A MORAL AND POLITICAL DILEMMA
By Edmond Y. Azadian
EDITORIAL | JANUARY 24, 2013 1:12 PM
Upon the nomination of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as the next
secretary of defense, a political firestorm broke out involving gays,
the Israeli lobby in Washington and the Armenians. The nominee being a
straight talker has offended the above groups, and perhaps many others
throughout his political career. Now, as he faces the uphill battle
for his confirmation before the Armed Services Committee and later
the full Senate, he has to answer all those groups in a satisfactory
manner to win the confirmation.
On the other hand the nominee for the position of secretary of state,
former presidential candidate and current senator, John Kerry, does
not anticipate hurdles.
Before we draw our battle lines, we need to postulate the offenses
of which the Republican maverick Hagel is accused.
First, the gays have an axe to grind with Mr. Hagel who had remarked
in 1998 that James Hormel, a philanthropist and later, an ambassador to
Luxembourg, was “openly, aggressively gay,” the inference being that he
was not a suitable candidate for an ambasadorial post in that country.
Next in line is the Jewish lobby with the “neo-cons” in the background
because of Hagel’s remark that “the Jewish lobby in the United States
intimidates a lot of people.”
Now all the political weapons in the arsenal of the Israeli lobbyists
are directed against Mr. Hagel, calling him anti-Israel, anti-Semitic,
soft on Israel’s enemies and so on. A crusade has already been mounted
against him. There is a Kaf kaesque irony in standing up to deny
the obvious, just for the sake of political expediency. And indeed,
Hagel has tried to accommodate his critics in an interview given on
January 7, 2013, to the Lincoln Journal Star where he stated that
his record demonstrates his “unequivocal, total support for Israel
[…] There is not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israel, not
one vote that matters hurt Israel.”
This kind of categorical denial, to save his career, only confirms
rather than denies his earlier statement that the “Jewish lobby
intimidates a lot of people.”
Mr. Hagel tried to come clean with the gay community stating that
he had demonstrated “insensitivity” towards gays, meaning that his
views have evolved since over the issue.
These are powerful interest groups in America which any aspirant
for a political position can ignore at his or her own risk. In order
for any campaign to succeed, it must be aligned with the interests of
other powerful groups. This time around, Armenians are in good company,
because not only have they been handling the firing line but also many
human rights groups and prominent Jewish leaders have joined the fray.
Hagel’s statements are unfortunate and abominably wrong. “What happened
in 1915 happened in 1915,” Hagel said during a 2005 trip to Armenia
when he was serving in the senate. “As a United States senator,
I think the better way to deal with this is to leave it open to
historians and others to decide what happened and why.”
This is a vintage Genocide-denial recipe concocted in Ankara and
delivered hot to Mr. Hagel. The former senator compounded his
insensitivity by voting against the Armenian Genocide bill in the
Senate.
Now, as a result, a powerful ally has rushed to the rescue of the
Armenians: “What Chuck Hagel said in his press conference in Armenia
in 2005 regarding the Genocide of the Armenians by Turks is shameful,”
said Walter Reich, a former director of the US Holocaust Memorial
Museum. “In his forthcoming confirmation hearings, senators should
confront him with what he said and should expect him to address
it. It is a disgrace and a disservice to the memory of the victims
to say that their murder should be forgotten in the service of the
peace process, as if a real peace process is possible if one hides
or ignores or mischaracterizes what actually happened,” Reich said
It is better said than any Armenian could have formulated it. It is
a very happy coincidence that Jewish leaders have taken up our cause,
of course not without self-interest. But that’s the nature of politics
and we can only be thankful to them for articulating so forcefully
the Cause of the Armenian Genocide.
Now comes the moment of truth; Mr. Hagel has apologized to the Jewish
and gay lobbies, he has yet to make a statement about his scathing
remarks on the Armenian Genocide. We can easily extrapolate the reason
why he has been silent so far on the Armenian issue, after so much
outcry. The answer is simple; those lobbies are powerful enough that
every politician has to reckon with. What clout do the Armenians wield
in the US and the Caucasus region? The answer to that question alone
will determine Mr. Hagel’s actions and behavior.
Armenian lobbying groups are not entirely in harmony – the scandal
about the Genocide Museum is the hallmark of our weakness. Besides,
large contingents of Armenians have been voting with their pocket
books, with little or no regard about this country’s problems and
exigencies in Armenia. President Obama won the election for his second
term by empowering a coalition of Latinos, blacks, gays, immigrants
and the dispossessed, while Tea Party zealots and unelected neo-cons
took for granted that they owned the country.Where were the Armenians
in the election shuffle? Some were trapped in “single issue syndrome,”
others were out of sync with the political currents and crying needs
of Armenia and the Genocide recognition. This situation can only teach
one lesson; unless we mobilize the masses for political action, Mr.
Hagel, and for that matter, any other politicians will never oblige.
On the other side of the equation is Turkey’s growing political
clout in the world scene and Azerbaijan’s dangerous escalation of
militarization, while Armenia’s work force abandons the country in
droves and Diasporan armchair politicians have only criticism to
direct at their homeland, without any actual input. But there is a
silver lining in Chuck Hagel’s nomination yet that cannot be viewed
as an isolated issue. It has to be analyzed within the context of
broader political developments.
When the first President George Bush was elected, he promised a
“gentler, kinder America.” But all we witnessed was a series of wars
and bloodbaths around the world, especially with the election of the
younger Bush, who became a hostage to the neo-con cabal, and fell into
the trap which President Eisenhower had warned against: the takeover
of the country by the military-industrial complex. Economic collapse,
insecurity and instability around the world became the standard and
pessimism reigned.
President Obama was elected with the promise of improving the economy,
overhauling the healthcare system and winding down the senseless wars
abroad. His opponent, Mitt. Romney, was promising $15 billion more to
the Army, which did not know what to do with it. That was, of course,
in line with the neo-con policies of supplying cannon fodder for the
growing military-industrial complex.
Chuck Hagel was chosen first as a Republican, to deflect criticism
against the administration when it takes up the task of sizing down
the Armed Forces, to become leaner yet more efficient and affordable.
In his inaugural speech, President Obama stated: “We, the people,
still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require
perpetual war […] We are also the heirs of those who won peace and
not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest friends.”
These statements introduce monumental strategic changes to the
White House world views. Mr. Hagel fits in the perspective of the
president’s policies. Plus, as Bill Keller stated in his op-ed piece
in the January 20 issue of the New York Times, Obama’s foreign and
defense policies are directed from the White House.
President Obama seems to have subscribed to Moshe Dayan’s statement,
“If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends; you talk
to your enemies.”
If this peaceful policy is implemented, we can see a relaxation in
the intensifying Cold War with Russia over the plans to use Turkish
territory to install new missile systems aimed at Moscow. We can also
anticipate further diplomacy with Iran, rather than threats whose
fallout could be disastrous for Armenia.
Currently Washington has taken a neutral position between Japan and
China over the dispute of coastal islands.
Since Mr. Hagel is amenable to develop his views, and since he can only
implement the president’s policies, we may expect some light at the
end of the tunnel. The secretary of defense can no longer be a loose
canon; he has to implement the president’s policies. While it is true
that Mr. Obama still hesitates to use the word “genocide” with regard
to Armenian history, his views thus far are closer to the historical
truth uttered by any US president, with the exception of Ronald Reagan.
Hagel’s nomination still remains a moral and political dilemma until
he makes good on our expectations.
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2013/01/24/a-moral-and-political-dilemma/