Was there an Armenian genocide?

Of course there was. Will the U.S. Congress finally acknowledge it? That's a more complicated question. President Bush hopes the answer is no.

Comments

[Brendan Loy]

I originally put this as a P.S. to the post, but then decided it wasn't important enough, and should really go in comments instead. Anyway:

California congressman Adam Schiff authored the resolution in question. I do believe he's been pushing hard for this for several years, which is no surprise, as his district has a huge Armenian population. (I remember this from when I was a journalism student at USC and I had to write a whole bunch of stories for Aaron Curtiss's class about news in Burbank.)

[Andrew]

DT flashbacks. *shudder*

[I R A Darth Aggie]

The bigger question is: doesn't Congress have better things to do with their time than passing rather worthless - or in this case, potentially harmful - resolutions?

[gahrie]

I agree. The only two things this resolution can do is make it easier for Schiff to get re-elected, (the former holder of this seat was ousted when a similar resolution was pulled off the floor in a previous Congress) and piss off one of our allies in the war on terror, and an Islamic ally at that.

[Joe Loy]

I'm thinking of forming the International Committee to Deny the Irish Potato Famine.** / Bah.

Israel (Israel, for G*d's sake!) also does not Officially acknowledge that the mass murder of Armenians was an attempted Genocide, although I read that they have finally Crept a littlebit in that direction lately. / Their problem is the same as ours (except perhaps more Acute): they, too, need to kiss Turkish ass for strategic Security reasons.

The linked Scholars' open letter to the Turks is correct to query, in effect, Why the Hell can't the descendants of the Ottomans do as the descendants of the Nazis have longsince done: i.e., call the hideous collective Misdeed of their ancestors by its correct descriptive Name? / For the Sins of the Fathers shall be visited upon the Sons for only so long as the sons persist in Denying them.

(**Note: not that the Potato Famine was a deliberate Genocide. It wasn't. It was caused by a random Fungus. / Not that a certain Imperial Colonial Power couldn't have done a hell of a lot more than it Did to ameliorate the effects but Nevermind about that now, we're talkin Turkey, here. :)

[Alasdair]

Venerable Loy - does this not imply that this is then time for Congress to pass a resolution condemning the Amalekite Genocide ?

[dcl]

To my way of thinking there should not be a difference between condemning the Armenian genocide and condemning the Holocaust. And certainly we would do the later without fear of making Germany angry. Thus the question becomes can you do the right thing or can't you? That question extends to Turkey as well, can they admit that they made a mistake? Germany did so and is not shunned for it. The United States has acknowledge certain unpleasant historical realities of our own past; though there are other we still shy away from fully acknowledging. I don't think anyone would really think any less of Turkey for doing so in this case. And certainly Germany would be thought less of if they went around saying the Holocaust never happened.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I think the Turkish slaughter of Armenians should have been condemned years ago. However, doing it now, with Turkish troops massing on the border of northern Iraq and with the Turkish PM under increasing pressure to attack the Kurds, any sign the U.S. is throwing Turkey under the bus is a bad move.

[Ken]

There would be no need for such a resolution of course if the Turks had simply acknowledged their responsibility many years ago.

As recently as March of this year President Bush reaffirmed his promise (that had been made during his campaign for President in 2000): "If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people."

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=60

But apparently now is not the time. So when is the time???

[Angrier and Angrier]

"But apparently now is not the time. So when is the time???"

SIRNAK, Turkey -- Turkey's ruling party decided Tuesday to seek parliamentary approval for an offensive against Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, a move that could open a new front in the Iraq war and disrupt one of that nation's few relatively peaceful areas.

Not Now....

[Derek]

There are a series of misinformed comments in this post.

First, the pickiness is over the term "genocide." Only one president, Reagan, has used that term for the Armenian genocide. Bush has publicly stated this week, for example:

"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Mr. Bush said in remarks that, reflecting official American policy, carefully avoided the use of the word genocide. "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

Ken, I don't know that Bush intended for "proper[] recogni[tion]" to take the form of a congressional resolution using the term "genocide"; and I don't know that he expected in 2000 to face rebuilding Iraq.

Second, it's more an issue of Executive v. Legislative, not Republicans v. Democrats (but, within the House, it's probably shaing up more that way). President Clinton, for instance, did the exact same thing as President Bush in this circumstance: urge the House not to use such language and discouraged passage in light of more important issues.

I think it's certainly a commendable point: when do sit on such an issue with an ally, and when do we condemn? For instance, the Executive brach has continually been much less critical of Chinese current, much less historic, governmental oppression, but much more criticial of, say, North Korean or Iranian governmental oppression. And there are pretty good prudential reasons for that.

I don't know that it's quite fair to hold the Executive and the Legislative branches to the same standard, or to criticize the Executive for this type of behavior. We've certainly seen non-Executive officials speaking in terms that make Executive officials cringe. I think that's where the debate should lie.

[the fourth one]

As interesting as it is to find exactly the right word for something, I think that what is more important is to find an appropriate *action* that acknowledges what was done, makes amends for it in some meaningful way, and sets up a pattern of behavior between the parties involved that will help to prevent the past atrocity from happening again.

[Aaron]

Bush hasn't always been so reticent on this issue

I'm not making a big deal about this. I realize that a President can't always be expected to maintain consistency with things he said seven years earlier as a candidate, and I realize there are real reasons to avoid antagonizing the Turks right now. I'm just sayin'...

Of course, what's undeniable is that if Armenians had politically powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. (with names like, let's say... AAPAC) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Turkey is recalling its Ambassador to the US over this. Who woulda thunk Turkey would invade Iraq over the actions of a "Pander Bear."

[Derek]

Hey Aaron, nice find (though I'd quibble with the emphasis in his recent comments, where I think "historic mass killing" is more indicative of his sentiments than "tragic suffering"). But I stand by my earlier comments. (And, I think, President Obama would have to retract some comments about invading Pakistan, President Clinton about nuclear weapons, and President Tancredo on bombing Mecca if ever elected.)

[I R A Darth Aggie]

As a second thought, has Rep. Schiff put forward a motion directing the President to apologize to the nation and people of Rwanda for a certain lack of...interest...in the US for preventing a genocide there?

What's the old saw's I'm looking for? help me out, here. Physician, heal thyself! Or perhaps Do not chastise your neighbor for a splinter in his eye when you have a 2x4 hanging out of your own. (paraphrased)

Or not, as the case may be.

[David K.]

Uh sorry Darth Aggie, but this isn't a case of either or, or all or nothing. There is nothing hypocritical about trying to point out ONE example of a bad thing and get our government to recognize it, but not putting forth effort to make it do the same for ALL percieved bad things that have happened. It would be true if and only if he were simultaneously pushing for one while pushing against the other.

[Alasdair]

Here's a novel concept ...

How about our Congress spends more time on binding resolutions and less time on non-binding resolutions only designed to grand-stand ?

As I understand it, Congress has passed such non-binding resolutions how many times in the past ?