|
||
The Quest for Change
By all accounts, the 2008 presidential election is about "change," yet it is politics as usual when it comes to the ongoing Armenian dispute with Turkey. The quarrel over World War I history in Anatolia -- which many have difficulty even finding on a map -- has been turned into a special interest issue by the Armenian lobby. Political calculations prompted Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to release presidential campaign statements supporting a congressional resolution to mischaracterize tragic events which unfolded during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire as genocide. The two White House aspirants are aping the Armenian resolution initiative of the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, whereby Members would hijack the role of both historian and the World Court in deciding the genocide question; this resolution was derailed by the then House Speaker. The Obama-Clinton pandering to the Armenian lobby betrays the signature Washington habit of making promises now and thinking about them later. It speaks volumes that Senator John McCain, arch enemy of earmarks and sister special interest money, refrained from bowing to Armenian campaign contributions and votes.
For several decades, some outspoken Armenian-Americans have politicized the events of 1915 in lieu of seeking the full truth. By playing their game, Obama and Clinton wander from history, fan the flames of division, and stray ever farther from what they purport to be about: change from past myopia, folly, or pettiness.
Turkey opened the Ottoman archives for academic research many years ago. Armenian archives that remain closed, including those in the United States, should be opened for examination by scholars. Openness would foster constructive change by creating an impartial forum free from the influences of domestic electoral politics to establish a more comprehensive narrative of the events of 1915. Genocide questions are too important to be entrusted to amateurs. They should be addressed by objective experts in the proper forum un-distracted by political calculations.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul responded to the recent Armenian presidential election results by calling for "normalized relations" between Turkey and Armenia and urging increased cooperation. His remarks highlight Turkey's commitment to change from a political landscape reminiscent of a petrified forest. Our nation's leaders, both current and prospective, should follow President Gul's instruction.
Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia is no pipedream. Who ever thought Germany and France would reconcile in the short decades after World War II? At issue are not only the grim events of 1915, where innocent life was tragically lost on both sides during the war, but also Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, territory belonging to Azerbaijan. Turkish-Armenian reconciliation may need the catalyst of leaders who care not only about geostrategic maneuvering, but the people whose lives would be directly implicated. To play the role of facilitator, a United States leader would need to harmonize the disparate voices of domestic constituencies, without neglecting strategic allies such as Turkey.
A leader who promotes reconciliation and peace among peoples and nations is the architect of change.
America deserves that kind of leader.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Before negatively responding to Bruce Fein's article, please try to see what the article says in summary, which are as follows:
a) An american-armenian lobby is engaged in trying to influence the candidates' political views on a historical subject in return for promise of their supporters' votes in the upcoming elections.
b) Just for the sake of gaining more votes and not to fall behind the other, the two lead candidates, Obama and Clinton fell for the deal and released statements that mischaracterize the events that transpired in Ottoman Empire in 1910s as genocide, without feeling the need to make a thorough research of the issue.
c) ...Which would mean hijacking, by politicians, the roles of historians and judges.
d) Some outstanding American-Armenians have been politicizing the issue rather than seeking out the full truth, i.e., imposing their perspective of the issue by using political power and influence.
e) Turkey opened its (Ottoman) archives for study of the said issue many years ago, whereas the state archives in Armenian Republic as well as those in Boston have yet to be made available for study, i.e., remain closed.
f) It is imperative for the Armenian side to enable access to its archives and to documents pertaining to the years of the said event so as to be able to come to a thorough and definite conclusion as to the nature of the events that transpired b/w Ottoman-Turks and Ottoman-Armenians in 1910s in the empire, free from political manipulations and interests...
g) Genocide is a very serious charge, which should not be handled by non-historians (i.e. amateurs) and which warrants a thorough and objective study by historians, free from the influence of political agendas.
h) Turkey is trying to "normalize" its relations with the Armenian Republic.
i) The dispute b/w Turkey and Armenia is not confined to the "Armenian Genocide" but also the occupation, by Armenia, of Nagorno-Karabakh territory, which belongs to Azerbaijan.
j) US needs leaders capable of fulfilling the role of arbitrator in regards to the disputes b/w Turkey and Armenia towards reconciliation.
I do not think anyone can object to items a) to g). Items e), f) and g) in particular...
Mr. Fein’s message is a timely one. As US elections gear up, potential candidates are being challenged with innumberable questions on their views and opinions and their answers to these questions. The issue of Turkish-Armenian tragedy is one of those topics that comes up every election when candidates solicit block votes that can be easy gains. In this case those of Armenian American votes. Such is the tragedy of this US election issue which has been helping to distort and de-rail an on-going historical investigation of an event that is in need of closure.
As indicated by Mr. Fein, President Gul’s message is one of reason because it calls for de-politicization of an issue that is absolutely a historical one. One that has passionate roots because it is based on events only a lifetime away and remembered by some who have personally lived through this war time tragedy, both Turks and Armenians. Out of respect for those that suffered and died and for those survivors, both Turks and Armenians, living in Turkey and elsewhere, politicians need to stay out of it and let historians continue on with their task so we may truly learn the facts of this human tragedy.
The healing process of Armenians starts when they stop trying to get the best of two worlds. On the one hand, they glorify their revolution and independence wars where they fought against the Ottomans with their rebels even BEFORE 1915. On the other hand, they claim they are victims of a planned genocide.
The problem is, there are numerous telegram from Talat Pasha (The Ministry of Interior) who Armenians claim was the mastermind behind the genocide, ordering the end to the killings of Armenians. Many governors and local authorities tried to protect the Armenian citizens which they lived with for 600 years, but there were some who saw the Armenians as traitors seeking rebellion and the killings of Muslims. The reason for this paranoia was caused by the Dashnaks (Armenian Revolutionary Federation established in 1890) and the Hunchaks (Hunchak Socialist Party), both of which were revolutionary organizations whose motto was a free and pure Great Armenia which they fought for, way before 1915.
In Talat Pasha's memoirs we find that he felt guilty for being powerless to prevent the crimes committed against Armenians by the local Kurds and Muslims who took the law into their own hands. Sometimes gendarme (Turkish National Guard) would find stashes of weapons and explosives stored by Dashnak revolutionaries in Armenian homes and shops; this would provoke local Muslims to label Armenians of their city as traitors and perpetrate massacres. However, these were never encouraged or ordered by the Ottoman government. This is why the word massacre does not equate the word genocide.
Armenians want more sympathy by elevating their suffering to that of genocide and equating themselves to the Jews. They pretend their genocide resolutions that focus on the Armenian genocide thesis are a humanistic measure to condemn genocide all over the world, when they have no cares for the suffering of people in Darfur, Rwanda, or even the massacres committed by their own Armenian Armed Forces against the Azerbaijani citizens in 1994.
The culprits of the Armenian genocide as claimed by Armenian historians, are all dead or assassinated by Armenian nationalists. They were condemned to death sentences by the Turkish government in 1919-1920 trials to satisfy the Allies who were victorious and to punish these Ottoman leaders who led them to defeat (not for genocide). So, really, what is the goal of Armenian lobbyists today? The goal is simple, recognition of the Armenian Genocide, by political means rather than legal means, in order to create the legal basis to pressure the Turkish government to give them back Eastern Turkey which they see as "Western Armenia".
So what is this "Greater Armenia" concept that is so ingrained in the minds of Armenian children? It's the land that they believe they earned in their revolution during the Treaty of Sevres. The problem is, after the Turkish Independence War, the Lausanne Treaty was recognized by the European powers and signed by the Soviet Union FOR Armenia. In other words, the Armenians feel they were cheated out of their own lands by the Soviets who had taken over their government. However, instead of blaming Russia for their problems, they focus on blaming the Turks for their problems, because they are the ones that are sitting on their claimed lands today.
Their national symbol is Mount Ararat, a mountain in Turkey, but has religious and cultural importance to them. When Armenians go to the Armenian capital tears roll down their cheek that their most important symbol is across the border in Turkey, and many Armenians make it their goal to one day climb this mountain.
Thank you Brian55! Very well said....
Those esteemed international human rights organization (some commentators are talking about ) are strangely silent when it comes to European and US genocides around world. Where are they when Australia just admitted Genocide!!! When France brutally killed hundreds if not millions of Algerians, when Spanish and Portages "conquerers" killed and tortured up to 4 million indigenous South Americans, When Americans killed and literally wiped out millions of Native Americans and are silent when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Sudan, Kosova, Panama and Nicaragua. Why are they silent about the horrific genocidal behavior of the Belgium's towards the Congolese during king Leopold ruling for 200 years. How about what the Chinese are doing towards the Tibetans.... The list is very long!!!!
Why don't we ALL sit around the table of Genocide and except our past.
When a Muslim country kills, it's Genocide. When Christians kill, it's collateral damage, just numbers, war on terror, war on drugs, just good old war or "sorry it was in the past"....
The hypocrisy is sicking.... Those esteemed international human rights organizations are just political pundits to Europe and USA.... Their hypocritical behavior takes away from their legitimacy....
Mr. Fein stoops down and casts doubt on the well-documented facts of the Armenian Genocide. His article is intentionally misleading at best, or an extension of Turkish propaganda, at worst.
He says, "Some outspoken Armenian-Americans have politicized the events of 1915 in lieu of seeking the full truth." The truth is simple and well established: there was a Genocide. I suggest Mr. Fein do some scholarly research on the subject (Taner Akcam's "A Shameful Act" will be a good starter). The "politicization" is only a response to the decades-long Turkish denial.
Is it not the right of Americans of Armenian descent - and for that matter, all Americans - to demand recognition of the truth from their own government? "The Armenian lobby" is a grass roots campaign by citizens of this country, who exercise their rights. Whereas "the Turkish lobby" means a campaign funded by a foreign government with vast resources. Is this not foreign intereference into America's domestic politics?
Mr. Fein says that America needs "a leader who promotes reconciliation and peace among peoples and nations." Yes. I could not agree more. But "reconciliation" and "peace" cannot be based on a lie. The Armenian Genocide did happen, and it is high time the President of the United States musters the the will to face the Turkish denialist machine! We need a leader who will promote reconciliation and peace, not by pushing painful facts of the past under the rug, but by acknowledging the truth and starting the healing process.
Scholarly research with Taner Akcam's book?!! Taner Akcam is a SOCIOLOGIST not a historian. I'm glad that some sociologist who was pissed at Turkish government wrote a book. A brief look at his biography would reveal his motives. And where are the well-documented facts of Armenian genocide? Why wouldn't the Armenian government open its archives for REAL scholarly research like Turkish government did? The truth is in the archives of the time NOT in Taner Akcam's book. If the Armenian community has a strong case based on well-documented facts why are they so scared of archives?
I'm sorry sir, but these well-documented facts are only a figment of the Armenian propagandists' imagination. Doesn't anyone ask why Armenians (usually pretending to be unbiased Westerners) always talk about "Well-documented facts" yet they never tell you what these "Well-documented facts" are?
The answer is, there are no well-documented facts about the alleged Armenian genocide; some Armenians provided documents in the 1920s, but were found to be forgeries and dismissed from the academic community. Now the only reason why many people are tricked into believing in the Armenians' genocide label, is because there are so many of them who are literate in the United States, France, and other nations, where they have created an industry of spreading misinformation and writing literature on the subject. Sometimes even paying historians to write books for their thesis.
The Armenian propagandists are so intelligent, that they even created their own institute for genocide: The Zoryan Institute (An Armenian institute in Massachusetts). This institute is a factory for creating Western historians who fully believe in the "Armenian Genocide" label. They created sociologists like Taner Akcam, who escaped from prison in the 1970s and holds a tight grudge against the Turkish government.
If you say that Taner Akcam's book is scholarly research, then you are believing a fugitive who holds a 30 year grudge against his own government. Is he really that unbiased? No, this man, is obsessed with ruining the Turkish government's name around the globe, because he doesn't see himself as a Turk. His books are well appreciated by the Armenian community and organizations who fund his work.
If anyone doesn’t believe it was genocide, check out: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-forgotten-holocaust-463306.html
Now for my response to the Fein article:
I wonder if anyone out there knows that Churchill first used the word “holocaust” to refer to what happened to the Armenians before the Nazis were even in power – and also that Raphael Lemkin (who coined the word genocide) emphatically, publicly and explicitly stated that the very roots of the word sprang conceptually from the massacres of the Armenians in 1915 (there is TV footage of this, and it is also in print)… In fact he started coming up with the word even before World War II and in 1933 he made a presentation at the League of Nations on international law under the essay name of “Crime of Barbarity” – the concept of that crime which was to evolve into “genocide” (Based on the Assyrians, Armenians and Greek systematic massacres) – more surprisingly – the word genocide was not even used in the Nuremburg trials and is absent from the verdict – Lemkin called the court’s verdict the “blackest day of my life” as it failed to address crimes committed before the beginning of World War II.
Interesting strategy tying 1) the Armenian genocide recognition resolution to presidential politics and 2) the idea of change in domestic politics to the idea of calling out genocide when it happens. Such a universal objective, one to which globally almost all can easily ascribe (goal = stopping genocide when it happens, and working to prevent it from ever happening again, acknowledgement, etc.) is again, thanks to voices like Fein, tainted by the goal of protecting Turkey’s flawed policy of denial.
Notice Fein’s trivialization of the Armenian Genocide (“which many have difficulty even finding on a map…” and “quarrel over World War I history in Anatolia”) followed by terming the need to stop the cycle of genocide as a special interest issue by the supposed Armenian lobby. Most observers can easily note that in October 2007, the only real lobby in Washington, DC was the well-oiled, highly-financed (millions of dollars per month to agents of a foreign government like the Livingston Group and DLA Piper and Gephardt) and governmentally-driven opposition that was the real “lobby” that opposed recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US Congress. Vilifying politicians for working with constituencies on issues those constituents care about is a rather absurd accusation – this type of dynamic occurs all the time with the myriad issues that Americans care about based on their backgrounds, upbringing, and other factors. Alternatively, Fein should probably be focusing his concerns on the vast security and credibility/legitimacy issues that the US faces when a foreign government (i.e. Turkey) seriously interferes with internal domestic politics, not to mention threatening retribution against a senior/superior NATO ally in the US over a resolution that is not binding law and simply expresses a sense of the Congress. Let us not forget Turkey threatened the safety of our troops and also stated it would be forced to destabilize the area by going after the Kurdistan region in the alleged pursuit of the PKK. (Let us recall that Turkey actually did do this even after the resolution was not scheduled for a House floor vote, thereby proving it will do whatever it wants whenever it wants regardless of US interests). In fact, President Reagan has acknowledged the genocide (1981) and Congressional Resolutions have passed in 1975 and 1984 acknowledging same. Unfortunately, the US government, as seen from October 2007, assists in Turkey’s campaign of denial which plays a prominent role in resolutions coming to the fore.
The argument over Congress staying out of history is also not a very compelling one. Fein ignores the numerous other House resolutions on the Cambodian genocide, the Ukrainian famine-genocide, the Rwandan genocide, Darfur, the Jewish Holocaust and the issue of the Comfort Women from over 50 years ago. All of these resolutions may have in some cases irked allies or governments – but the US Congress was courageous enough to move forward and acknowledge historically major scourges such as genocide, without bowing to threats from a country that is supposed to be our friend and ally. Of course, with all that written I cannot help but remember when Turkey denied access through its land when the US was planning its operation in Iraq in 2003. This failure of cooperation by Turkey cost the US countless lives and a critical strategic advantage – as many military tacticians and officials have made abundantly clear.
Fein also does not mention that the historical record is in fact quite clear on the Armenian Genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, the pre-eminent authority on genocide, has unanimously urged passage of resolutions to recognize this crime and deter denial. The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and the Institute for the Study of Genocide in New York City have also affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide. Not to stop there, numerous holocaust scholars, among them Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Yehuda Bauer and Israel Charny have stated that the Armenian Genocide is incontestable historical fact and have urged governments of the Western democracies to recognize it as such. In a 1999 statement, 150 scholars, writers and journalists urged Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide. It goes on and on – the record is quite clear with almost all neutral historians acknowledging the incontrovertible historical fact of the Armenian Genocide. This is not politicization – it is a matter of historical fact that has been conducted through investigations by historians globally – only Turkey and its paid hands deny the truth.
But what we saw recently was not even the argument of denial to oppose the resolution – we saw the national security arguments of threatening American troop safety and destabilization in Iraq as the denial argument is really not an effective one for Turkey to espouse anymore. The world knows the Armenian Genocide occurred… To state that the resolution somehow impacted stability in the middle-east bordered on complete insanity – as we saw clearly – Turkey conducted its military incursions and air strikes violating Iraqi sovereignty anyway…
Regarding opening archives and commissions, it is widely known that Turkey’s Article 301 strongly deters anyone from conducting honest research internally. Fein’s comments on this matter imply that Turkish archives have been open with scores of neutral scholars pouring through droves of nearly century-old documents – this is quite unbelievable. The assassination of Hrant Dink, who was preposterously charged with more crimes even after he was killed is a testament to this very sad state of affairs and the chilling effect that has occurred in Turkish society and academia over the Armenian Genocide. The potential “openness” that denialists, apologists and revisionist request is only meant to stave off the inevitability of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. In fact, much has been made about historians – they do their work, it is peer reviewed and over time a narrative on a topic is created with various viewpoints – this has been going on for quite a long time. The Armenian Genocide has already passed the test of historically and academically rigorous study and has reached an overwhelming consensus. These were independent historians, many of which specialize in the very area under the microscope, and have reached a conclusion after decades of scholarship. Only a few scholars outside Turkey and those paid by Turkey say otherwise. This begs the question that Turkey does not truly seek resolution or an accurate finding regarding the Armenian genocide – it simply seeks to obfuscate the matter, delay addressing it at all costs and hope that the issue will somehow go away eventually. Erdogan has already publicly stated that Turkey could never accept the claim that its forefathers committed genocide – so much for even the twisted commission idea… Obviously this only exacerbates the situation. (Notice how Nagorno-Karabakh, reconciliation and Azerbaijan are mentioned but are not relevant to discussing the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide).
Regarding Turkey calling for normalized relations – Armenia has for years stated that there are no preconditions to the establishment of diplomatic ties. This is clearly documented on the public record. Instead, Turkey continues to blockade Armenia in solidarity with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Turkish President Abdullah Gul is also the same leader who has been seen publicly meeting and smiling proudly with Omar al-Bashir (Sudanese President) which prompted the following sobering commentary from even Morton Abramowitz (former US Ambassador to Turkey and not exactly the biggest proponent of Armenian Genocide recognition):
“Turkey has been trying to persuade the world, not very successfully, that there was no Armenian genocide in 1915. The picture of President Abdullah Gul [with al-Bashir] smiling at a joint press conference is hardly going to convince skeptics that Turkey even knows what genocide means, and it will certainly raise doubts in supporters of Turkey.” http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1790
Fein instead asks “our nation’s leaders, both current and prospective [to] follow President Gul’s instruction” – this is a rather comical request on Fein’s part.
The bottom line in all this is that the strategy of trivializing the Armenian Genocide, denying it ever happened, mentioning national security or troop safety issues, etc. only stick around because Turkey pours ungodly amounts of money into its campaign to never acknowledge what occurred in 1915 (see Fein’s article). If you put enough money behind even the worst idea (i.e. denying historical reality of possibly the worst crime out there), it will persist even in a dilapidated and rather embarrassing state …
Reconciliation is an admirable goal – but only with the acknowledgement and clear affirmation of the historical record. There can be no real reconciliation without truth. I would also submit that the recent Kosovo situation sets a strong precedent for the autonomy and eventual independence of Nagorno-Karabakh – as most commentators, historians and political scientists easily quantify NK as having a better case for statehood than most semi-autonomous conflicts, let alone Kosovo…which just benefited from what seems to be a return to explicit manifestation of US v. Russian interests in Eastern Europe…but what exactly does that have to do with the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide? I would understand if Fein drew a connection between the fact the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a current problem – while the continued denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government is also a current problem in that it prolongs the original annihilation and extends it into the future without resolution…
We do deserve a good leader, one who promotes reconciliation and peace among peoples and nations and is the architect of change. But also the kind of leader who acknowledges the historically catastrophic consequences of not calling out and stopping genocide when it happens – and also stopping denial dead in its tracks so that Santayana’s ominous words (“Those that cannot learn from history are doomed/condemned to repeat it”) do not play out yet again in another modern day Darfur, Rwanda or who-knows where else.
Please do not act like you are not part of this Armenian lobby's objectives, since you too are an Armenian Hyola (Hye means Armenia).
Do not put words into Fein's mouth by implying that he was trivializing the suffering of Armenians, because he has never done something like this. The Armenians did suffer, but to call it genocide when it does NOT fit the United Nations definition of genocide is also wrong and can lead to a society of hate and primitiveness.
You said "Churchill first used the word 'holocaust'", Churchill also worked for the British government during World War I, which was when the British were enemies of the Ottomans. Propaganda during that time was rampant to condemn the Central Powers. They recruited people by talking about suffering of Armenians, even though the central government of the Ottomans never ordered or encouraged killings of Armenians.
Raphael Lemkin's coining of the genocide is irrelevant to the CURRENT definition of genocide according to the United Nations, which demands that proof of intent exists. In the Holocaust, gas chambers showed evidence that the government built these for the purpose of killing Jews, they also found thousands of archives that show that the Nazi government planned an extermination of the Jews, so please do not think for one minute that Raphael Lemkin is the authority on genocide, when he wasn't even a historian and since he never went to Turkey in his life.
Mr Fein, I'm with you 100% on Constitutional issues, but to hold up McCain as a paragon of rectitude is beyond reason. McCain was an honorable man, but fell to the corruption of age and ambition.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
