The genocide vote: Now is not the time
A congresswoman explains her decision to oppose the Armenian genocide
bill she co-sponsored.
By Jane Harman
October 12, 2007
As one whose own family was decimated by the Holocaust, I respond very
personally to charges that I would deny the existence of savage acts
of inhumanity against a group of people because of ethnic, religious
or racial differences — be they Jews, Darfurians, Rwandans or
Armenians.
Yet that’s exactly what I was accused of last week after I sent a
letter to Rep. Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, urging him to withdrawHR 106, which I had co-sponsored
earlier in the year. Some Armenian Americans, whose passion I
appreciate, have misinterpreted my determination that the time is not
right to vote on such a resolution as "denial" of the Armenian
genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No question: The debate raging in Washington over the Armenian
genocide resolution is personal. Similar resolutions have passed the
House twice — in 1975 and 1984 — and we are poised to pass another
before Thanksgiving. Whether it will be brought to a vote in the
Senate remains unclear.
I originally co-sponsored the resolution because I was convinced that
the terrible crime against the Armenian people should be recognized
and condemned. But after a visit in February to Turkey, where I met
with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox
patriarch and colleagues of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant
Dink, I became convinced that passing this resolution again at this
time would isolate and embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic
government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world.
So I agree with eight former secretaries of State — including Los
Angeles’ own Warren Christopher — who said that passing the
resolution "could endanger our national security interests in the
region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage
efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia."
Timing matters. I asked a leader in California’s Armenian American
community just days ago why the resolution was being pushed now. "They
didn’t ask me," he said. It wasn’t his call, and he probably would not
have pushed it.
So what is the endgame? I would hope that, regardless of the outcome
of the vote, Turkey and Armenia will work toward reconciliation and
normalization of relations.
About 70,000 Armenians live in Turkey, and Turkey continues to admit
more. Yet Article 301 of Turkey’s Constitution prohibits insulting
"Turkishness" — a disturbing provision that has been used to punish
Armenians in Turkey who insist the genocide took place. Surely an act
of reconciliation would be to embrace the Armenian population in
Turkey and repeal Article 301.
Further, Turkey and Armenia have held recent talks about normalizing
relations. They share mutual interests in trade, especially in the
energy sector. Now is a good time to engage.
And, of course, there is the need for stability in the region. Turkey
shares a border with Iraq, and the need for its continued restraint
with the Kurds and for its leadership in promoting stability and
resolving the Israel-Palestine issue is obvious. Armenia can help.
In a democracy, groups have the right to protest, and surely I respect
the right of California’s large Armenian community (and the L.A.
Times’ editorial board) to disagree with my position on the timing of
yet a third congressional vote on the genocide. But once that vote
occurs, that fabulously talented community can usefully channel its
passion and energy into productive next steps toward reconciliation.
Condemning horror is important. But moving through the anger and
psychic hurt to positive action is true emancipation.
Jane Harman (D-Venice) represents California’s 36th Congressional District.
Source: la-oe-harman12oct12,1,6368819.story?ctrack=3&c set=true