TURKISH THREATS SHOULDN’T DERAIL GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
Will Volet
Hartford Courant, CT
hvolet1026.artoct26,0,4349812.story
Oct 26 2007
After years of searching for the elusive right time, the U.S. House
and Senate should adopt the resolution – approved by the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on Oct. 10 – to officially recognize that the 1915
massacre of 1.5 million Turkish Armenians was genocide. This horrible
tragedy was real and those who deny its significance are advocates of
politically based policy, not reality. The truth needs to be recognized
for the sake of Armenians and the American image. In 1913, a political
group known as the Young Turks succeeded in a coup that gave it control
of what is modern Turkey. Under this regime, which ended after World
War I, Turkish Armenians were systematically annihilated. The Young
Turks tried to eradicate any record of the Armenians, sometimes by
destroying entire cities. Although the Turkish government claims
that the Armenian genocide occurred because of political turmoil
following a revolution, historians have largely refuted this idea,
saying that Armenians were mostly peaceful, and the killings were
part of an established government policy. Many U.S politicians argue
that now is not an appropriate time to accept the House resolution
because Turkey has threatened to move forces into northern Iraq to
fight Kurdish rebels along with denying the American military access
to the region. This is an example of how military action in Iraq and
Afghanistan has paralyzed U.S. policy abroad.
Passing the resolution would exemplify America’s role as a peacekeeper
in a diplomatic setting. There will never be a good time for the
U.S. – in terms of U.S.-Turkish relations – to recognize the Armenian
genocide. The massacres of Armenians took place at the dawn of what is
modern Turkey. If Turkish officials recognize the Armenian genocide,
they are essentially agreeing that the country’s forefathers were
guilty of war crimes. Turkey has and will always do what it can to
avoid this implication. This debate reveals a less than moderate
Turkey. For example, Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish Nobel Prize winner for
literature in 2006, was brought to court on charges of insulting the
Turkish Republic after commenting in an interview on the deaths of
Turkish Kurds and Armenians during the genocide. The case was later
thrown out of court, but only after an international outcry pressured
the Turkish court system. The significance of this trial should not
be ignored. As Pamuk said, "What happened to the Ottoman Armenians
in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation; it
was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past." Pamuk’s
triumph shows how important it is to recognize this issue and move
forward. World opinion kept Pamuk from being incarcerated. So, too,
should the global community look to recognize this genocide to pressure
Turkey, as it did in Pamuk’s case, to adopt more liberal policy. If
the United States were to recognize the genocide, it would surely
help to influence the global community.
Military and political failure in Iraq should not keep America from
speaking out on civil rights issues abroad. Recognizing the Armenian
genocide could help the international image of the United States as
a country against oppression, not a perpetrator of it. Rep. John
Boehner, R-Ohio, called the measure to recognize the genocide
"irresponsible." He went on to say, "What happened 90 years ago ought
to be subject for historians to sort out, not politicians." What Mr.
Boehner failed to realize is that historians have sorted it out.
There is very little doubt that Turkey sanctioned killing squads to
perpetrate the Armenian genocide. Sadly, Boehner is not the first
politician to suggest that forgetting the genocide is important. In
1939, before Hitler deployed his killing squads upon innocent
citizens of Poland he said, "Only in such a way will we win the
vital space that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the
annihilation of the Armenians?" Pamuk, one of Turkey’s greatest
contemporary writers, thinks it’s important to discuss the past
in order to move forward. But, as is the trend, Middle Eastern
foreign policy is decided on what politicians think is best and
how it will affect the military stability in Iraq. History and the
voice of the people are largely ignored.
Will Volet, 24, of New Canaan is a senior at the University of
Hartford, where he majors in history. He is currently an intern with
The Courant’s editorial board.