Once again, as has happened every spring for years running, the debate over whether the ethnic clashes against the Armenians in the break up of the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide has made it into the US political arena for Congress to weigh in. The recent resolution adopted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs-to officially recognize actions against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks-has less to do with the US government's pursuit of historical accuracy, than political theater that has come at a strikingly inopportune time.
Genocide is a serious label, and requires not only moral authority from those who use it but a deep comprehension of the historical context in which these events occurred. Armenians have every right to demand official inquiries about the terms and conditions in which hundreds of thousands of their ancestors were killed, but this is not the task of US Congress, who has neither the moral standing to codify armed clashes of a century ago without proper inquiry nor the right to be selective about human rights offenses for political points. Every effort should be made by President Obama and the remaining House Representatives to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.
Beyond the very serious damage that such a resolution could inflict on US-Turkish relations, should it pass the full House, congressional interference at this juncture could severely erode the very moral argument used justify the resolution. Turkey and Armenia have only recently concluded two protocols calling for closer ties, open borders, and most importantly, the creation of a commission to examine the historical evidence of the tragic events. Not only will this vote undermine the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia, but it threatens the US-Turkish relationship at a time when Turkey is playing a critical role aiding the US and the Middle East peace process.
Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet. Had the purpose been for the US to champion human rights and officially condemn any large scale atrocities in times of war, then why was there no debate about massacres in Sudan, Rwanda, Algeria or the Balkans? The fact that it was supported by a powerful lobby and sponsored by many members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Committee Chairman Howard Berman from California, and Donald Payne and Albio Sires from New Jersey, each of whom represent relatively large Armenian constituencies, takes this debate out of the moral realm and into the political one. Beyond this matter, Howard Berman and the Foreign Relations Committee failed to address the pressing issues behind what such a resolution would invite forth, mainly the land disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the issue of reparations for descendants of the victims, none of which can be treated in isolation. However large the political benefit these members of Congress may garner this election year by pushing this resolution, it is not in US interests, as the end result will hurt the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process and severely undercut Turkish-US cooperation should it come to fruition. Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and investigation, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.
Turkey has been a loyal friend of the United States for more than a half century, and continues to support American efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is a modern secular democracy, and has made great strides in remaining open and progressive. Why then should the United States Congress hold the descendants of the Ottomans responsible for the deeds of their fathers perpetrated a century ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? This generation had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were. What then gives the United States' House of Representatives the moral authority to pass judgment, when domestic political interest shamelessly dominates their motives? The argument against the resolution by the full House should be based on moral grounds, and the members must not act as judges and jurors when Turkey and Armenia have agreed to establish their own joint committee to unravel what in fact happened.
At a time when America still suffers from a lagging global image after years of hawkish foreign policy and two ongoing wars, the United States Congress must support what Turkey and Armenia have agreed to do to resolve their conflict and help facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute. Even the Jewish lobby, in the wake of a series of diplomatic rifts between Turkey and Israel, acted quietly in favor of the Turks, resulting in a close margin in the vote. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan's recent statements have not fared well with the Israeli public, the Israeli diaspora is keen on maintaining the strategic nature of its relationship with Turkey as well as Turkey's relationship with the West.
But more importantly, the Turkish government, who acted out fervently against the US government following the resolution, must come to grips with the separation of power in the United States. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have come out strongly against the resolution -- albeit last minute -- yet they cannot control the votes or the agenda of Congress. Under no circumstance should Prime Minister Erdogan cancel his upcoming visit to the US, as he should use this opportunity to present his case and prove that Turkey is capable of handling the disputes with Armenia without US congressional intervention.
It is by no means certain that this misguided resolution taken by Pelosi and Berman will pass in the full House should it come to a vote. Furthermore, it is unlikely these sponsors will even bring the resolution to the floor unless they are certain it has a substantial chance to pass. This represents a keen opportunity for Democrats and Republicans alike to find a common area of interest and work in unison for the best interests of the US, Turkey, and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.
Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir
"In this movement we took with us three thousand Turkish soldiers who had been captured by the Russians and left on our hands when the Russians abandoned the struggle. During our retreat to Karaklis two thousand of these poor devils were cruelly put to death. I was sickened by the burtality displayed, but could not make an effective protest. Some, mercifully were shot. Many of them were burned to death. The method employed was to put a quantity of straw into a hut, and then after crowding the hut with Turks, set fire to the straw."
"After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzerum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands."
"In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies."
"Many massacres were committed by the Armenians until our army arrived in Erzurum... (after General Odesilitze left) 2,127 Muslim bodies were buried in Erzurum's center. These are entirely men. There are ax, bayonet and bullet wounds on the dead bodies. Lungs of the bodies were removed and sharp stakes were struck in the eyes. There are other bodies around the city."
"There is little news from the interior save that the Russians have entered Van. The contingent is mostly composed of Armenian volunteers who fight with desperate courage, but whose excesses have shocked even the Russian commanders."
"The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks."
"Since all the able Moslem men were in the army, it was easy for the Armenians to begin a horrible slaughter of the defenseless Moslem inhabitants in the area. They ... simply cleaned out the Moslem inhabitants in those areas. They performed gruesome deeds, of which I, as an eye witness honestly say that they were much worse than what Turks have been accused of as an Armenian atrocity."
Is it not striking that Sarafian, the head of the London-based Gomidas Institute, said Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s offer to Armenia to establish a commission of historians to
resolve the Armenian issue was positive, but Armenia was the wrong address. He also said that freedom of expression for historians in Armenia is limited and the genocide issue has become a political tool. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10426989.asp?scr=1
If a genocide had really occured, why did Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America announce ‘We don’t need to prove the genocide historically, because it has already been accepted politically’? Why did the chief of the Armenian Archives in Armenia tell that they were not interested in the achives, but all they are interested is the world’s public opinion?
Or why have the Armenians not admitted to an international court yet?
Have you ever seen a criminal who persistently calls the victim to bring his evidences? Haveyou ever seen a victim who passionately accuses somebody of committing crime and giving him great harm but strictly avoids of bringing his proofs before the referees or court claiming that he need not do this since the community has already accepted him as guilty?
In this situation would you not question the era you are living in?
What else should the Turks do to face their history? Is it Turkey/Turks or Armenia and those who support them who are terribly afraid of facing their history?
When Greeks in Omaha were subject to a mob riot which resulted in looting and several murders in 1909, the U.S. government paid reparations to Turkey for the damages inflicted on Turkish citizens in the U.S. Why are Turks now treating Armenians and Greeks as if they were foreigners?
The 1500001'th victim of the Armenian genocide, Hrant Dink was not a foreigner, he was a Turkish citizen. He did not have Armenian or U.S. citizenship. Yet, a top government official personally called him to his office at the Istanbul governorship, and threatened him with his life. He was murdered in front of his office several months later. The Turkish government is directly responsible for his death. A sizeable portion of the Turkish people applauded the murderer, treating him as a national hero. The genocide continues!
The modern Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923.
Anybody living within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, prior to 1923, as a citizen, was a citizen of the Ottoman Empire.
After the Ottoman Empire was made defunct, and the borders of the Republic of Turkey defined, the name given to people living within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, as citizens, became ‘Turkish citizens’ or ‘Turks’.
So, your claim is wrong. Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire, in 1915, were not ‘Turkish citizens’. They were Ottoman citizens.
Turkey and its citizens are NOT responsible for any tragedy, which is ALLEGED to have occurred, in the Ottoman Empire.
People of Armenian or Greek descent, living in Turkey as citizens of Turkey, are not ‘foreigners’ of Turkey. Armenians and Greeks who are NOT Turkish citizens, ARE foreigners to Turkey.
Yes, Hrant Dink was not a foreigner, he was a Turkish citizen. Whose death is STILL mourned by Turks, as can be most clearly seen every year, at the anniversary of his death.
The person accused of his murder, is being held in captivity, pending trial. The majority of Turks, DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, SUPPORT anyone who was complicit in the murder of Hrant dink. The Turks CONDEMN them.
However, Turks also condemn the Armenian TERRORISTS who took part in the cold blooded murders of Turkish ambassadors and their families and anyone who happened to be in their vicinity at the time.
Why did the Armenian historian Sarafyan, who accepted the invitation of the then chief of Turkish History Foundation, Halacoglu, for cooperation to investigate Harput events, abandon the project, after talking the Armenian diaspora?
*The Ottoman and Turkish archives are open, unlike it is claimed by the diaspora. http://www.ankara.edu.tr/english/yazi.php?yad=36. http://www.tsk.mil.tr/ENGLISH/8_FRAGMENTS_FORM_HISTORY/8_1_Armenian_Issues/issues/Armenian_Activities_in_the_Archive_Documents/Armenian_Activities_in_the_Archive_Documents.html;
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents2.pdf; http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents3.pdf; http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/kitap.asp?kitap=991.
Even, Armenian historian Ara Sarafian from Gomitas Institute and Hilmar Kaiser searched the Ottoman archives (www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com)
*In spite of this, why are the Armenian archives including the one in Zoryan Armenian Institute in Boston closed? Both Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation offered the Armenians to open these archives; but the directors of the Zoryan Institute replied that they did not have enough money to open the archives. Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation promised financial support.Why did the Armenians refuse this suggestion too? (Nüzhet Kandemir, http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/418517.asp). Note that Zoryan Institute has quite enough money to provide financial support for Taner Akçam who advocated the Armenian claims while working in Minnesota University until recently.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Martin Niemoller
I think it is naive to not realize that "speaking out" as cited above by Niemoller, also applies to genocide denial. If people of good conscience don't fight for the truth of the Armenian Genocide, then it makes it that much easier for other genocides to be denied. It is a slippery slope that, yes, could even someday affect the recognition of the Holocaust.
Now let us go a few years ago, to see the Turks’ extreme efforts to face their history, and the Armenian’s consistent fright to do it:
*In 2004, the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT) was founded to exchange documents about the 1915 events by Austrian, Turkish and Armenian historians. After receiving 100 Turkish documents, the Armenians abondened the project refusing to continue to fulfil their commitments and afterwards the Armenian foreign minister announced that they did not want to discuss the 1915 events with historians.
*Armenia refused the Turkish prime minister's and the Turkish Assembly's invitation announced on April 13, 2005 which suggested to establish a Joint Commission composed of historians from both sides and discuss the events which took place during the 1st World War.
*Turkey sent full page ads to five popular newspapers of the United States (US) calling on Armenia to ‘bring light the events of 1915 together with Turkey and to establish a joint commission composed of historians from both sides in addition to historians from other nations’, in April 2007.
*And the Turkish prime minister repeated the same invitation on February 2008 , in Munich at the 44th Security Conference where the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Oskanian also attended?
In neither of these invitations was there any precondition, unlike it is claimed by the Armenians.
(See the previous news entitled ‘RA foreign minister didn’t say Armenia agrees to form commission of historians’ on November 26, 2008 in Panarmenian and ‘Dashnaks warn Sarkisian over Armenian genocide study’ on July 9, 2008 in Armenia Liberty; http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/august_2004/history001.html)
Have you ever seen a victim who considers the act of displaying all the proofs against the person whom he fiercefully accuses in a court as ‘a struggle of distracting the truth’ and ‘a dangerous act’?
Have you ever heard a victim who avoids to admit to a court or a referee not to call his rightness into question?
Dear readers, in the modern world, what is the function of justice if admitting to it means distorting the truth, and calling a victim’s rightness into question?
What would you think about a victim (or so-called victim) who accuses people who advise to go to court (or referees) of betrayal?
In this situation, do you not suspect of that the victim himself is distracting the truth and even he himself does not believe himself and he is struggling with the truth itself.
While Turkey was eager and very happy, the Armenians were exceedingly unwilling and very angry.
In an interview with Armenian Reporter, Prof Richard Hovannisian from California University and the father of Raffi Hovannisian, the first Foreign Minister of Armenia, said: ‘It is very dangerous to establish such an historical commission…because according to 1948 United Nations’s Genocide Convention, a deliberate and planned massacre is mandatory. The Turks will accept that nearly 200-300 thousand Armenian died; but nobody can call them deliberate acts. In Turkish Archives the Turks have the telegrams sent from vilayets about the then Armenian upraisals and documents about the Armenians who fled from the Ottoman Army. So, the Turkish historians will accuse the Armenians saying that all these events were a reaction to what the Armenians did and were not deliberate’ http://www.kophaber.com/news_detail.php?id=4726
A supporters of Armenians' resolutions in U.S. Congress, Adam Schiff said “A committee about history is a struggle for distracting the truth. Turkey cannot rewrite history in exchange for good relations with Armenia.”
ANCA and other Armenian lobbying organizations stated that Armenia is forced to make dangerous concessions by Turkey and that Turkey’s moves towards establishing joint historians commission aims to call so called Armenian genocide into question and suspend its international recognition. ANCA’s aim is to provide recognition of so called Armenian genocide by U.S. Congress before establishment of a historians committee to discuss the events by keeping U. S. Congress under pressure.
“Our objective is to have the matter investigated by historians and experts. We are ready to accept the decision of the joint historical commission. We agree for different professionals from various countries to be involved” Abdullah Gul recently said. If historians committee project could be realized, issue of so called Armenian genocide will not be discussed by politicians but by historians. Furthermore, other than Turkish and Armenian historians, historians from third countries will also be included.
The Turks who were eager for establishment of such an historical commission, were supported by the United Nations, European Parliament and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). http://www.tegenwicht.org/weblog_2006/67_armeens.htm, http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/77330, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/9337483.asp?scr=1 and was very happy.
You can cause mental stress to a part of a racial community and that qualifies as genocide (article 2). You can be a public official or private individual that commits the act and it it still a genocide (article 4). It can be time of war or peace and it is still a genocide (article 1). So it is meaningless to argue whether the murders of a million or so Armenian citizens of Turkey in 1915 was a genocide or not. It was one of the worst genocides ever in the history of humanity.
What matters for Turkey is not whether 1915 was a genocide, but what happened after Turkey acceded to the genocide convention in 1950. Ethnic tensions, extrajudicial killings instigated by the Turkish government against Greeks in 1955, Kurds up to this day is genocide by definition.
Turks should understand the meaning of the convention they signed 60 years ago. Armenians should understand Khojali was genocide. Azeris should understand Sumgait was genocide. What happened in WW2 against Japanese Americans, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were genocides.
Genocide is everywhere, condemning one with it while you are guilty of it too doesn't absolve you. But in this case, it is still important for Turkey to recognize its actions for its own quality of life. Turkey pumps in millions of dollars every year to D.C. lobbyists - money that should be spent on victims of 6.0 earthquakes.
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Entry into force: 12 January 1951.
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Probably THE MOST important part of Article II, is the word 'INTENT'. Article II states “…committed with intent to destroy…”. That is, ‘INTENT’ must be proven for genocide to be proven.‘INTENT’ has never been PROVEN in the ALLEGED Armenian genocide.
INTENT MUST BE PROVEN. OTHERWISE, ALL WARS ARE GENOCIDE!
You do not roam Beyoglu streets torching Greek-Turkish shops accidentally. Your intent is clear as a sunny day.
You drop off bombs to destroy 'enemy' positions, and civilians get killed may be technically accidental. But gassing the Kurdish population congregated in caves in the mountains of Dersim has an 'intention' associated with it.
The Armenian genocide, Dersim genocide, 1936 Jewish pogroms in Thrace, Varlik Vergisi, 1955 6-7 September lootings and murders are all genocides according to the UN convention.