HOW ARMENIANS CAN AVERT A THIRD WORLD WAR
By Edward Papelian
The Conservative Voice
Dec 11 2007
Contemplations on…
How Armenians Can Avert The Third World War.
What is liberty, justice and democracy about?
There is much talk about "Turkish pride," but what about "American
pride"?
On 10 October 2007 the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the US
Congress once again officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.
An interesting aspect to this is that none of the 21 dissenting
votes disclaimed or denied the Genocide. Instead, they all formally
recognized the event but argued against official recognition because of
geostrategic concerns alone. Within the parties themselves, 19 out of
27 Democrats and 8 out of 21 Republicans voted in favor. The audience
to the vote included Armenian veterans and four wheelchair-bound
survivors of the Genocide.
The next step now is the Congressional vote on the official
resolution. It should be kept in mind that a clutch of Turkish
generals, Islamists and ultra-Nationalists supported by a multi-million
dollar public relations campaign on behalf of Turkish holocaust-deniers
are intensively blackmailing Capitol Hill.
Denying the Armenian Genocide is also a denial of American History.
Many American politicians, individuals, humanists tried to stop the
Armenians Genocide while the Genocide was happening. The American
Nation tried to save as much life as possible in 1915-1923 by an
unparalleled humanitarian act. But the same United State is now
becoming a denial State, by yielding to Turkish threats and blackmails.
The State of Affairs to Date: The Pre and Post History of the VotePrior
to the vote, Turkey not only vocally opposed to the resolution but
also pulled out all the stops in its attempt to create a negative
atmosphere against it. Turkish Prime Minster Erdogan and his party,
the AKP ("Justice and Development Party"), stated that the vote would
play directly into the hands of the Turkish Nationalists.
Buyukanit, the Chief of the Turkish General Staff, stated on the other
hand that the vote played into the hands of the Turkish Islamists. And
while in Israel, Babacan, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs,
said that if the resolution were passed the Jews in Turkey could no
longer be sure of the safety of their lives (even the Mullah Regime
never went that far). This impressive display of verbal scare tactics
displayed by the members of both administrative camps in Turkey –
the two governments in Ankara – in their shared attempt to blackmail
their "allies/friends" (particularly the USA) is, in regard to blind
Turkish Nationalism, difficult to top.
The consensus was that the resolution would do lasting damage
to Turkey’s democratic transition process and its EU course. The
resolution would fan hate against the USA and thus increase the
security risks faced by American and Israeli facilities because
the Turkish population might not be controllable. In the course of
all this, the basic fact that Turkey was deeply anti-American long
before and even without the Congressional Resolution on the Armenian
Genocide has been forgotten. This is evidenced by the record-breaking
audience numbers enjoyed by the Turkish produced anti-American and
anti-Semitic film series Valley of the Wolves Iraq and, furthermore,
by the fact that the Turkish government and general population were
the initial motivators behind the fundamentalist backlash against
Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 due to his criticism of Islamic violence –
the strident protestations of Turkey were influential in heating up
the Islamic world against Western values and democracy.
Above and beyond this, Turkey has demanded that Israel instruct
the "Jewish Lobby" to agitate against the Armenians. Of course
the reference to the "Jewish Lobby" is an allusion to the Jewish
Diaspora and – as is the case when talking of Diasporas – carries a
whiff of world conspiracy and global domination. Thus, the "Jewish
Conspiracy" should follow Ankara’s tune and eliminate, obliterate,
purge (whatever you choose to call it) the "Armenian Conspiracy." Under
normal circumstances the concept would be laughable, but laughter is
not advisable as it could result in asphyxiation.
The "killer" argument came in the end from the lobby groups on the
Turkish government’s payroll: the supply channels of the NATO partners,
EU accession candidates and closest allies of the USA and Israel
to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could be broken. Of course,
the lobbyists blithely overlook the fact that despite the outright
refusal of Turkish support and the corresponding lack of assistance
in 2003, the USA was nonetheless capable of bringing an army of over
100,000 to Iraq. (It must also be mentioned here that Turkey stands
to gain the most were the US to face defeat in Iraq.)
HR106 is only a moral and humanitarian act. What still remains unsaid
is: both the US administration as well as the media conceal the fact
from the American public that the transit ways through Turkey to
Northern Iraq cut through the homeland of the very Armenians that
were transported and slaughtered en mass by the Turkish (see please
President Woodrow Wilson’s arbitration award). It has been concealed
from the American public that many of the military facilities that
the Turkish have ceded to the US – at very high prices – are located
on Armenian native soil (Western Armenia). The Incirlik Air Base, for
example, was built on the private property unjustly confiscated from
an Armenian family. The media has also not mentioned that thousands
of descendants of those who survived Turkey’s attempt to eradicate
the Armenian People and other Christians in Turkey and had found new
hope and a second home in Iraq have now had their new hope and home
once again totally destroyed by a war.
Both the New York Times as well as the international press have
reported that Turkey paid the former Representative Robert Livingston
12 million dollars alone for him to put a stop to the resolution on
Capitol Hill. The former Representative Richard Gephardt has been
receiving a further $300,000 monthly to do likewise. These are but
the official amounts; the "dark figures" of the Turkish cover-up,
disinformation and denial industry are in all likelihood immeasurably
higher.
After pressuring the representatives with so many threats and so much
blackmail and coercion, Turkey hoped that all their manipulation
would result in a negative vote. Among those who jumped aboard
the Turkey-financed train were President Bush, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
An additional argument presented was that the resolution would
destroy the reconciliation process between the Republics of Armenia
and Turkey. This exacted a reaction from the Armenian government,
which retorted with the words that a non-existent relationship cannot
be endangered. Furthermore, the Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanian
also criticized eight former high-ranking members of the United
States government that had gone on record in a letter to the House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi as being against the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. Among others, this includes the former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen,
both of whom are leading a newly launched initiative on genocide
prevention! What good is an initiative against genocide if genocide
committed by political allies simply gets labeled as a "tragedy"?
Now, despite all the threats and attempts at blackmail, the resolution
has gone through. Neither the United States nor Israel have suffered
any damage as a result; in fact, the resolution has provided a few
small advantages:
One or the other US commentator that normally never forgets to preach
morals, God and human rights in his or her articles has found the
Congressional recognition of the genocide due to moralistic grounds as
a welcome opportunity to settle old scores and attack the supporters
of the resolution in a shameless and immoral manner – without ever
even having read the resolution or having looked into the Turkish
politics of denial.
Following the non-binding congressional approval, a very specific
fraction of the media almost methodically discovered a new whipping
boy to hold responsible for any and all miseries found in the Near
East: the Armenian Resolution. Even the White House hasn’t shied
from taking every chance possible to hold the Armenian Resolution,
the newly discovered scapegoat, against its opponents.
A number of articles in US newspapers and statements of some officials
give the impression that we are still in the time of First World War –
a time when the German Chancellor of the Reich Bethmann-Hollweg (who
shares co-responsibility for the Armenian Genocide) chose to ignore
the actions of the allied Turkey due to war-based strategic reasons;
the resulting dearth of any and all humane thought and/or intervention
is what, in the end, permitted the unconstrained execution of a race
by the Young Turkish Regime.
Another dubious columnist even inferred to an "Armenian Conspiracy"
to destroy international solidarity and friendship: it seems that
history is history and therefore should remain a subject just for
historians and not for Congress.
What kind of international solidarity and friendship is based on
blackmail and threats? Is the total denial of a crime an aspect
of international friendship? What kind of partner threatens to
sabotage the war against international terrorism to get what they
want? What kind of ally threatens a fraction of its own population –
the Armenian and Jewish populations – for its own ends? What kind
of "friend" uses minorities as hostage when and as needed? What
kind of friend attempts to take advantage of the shadow of the war
against international terrorism to solve the problem of a further
minority – the "Kurdish Question" – in a criminal manner? Is not
the prevention and punishment of genocide also an aspect of the war
against international terrorism? If the US government makes itself
an accomplice to the denial of genocide by building a partnership
with Turkey based on the repudiation and denegation of genocide,
are not the wars then fought in the name of humanity nothing more
than unadorned hypocrisy and propaganda?
Genocide – extermination of a race – is a political crime. Genocides
are not committed by private individuals, but by the state itself.
The reference to historians and historical science in regard to the
Armenian Genocide is a tactical and spurious argument to relieve the
world governments from the responsibility to act while simultaneously
giving the perpetrators carte blanche. The proper reaction to political
crimes is therefore only possible through political response – from
the parliamentary houses, the politicians and the governments.
Now more than ever the denial of genocide must be responded to,
for denial is intrinsic to the methodology of genocide. Genocide is
denied even as it is practiced. From the beginning, the perpetrator
seeks pretexts and justifications to conceal the real intentions.
Thus, the extermination is referred to as "transporting," as
"deportation" or "resettlement" – or even as the "final solution." A
verbal code is used to camouflage and thus deny the annihilation,
even as it is being committed.
Genocide without simultaneous denial is unthinkable – yes, even
impossible. The first thing that must be done is to consider what the
perpetrators want to attain through denial. Denial is not just the
simple negation of an act; it is much more the consequent continuation
of the very act itself. Genocide should not only physically destroy a
community, it should likewise dictate the prerogative of interpretation
in regard to history, culture, territory and memory.
The Turkish have not only murdered humans and rewritten history,
but they continue to legitimize the act as well as the ideology
that led to the act. This includes the legitimization of any and all
stereotyping of the Armenian people as a dangerous enemy, as a deadly
bogeyman in the closet.
Denial is the final step in the completion of a mass extermination –
and the first step towards the next genocide. If genocide is committed
in Ruanda or Sudan, it is done with the knowledge that the rest of the
world will only watch and then forget. They look to Turkey and think
themselves safe in the assumption that their actions will likewise
remain unpunished! Whether in Sudan or Ruanda or any other potential
hotspot of mass murder, the accountable powers-that-be rhetorically
ask – as Hitler supposedly did just before invading Poland – "Who,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Governments and politicians of Western democracies that use doubletalk
and self-serving domestic "statements" to silence the cries for justice
by the victims of genocide as well as the critical voices within their
own countries claim that today’s Turkey is not responsible for the
genocide of the Armenian people. Such statements are nothing less
than cynical, for such doubletalk masks the fact that the politics
of genocide are thus continued and sanctioned through officially
approved denial. Such statements obscure the nationally authorized
and aggressive Turkish politics of denial that are being continued and
exported under the smokescreen of "protection of the Turkish honor and
pride." But is it not a matter of the honor and pride of the United
States to support the HR106 and speak the truth about the Genocide?
The statement that the genocide happened 90 years ago or the
insinuation that the Armenian Diaspora – the "Armenian Conspiracy" –
are endangering world peace because they are motivated by self-swerving
interests serve nothing else than to protect the perpetrator. But is
it not the purpose and duty of international criminal law to protect
the victim? Should criminal law protect the rapist or killer because
the victim supposedly "asked for it"? Is international law only a
"law for the stronger" and thus only there to protect the state
and not the individual? Are terms such as "crimes against humanity,"
"genocide," "war crimes" and "war of aggression" only there to protect
the aggressors and not the victims?
The Armenian Diaspora – the masses of people forced to disperse
throughout the world – is a result of the genocide executed by
the Turkish; the Armenians, including American Armenians, are not
pursuing an arbitrary and unfounded interest, they have a justified
demand for justice and recognition. At the same time, this demand is
also a concern of the international community of states which created
and approved the legislation known as "public international law" or
"international criminal law."
It is not just a matter of morality to condemn genocide, it is a
premise for peaceful coexistence. It is a cornerstone of international
peace, and the looming threat of this very crime is a principal reason
behind military intervention and self-defense.
Is the Jewish community the "troublemaker" when the Iranian President
Ahmadinejad denies the Shoah? A crime that happened 60 years ago and
that he himself did not participate in?
World War Three is going to be started because the Armenians are
forcing the Turkish to invade Iraq? This argument once again makes
the Turkish the victims of a supernatural power: the "Armenian
World Conspiracy." Is this not simply rather a pretext for Turkey
to continue the Turkish policies of homogenization which had their
start with the Armenian Genocide?
The argument that the nation states should first work through and
account for their own history before they judge the histories of others
infers in part that the Armenian Genocide is not part of Armenian
history but belongs alone to Turkish history, and that the prerogative
of historical interpretation therefore exclusively belongs to Turkey.
Furthermore, it also lends credence to the idea that the international
community has no right to intervene when nation states commit obvious
crimes against humanity. The international community should keep
their eyes shut and simply ignore international crime when it occurs,
as if "it never happened." But it is this very attitude that has led
to and is in part responsible for the genocidal catastrophes of the
20th century.
Whenever the US or France tackles the subject of the Armenian Genocide,
Turkey likes to hold up the dark pasts of France and the USA as
admonishment that they should not throw stones. But in doing so,
Turkey purposely ignores one important aspect: in the USA it is legal
to discuss and research the annihilation of the American Indian, and
the discussion of the history of slavery is not forbidden. If Native
Americans have a concern, they can legally and easily pursue their
interest. In Turkey, on the other hand, it is the exact opposite: it
is a national crime to discuss honestly the topic of the Genocide. Not
surprising in a land where the term "Armenian" used as a derogatory
invective and the few Armenians still remaining in their traditional
and native homeland (renamed by Turkey as "Eastern Anatolia") are
deliberately misused for propagandistic purposes.
Remembrance requires support. And it is the support of the deported
and murdered Armenians that we speak of here and now.
An additional argument is that the recognition of genocide damages
the "national interests." Anyone that justifies denial and/or runs
to support the perpetrators of a crime on the basis of "national
interests" only lends credence to the concept that a crime is both
legitimate and permissible if one gets an advantage out of it. Anyone
that uses the concept of "national interests" as an argument reduces
human rights to an arbitrary plaything to be tossed aside as the
powers-that-be see fit.
"National interests" that deny human rights, truth and justice are
unjustifiable, as they are based on ruthlessness and discrimination and
serve little other than to justify denial. But how can this even be
allowed? Can a crime against humanity ever be justified? The logical
consequence of this policy are the theories of Carl Schmitt – the
legal National Socialist political scientist/theorist who justified the
Night of Long Knives as the "highest form of administrative justice" in
the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung ("German Jurists’ Newspaper") in 1934 –
which maintain that only the strong deserve a place in the world. But
to believe this exposes one’s own nation, people or community – as
well as democratic and moral principles – to the continual threat
of destruction.
Those who fall in line with this argumentation legitimize past
injustices committed and pave the way for future crimes – in the
spirit of Carl Schmitt.
cle/29628.html