U.S. Denial of the Armenian Genocide

[babylonsister]

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4660

U.S. Denial of the Armenian Genocide

Stephen Zunes | October 22, 2007

Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org

It continues to boggle the mind what the Democratic leadership in Congress will do whenever the Republicans raise the specter of labeling them “soft on terrorism.” They approve wiretapping without a court order. They allow for indefinite detention of suspects without charge. They authorize the invasion and occupation of a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us and then provide unconditional funding for the bloody and unwinnable counter-insurgency war that inevitably followed.

Now, it appears, the Democrats are also willing to deny history, even when it involves genocide.

The non-binding resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide attracted 226 co-sponsors and won passage through the House Foreign Relations Committee. Nevertheless, it appears that as of this writing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – in response to pressure from the White House and Republican congressional leaders that it would harm the “Global War on Terrorism” – will prevent the resolution from coming up for vote in the full House.

snip//

Not only is this a tragic affront to the remaining genocide survivors and their descendents, it is also a disservice to the many Turks who opposed their government’s policies at that time and tried to stop the genocide, as well as to contemporary Turks who face jail by their U.S.-backed regime for daring to acknowledge it. If the world’s one remaining superpower refuses to acknowledge the genocide, there is little chance that justice will ever be served.

Adolf Hitler, responding to concerns about the legacy of his crimes, once asked, “Who, after all, is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?” Failure to pass this resolution would send a message to future tyrants that they can commit genocide and not even have it acknowledged by the world’s most powerful countries.

Indeed, refusing to recognize genocide and those responsible for it in a historical context makes it easier to deny genocide today. In 1994, the Clinton administration – which consistently refused to fully acknowledge Armenia’s tragedy – also refused to use the word “genocide” in the midst of the Rwandan government’s massacres of over half that country’s Tutsi population, a decision that delayed the deployment of international peacekeeping forces until after 800,000 people had been slaughtered.

As a result, the fate of the resolution on the Armenian genocide is not simply about commemorating a tragedy that took place 90 years ago. It is about where we stand as a nation in facing up to the most horrible of crimes. It is about whether we are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of lies. It is about whether we see our nation’s glory based on appeasing our strategic allies or in upholding our longstanding principles.

[wtmusic]

1. Nancy Pelosi is a complete sellout

But maybe she knows something we don't know... :eyes:

[Wilms]

2. For the "but, but, but" crowd.

From the article cited in the OP:

In reality, however, if the Bush administration and Congress were really concerned about hurting relations with Turkey, Bush would have never asked for and Congress would have never approved authorization for the United States to have invaded Iraq, which the Turks vehemently opposed. As a result of the U.S. war and occupation of Turkey’s southern neighbor, public opinion polls have shown that percentage of the Turkish population holding a positive view of the United States has declined from 52% to only 9%.

snip

The United States has antagonized Turkey still further as a result of U.S. support for Kurdish nationalists in northern Iraq who, with the support of billions of dollars worth of U.S. aid and thousands of American troops, have created an autonomous enclave that has served as a based for KADEK (formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist group. KADEK forces, which had largely observed a cease fire prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting consolidation of the quasi-independent Kurdish region, have since been emboldened to launch countless forays into Turkish territory at the cost of hundreds of lives.

[pscot]

3. What does the Armenian genocide have to do with us?

I could understand a resolution condemning all genocide. Why is something that happened under the Ottomans a hundred years ago of any concern to us? I'll wager that most Americans know nothing about the issue and couldn't care less.

[Igel]

4. They've revised the resolution to say there was no genocide?

That's what "denying history" is in this case.

Take the cleansing of Cordoba of Jews by Muslims. If I don't mention that the Muslims in Spain cleansed Cordoba of Jews, it means I don't mention it. Perhaps I know that the job interview I have with Ahmed is a bad time. Or that during it during a meeting with Muhammed and Mordecai, not necessarily on the best of terms on most days, is a bad idea. Perhaps the right time just hasn't come up.

But it's not the same as saying that that the Muslims did not cleanse Cordoba of Jews.

After all, I haven't mentioned the near genocide of the Khoe-San by Bantu speakers, and the current levels of oppression, all day. Or the bloody imperialism of the Aztecs. Or how some S. California Indian tribes drove various species to extinction. And small-pox infected blankets given (or not) to Native Americans by the Americans and British ... those haven't been a topic of conversation in my household for at least a month. And varroa mites ... I haven't talked about *them* all week. Doesn't mean I deny the facts.

It just means I haven't mentioned them. And to say otherwise is not just a strawman, but a strawman that's got far too much bullshit on his straw.