Bush is right about a foreign policy position. What are the odds?
Congress is on the verge of passing a resolution declaring that the Turkish massacre of Armenians was an act of genocide. Bush is saying he opposes this resolution as it will hurt Turkish-American relations to no purpose (cite). And I agree with Bush.
I also agree that what happened to the Armenians was an act of genocide and it was carried out by the Turkish government. But I don’t see anything useful coming out of this resolution. It carries no penalties and will just antagonize Turks against the United States at a time when we need their support for current issues. If Congress wants to take a stand against genocide they should get off their ass and do something in Darfur.
I agree about Darfur, but I’m not sure about the Armenian resolution. True, it’s a nonbinding resolution, so basically a whole lot of nothing and Turkey is an ally, but the genocide was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Why should the modern Turkish government be so up in arms about it?
Because Turkey is a nation-state, and it was Turks who did the killing.
I think the timing of this isn’t wise, and it would be better if the Congress were to busy themselves with events of a more pressing nature. Still, the judgment of history has come down pretty harshly, for the most part, on the Young Turks.
While Turkey was still officially the Ottoman Empire, at the time of the Armenian massacre its government had been replaced by secular rule. It was the founding fathers of modern Turkey who ordered the genocide.
It pretty much is the same thing except that Holocaust denial is not an official policy. The evidence of the genocide is overwhelming. But Turkey refuses to admit it occurred.
Minor nitpick- you aren’t agreeing with Bush on this point, you are agreeing with whoever is currently forming his opinions on foreign affairs for him.
If we want to do what’s right, we should be working to save people who are being killed now. Nothing we do is going to save the Armenians who were killed ninety years ago. All this resolution will do is attack one of the few secular governments in the Muslim world and make any negotiations over Kurdistan much more difficult.
My suspicion as to why it’s a sticking point with Turkey is that it’s related to present-day issues of autonomy or separateness for Turkish Armenians – and probably also to issues for Turkish Kurds. And Bush doesn’t want to offend the Turkish government because they are useful in many ways, not least in helping with the US fighting insurgents in Iraq. Telling the truth often is not good diplomacy – but if Turkey wants to join the democratic west, including membership in the EU, it needs to face up to these issues in an honest way, and not deny them completely.
I know some people feel Bush is a mindless puppet. But in my opinion, he knows what he’s doing and therefore deserves the blame for his mistakes (and, in a few rare cases, the credit for when he’s right).
This is a really tough one. It seems that the historical debate on the genocide is pretty much settled. I’m not quite following why Congress needs to put a stamp of approval on the prevailing view of a historical event, other than to embarrass Turkey because of its policy of denial. If that is indeed the true motivation, it seems perfectly appropriate to consider whether it is worthwhile to embarrass an ally. Also, as someone who studied history, I have weird feelings about legislatures chiming in with their take on historical events. I think that’s a conversation that generally belongs in academia, not public policy.
I just keep thinking: Poor George. The one time he stands with a European ally, it is over this abhorrent issue. He just can’t get anything right.
Bingo. “Let’s not call that ethnic cleansing a ‘genocide,’ per se,” is way too close to “water boarding isn’t torture, exactly” for my comfort. I find it really sad that America has gotten to the point that we have linguistic tiffs about these acts of inhumanity.
As I understand it, they’re not contesting the events so much as contesting the definition. Their position is that there was no concerted intention to commit genocide. The massacres were not coordinated, and the deadly effects of some of the ‘forced migrations’ were not intentional.
It’s very similar to the US position in regard to American Indians. And I imagine that if today Turkey passed a resolution condemning that genocide, it could be clearly interpreted as a provocation.
My position - all those dead bodies do need to be brought out into the light of day - but maybe nations would do better to take care of their own first.
I think the comparison of Armenians in Turkey to American Indians in United States is a good one. But the difference between Turkey and the U.S. is that here we’re allowed to discuss what happened, but in Turkey, the government jails or threatens anyone who talks about it. It’s freedom of speech that’s the issue.
I admit I’m confused as to why this bill has come up at this moment. But I don’t see any reason the U.S. should encourage Turkey’s denials. If the U.S. government can criticize Japan for taking Korean women as sex slaves during World War II, I hope genocide is also worth mentioning.
In the real world, I’m afraid that holding on to ideals when one knows that it will cause hardship, without the chance for any counterbalancing benefit, is often a mistake.
The problem is being sure when that is the right choice to make.
I’m not sure that this is the right time to be pressuring Turkey over the Armenian Genocide. But I’m also not convinced that silence on the issue is going to do any good, in the long run, either. As other posters have pointed out - as long as Turkey aspires for EU membership, this issue will keep cropping up. And until the Turkish government admits what happened it’s always going to be a hot button issue.
If we want to make a point about genocide, though - much more can be done about the mess in Darfur. And maybe even save some lives there, instead of simply playing to the world stage with Turkey.
I just wonder if this is some loopy backdoor way to force a change or something in Iraq. Turkey has already stated that they would look with disfavor on this…and a rather large percentage of our logistics goes through Turkey for our troops in Iraq. Maybe the folks who are pushing this thing (why now?) don’t really know or comprehend what that might mean…but then again, maybe they do.
Contrary to popular belief I’m no fan of Bush’s either…but I think he’s right as well on this one. This lifts him up to 2(!!) things I agree with since he’s been president! Hell, he’s on a roll…