the most sensitive to Turks, pathologically so. Only two choices are possible: avoid highlighting this theme or avoid dealing with Turks. For Europeans the first choice looks more advantageous, but for Americans, with important geopolitical interests ib ME, the second is clearly looks more sane.
Another problem with Turkey is that nobody knows how long this country will be able to stay secular. Yes, urban Turks hate Islamists, but in rural regions Islamism became more and more popular. Birth rate in rural regions is much higher than in urban ones, so demograhic balance is constantly shifting to make young generation more pro-islamist. Cult of Attaturk is the only counter-balance to Islamist propaganda, and undermine it by admitting massacre is a suicide for secularism.
Of course, in previous post I meant that Europeans should avoid dealing with Turks, and Americans should avoid highlight Armenian genocide.
Sergey,
My readings support what you say about the internal affairs of Turkey. There is another element, i.e., the internal migration of rural populations to the cities of Turkey. This places the young people between the rural religious and urban secular values. Since they enter the urban world at the low end of the income and status ladder, they rebel.
Sorry for the typo. I meant regions.
We must resolve to condemn everything that everyone has ever done to anyone – otherwise we’ll lose the moral high ground. I’m going to ask my congressman to propose a resolution condemning the Spartans treatment of the Helots.
And, Bugs, let’s not forget the beastly treatment of the Neaderthals by the Cro-Magnons.
How do we pay reparations to the Neanderthals?
By featuring them in TV shows:
http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/cavemen/index
That would take a lot of residuals.
Besides, I see those guys more as ergaster.
Wish she’d make up her mind.
Doesn’t that assume she has a mind able to do such a thing in the first place?
As a representative of the Council on Neaderthal American Relations (CNAR) I deeply and profoundly resent these racists slurs on Neaderthals. We are a peaceful people who wish only to live our lives according to the ethics of our culture and faith.
Have a neighbor who named her daughter Ayla.
Anyway, you can wish to live as you wish. Might as well wish for a puppy, too. They eat pretty good, I’m told, without a lot of cooking.
If it’s any consolation, about thirty thousand years after you’re gone, somebody will write a book about how you were Nature’s Child, living in pre-lapsarian innocence–just like the Native Americans–until the tall guys with the nasty vertical foreheads came along. You’ll get the good ink.
I have worked and studied with both Turks and Armenians. What I’ve heard corresponds quite closely with what Sergey has posted above. The nationalistic modernizing cult of Ataturk is precariously balanced against the resurgent Islamism of the provinces. As for Armenians, it appears that 100% of them consider the Turks (or at least, the Turks of the Ottoman Empire) guilty of genocide.
Is the term justified? Well, the Turks may not have wanted to kill every Armenian in the world, but it looks like they wanted to kill every Armenian in Anatolia (the eastern part of present-day Turkey) and almost did. Nazi Germany is considered by most to be responsible for genocide. Before 1939, they had a concerted campaign to intimidate Jews into leaving Germany; after 1941 they attempted to kill all the Jews in the European territories the Germans controlled. Rhetorically they wanted the world free of Jews; there doesn’t seem to have been a corresponding state ideology of extermination among the Turks. In practice, the results were similar, so IMHO if the Nazi Germans were guilty of genocide then so were the Ottoman Turks.
There is another factor here that no one has mentioned. There is some historical evidence that, although the Ottoman Turks planned and coordinated the slaughter of the Armenians, they “contracted out” much of the actual killing to Kurds from the Anatolian regions. Thus Pelosi and the Democrats are stirring the pot in the region in more ways than they perhaps realize, alienating both the Turks and the Kurds.
Before this post turns into a book, one more thing. I understand and agree with Neo’s point that liberals posture in order to feel good about themselves, not caring much to look into the actual effects of their actions. Very true, very well analyzed — but not that relevant in this case. This resolution is secondarily about picking up some Armenian-American votes and primarily all about, as progressives would put it, f***ing up Bush.
I can’t believe people are debating the Armenian genocide. The Armenian genocide happened, and Turks need to get over it. Imagine some people are willing to go to war with Iran because it denies the Holocaust, should we go to war against Turkey because it denies the Armenian genocide? I think we all know the answer.