Nancy Pelosi and the Armenians
There is something peculiar about the way the political class in the United States thinks. At a recent meeting on U.S. foreign policy that I attended, a speaker noted that Americans are "results-oriented." I believe that he is correct but he should have noted that the generalization does not apply to politicians. Politicians are image-oriented and are not interested in results, particularly when the results are bad.
The Armenian Genocide resolution, which is sailing through Congress, is a great image builder for some politicians who want to register their disapproval of mass slaughter, but it is a terrible result. It comes at the worst possible time as the U.S. is trying to convince Turkey to show restraint and not invade northern Iraq and one has to wonder why the United States should be involved in this at all. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi carries out her pledge to bring the resolution before the entire House of Representatives next month, it is almost certain to pass as 226 out of the 435 Congressman have already signed on to it. The resolution accomplishes precisely nothing apart from alienating the Turkish government and people from the United States. It is non-binding on the White House and State Department and it essentially documents a tragedy that took place nearly one hundred years ago, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, which no longer exists, and implemented by politicians and military officers who are long since in their own graves. One wonders if a congressional resolution condemning Uzbekistan for Tamerlane's slaughter of two million residents of Baghdad in the fourteenth century is coming up next or possibly an indictment of Italy for Scipio Aemilianus' destruction of the city of Carthage in 146 BC. It is particularly ironic that the U.S. Congress believes it can seize the moral high ground regarding mass killing in light of its collaboration in the destruction of Iraq.
Turkey has been a parliamentary republic since 1923, though one has to note that its military has intervened in the democratic process more than once and the Turkish definition of republicanism is heavily flavored by a sense of nationhood that does not always permit in practice much in the way of minority rights. Turkey was the only Muslim nation that was a founding member of NATO, it fought bravely by the side of the US in Korea, and has been a staunch ally up until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Within NATO, Turkey's army is second in size only to that of the United States. Turkey is the strategic key to a stable Middle East. It is the only Muslim country that has a genuinely close relationship with Israel and it cooperates with Tel Aviv in many areas. It is also a bridge to Europe for the Islamic world and a role model of how relatively open pluralistic politics and a free media can actually work within the framework of Islam. Turkey is also home of the large US airbase at Incirlik near Adana, which is responsible for 70 percent of all air shipments into Iraq. Thirty per cent of all fuel supplied by road to Iraq enters through the port of Adana. All of the new bomb proof Mine Resistant Ambush Protected personnel carriers that are being supplied to U.S. forces are flown into Iraq over Turkish airspace. Incirlik Airbase hosted more than 3,000 flights of C5 and C17 transports going to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 as well as 3,800 missions by K-135 tankers. If the use of Incirlik were halted by the Turkish government, it would have a major impact on US military operations in the region.
Currently, less than 10 percent of Turks view the United States favorably and that percentage is likely to decline further given the events of the past week. In the late 1980s the favorable percentage was closer to 90. What has happened in the intervening time to change that? Congressional grandstanding by Pelosi and company is partly to blame, but most of the decline in Turkish support for the U.S. is a result of the Iraq war and also the inability or unwillingness of the Bush Administration to do anything about the terrorists who are using Iraq's Kurdish region as a base of operations.
From the Turkish point of view, the United States is completely hypocritical. The United States became a great power through its genocide of the red Indians and is hardly in a good position to point the finger at others. It currently is fighting a self-declared and self-defined global war on terrorism in which it claims the right to attack terrorists anytime and anywhere. It publicly states that its goal is to end all terrorism everywhere in the world. An apparent exception appears to be NATO ally Turkey, which has been plagued by Kurdish terrorism for more than 20 years. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have both promised to stop the terrorist group the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) from using its havens in northern Iraq to stage attacks inside Turkey but they have done nothing, largely because they do not want to put pressure on the government of the Kurdish region, which is admittedly the only stable part of Iraq. Turkey has repeatedly warned that the failure to act against the terrorists might lead to intervention by its own armed forces. More than 30 Turkish soldiers and civilians have been killed by the PKK over the past two weeks and the Turkish public and the army General Staff are both demanding a military response.
Given Ankara's concerns about Washington's lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism, the genocide vote will likely transform the United States into "public enemy number one" for many Turks. There has been a great deal of speculation as to why the genocide resolution came up now and why some congressmen who normally would have voted against it changed their minds. Pelosi is definitely influenced by the large numbers of wealthy Armenians in her own district and more generally speaking in key blue states like California and New Jersey. This is ethnic politics at its finest, where the national interest takes a back seat to long simmering animosities and events that took place long ago and far away. The argument that the resolution is being promoted to force Turkey to establish diplomatic relations with neighboring Armenia is a complete red herring as the problem between the two countries goes back to Armenia's seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh from neighboring Azerbaijan in 1988-1994. The Turks regard the Azeris as fellow Turks and have refused to regularize relations while the enclave continues to be largely in Armenian hands. The political animosity between Turkey and Armenia therefore has nothing to do with the events of 1915 and will not be resolved by accusing the Turks of genocide.
More curious still is the actual voting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the resolution. Normally, the Israel first crowd lines up to protect Turkey as Ankara has been a reliable Muslim ally to Tel Aviv. Outspoken Abe Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, has vacillated on whether or not to support any official recognition of the Armenian genocide. Groups like B'nai Brith International and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs have refused to endorse recognition. Foxman in particular has been criticized by other Jews who object to his constant citing of the Holocaust while wavering over the Armenian claim to having had a similar experience. In Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos of California is so close to Israel that he often acts for that country as a spokesman. Lantos has ambitions to become Secretary of State in a Hillary Clinton administration, so it is possible that he is attempting to establish his credentials as a statesman and an independent voice, but he always looks to Israel's interests first and it may be that the Israel lobby is concerned by the increased Islamic manifestations in Turkey and is delivering a warning shot to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Seven out of eight Jews on the Foreign Affairs Committee followed Lantos's lead by voting in support of the resolution. One other theory is that diminishing Turkey's regional role will enhance the need to rely more on Israel, making it perforce the "indispensable" U.S. ally in the Middle East and a third possibility is that pressuring the Kurds will speed the break-up of Iraq, which could be construed as being in the Israeli interest. If any of those arguments is driving the genocide resolution process the end result will be bad for the United States and not necessarily good for Israel. Embroiled in Iraq without any easy way out and heavily dependent on the supply line passing through southern Turkey, Washington has much more to lose than to gain by turning Ankara into an enemy.
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
oh for god's sakes, the Armenians have been working for awhile, every year trying to get some justice in the US system.
If we're really supposed to take horrors from Armenia throgh Darfur seriously, I would hope not to hear pundits & Republicans whining that it's a "bad time."
If Turkey is a psychopathic country that refuses the truth on their genocide of the Armenians, who the hell wants to add them as "allies?" Kick out the idea of them joining the EU (and civilization) as well.
If this is the best that "Islamic Democracy" can do -- then Bush & his klan really were idiots!
There have already been 2 resolutions passed in Congress in past decades. Why do we need another one? Especially for somegthing that happened a hundred years ago. This is going to do nothing but create issues with Turkey. And if you haven't noticed, we really need them as allies in this region.
We need to do this because the CURRENT Turkish government refuses to acknowledge that these atrocities even occured. It is important for the accurate, historical record of this genocide to be officially acknowledged by all. The same is true for our own genocides against Native Americans, and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Iraninas and Iraqis that we have helped to perpetuate, or actually did carry out. I don't care how "strategic" a country is for us...if they cannot face up to the truth and reality of their past, they don't deserve our support. Read just one chapter of Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" and you will soon see why it is so important.
I'm with you on this issue. If we absolutely must have 'allies' such as Turkey, who needs enemies?
What difference does it make how long ago 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Young
Turk government of that country? Persecution is ongoing to this day.
The EU has huge reservations about admitting Turkey because of the Armenian holocaust. Why are WE so touchy about standing on principle? Or... maybe we aren't capable any longer of seeing the moral principle at stake here. In the U.S. of today, the end always seems to justify the means, right?
What is so obscene about Turkey's response to the genocide is not primarily it's denial that it occurred, but its dogged refusal to accept
responsibility for it.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
"oh for god's sakes, ...every year trying to get some justice in the US system."
I have a couple comments on that....
1. Why does Armenia need "justice in the US system"? Why is it that the US needs to provide justice for something that happened during WWI in eastern europe??
2. At the end of WWI, the Ottoman empire fell. The lands occupied by the Ottoman empire were broken up which included (now) Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Kurdistan and other countries. Notice I said countries, not nations. The only nation to remain intact was Turkey. Upon the collapse of the final Ottoman sultan, Mustafa Kamal rebuilt the entire political system as a Republic. Islam ras retained as a practicing religion but the government would remain secular. Part of the harsh terms of the peace treaty of WWI included reparations and apology for the deaths of ethnic Armenians, as well as internationally recognized state of Armenia.
3. We have already had two non-binding resolutions calling this a genocide. Why do we need another one? Is this something we need to apologize for? How many times have we apologized to the american indian? blacks? mexicans? Why dont we just make a blanket apology to the world for everything we've ever done or may do. Do we need to apologize to the latin americans for Spain spreading disease to the indigenous tribes? Or the Cambodians for installing the Kumar Rouge? Laos for bombing the communists hiding there?
Sorry, bit of a tangent there.... Anyway, this is just typical Reid/Pelosi stuff... Cant get budgets done but they can bring up old stuff to screw the war effort.
I'm patiently waiting for Madame Speaker to introduce a bill condemning the genocide in Iraq.
Moral highground indeed. She looks like a fool to the world.
ditto
I wonder how much money Nancy has taken from local Armenian rug merchants.
Brooklynbilly :
Never as much $$$$ as Bush and Cheney have taken form AIPAC and the Turkish Lobby!!!!
Since when did Congress become the home of all these "ceromonial" resolutions. I'd be happy if they passed one eliminted anything "non binding." This resolution is silly. Any study of history shows that this was indeed genocide, but why would we even bother condemning it while Darfur continues unabated. Even Clinton pressured Congress to drop the resolution back when he was in office. It might be a ploy to get Turkey to kick us out of our airbase there. This could be seen as an end around to stop the iraq war, but it is quite short sighted. I'm sure we would just build a bigger one in Iraq or Kuwait, and the Dems would be attacked for playing politics with our troops. I really don't understand the timing on this.
Brilliant post . . . thank you for posting it . . . rather than putting impeachment on the agenda our fearless Democrats and Speaker Pelosi are actually engaging in a stupid mindless irresponsible bit of legislation that is 100 years out of date . . . it boggles the mind that they are wasting precious time and tax payers money on this and at the same time alienating Turkey and for no good reason . . . basically WTF do they think they are doing?
While I'd normally be in favor of a bill like this, I have to say, the timing here eludes me.
Paul - originalfa
When exactly would be a good time to do this?
Dear Mr. Giraldi,
Well Sir, it seems that we (you and I) are in the same stream of consciousness on this one. I'm glad to see that at least one other person has came to the same conclusion.
This resolution in all reality serves no one, not even the Armenians. Agape.
Following your logic, what was the point of getting mad at Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust??? Does it help the Jews in any way???
It's just a MORAL thing to do.
There is NEVER a good time to pass a resolution that could be unpleasant or inconvenient.
But it is the TRUTH and denying it, only helps the next perpetrators to get away with it...
The TRUTH is, passing this resolution will very likely result in the loss of Turkish air space to resupply U.S. troops in Iraq.
The perpetrators of the genocide are all dead, by the way.
Poppycock!
Logic is the science of reason, not sophism and fallacious arguments.
Nancy, this is what you've decided you're going to take a stand on???? WTF??
WTF indeed!
Nancy, get it together and deal with the real issues. That's why you were elected. No, you can't please everyone.
I have to agree. There are any number of more important matters that need to be brought up for a vote. Impeachment's off the table, but let's bring up something to further screw up things in the middle east. WTF indeed.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
