US DENIAL OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
by Stephen Zunes
by Foreign Policy in Focus
Published on Monday, October 22, 2007
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.
Call It Genocide
Between 1915 and 1918, under orders of the leadership of the Ottoman
Empire, an estimated two million Armenians were forcibly removed from
their homes in a region that had been part of the Armenian nation
for more than 2,500 years. Three-quarters of them died as a result
of execution, starvation, and related reasons.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during
that period, noted that, "When the Turkish authorities gave the
orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death
warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their
conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal
the fact…" While issuing a "death warrant to a whole race" would
normally be considered genocide by any definition, it apparently
does not in the view of the current administration and Congress of
the government he was representing.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, signed and ratified by the United States, officially defines
genocide as any effort "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Raphael Lemkin was
the Polish Jewish lawyer who originally coined the term "genocide"
in 1944. The earliest proponent of an international convention on its
prevention and the punishment of its perpetrators, Lemkin identified
the Armenian case as a definitive example.
Dozens of other governments – including Canada, France, Italy, and
Russia – and several UN bodies have formally recognized the Armenian
genocide, as have the governments of 40 U.S. states. Neither the Bush
administration nor Congress appears willing to do so, however.
Ironically, Congress earlier this year overwhelmingly passed a
resolution condemning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for
refusing to acknowledge the German genocide of the Jews. That same
Congress, however, appears quite willing to refuse to acknowledge
the Turkish genocide of the Armenians.
While awareness of anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to
dismiss those who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust to the political
fringe, it appears that tolerance for anti-Armenian bigotry is strong
enough that it is still apparently politically acceptable to refuse
to acknowledge their genocide.
The Turkey Factor
Opponents of the measure acknowledging the Armenian genocide claim
argue that they are worried about harming relations with Turkey,
the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and an important U.S. ally.
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%.
Turkish opposition was so strong that, despite the Bush administration
offering Turkey $6 billion in grants and $20 billion in loan guarantees
in return for allowing U.S. forces to use bases in Turkey to launch
the invasion in 2003, the Turkish parliament refused to authorize
the request.
Soon thereafter, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
in an interview with CNN in Turkey, expressed his disappointment that
the Turkish military had not taken its traditional "leadership role"
in the matter, which – given its periodic military intervention in
Turkish governance – many Turks took as advocacy for a military coup.
Furthermore, in testimony on Capitol Hill, Wolfowitz further angered
the Turks by claiming that the civilian government made a "big, big
mistake" in failing to back U.S. military plans and claimed that the
country’s democratically elected parliament "didn’t quite know what
it was doing."
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.
Since almost all House members who oppose this non-binding resolution
on the Armenian genocide were among the majority of Republicans and the
minority of Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion, antagonizing
Turkey is clearly not the real reason for their opposition. Anyone
actually concerned about the future of U.S.-Turkish relations would
never have rejected the Turkish government’s pleas for restraint and
voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq nor would they vote to continue
U.S. funding of the pro-KADEK separatist government in northern Iraq.
Why a Resolution Now?
Another bogus argument put forward by President Bush and his bipartisan
supporters on Capitol Hill is that Congress should not bother passing
resolutions regarding historical events. Yet these critics have
not objected to other recent successful congressional resolutions
on historic events: recognizing the 65th anniversary of the death
of the Polish musician and political leader Ignacy Jan Paderewski,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American
Jewish Committee, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation
of the Auschwitz extermination camp in Poland, or commemorating the
150th anniversary of the first meeting of the Republican Party in
Wisconsin, just to name a few.
These opponents of the resolution also claim that this is a "bad
time" to upset the Turkish government, given that U.S. access
to Turkish bases is part of the re-supply efforts to support the
counter-insurgency war by U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. However,
it was also considered a "bad time" when a similar resolution was put
forward in 2000 because U.S. bases in Turkey were being used to patrol
the "no fly zones" in northern Iraq. And it was also considered a
"bad time" in 1985 and 1987 when similar resolutions were put forward
because U.S. bases in Turkey were considered important listening
posts for monitoring the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
For deniers of the Armenian genocide, it is always a "bad time."
The Bush administration, like both Republican and Democratic
administrations before it, has refused to acknowledge that the
Armenian genocide even took place. For example, under the Reagan
administration, the Bulletin of the Department of State claimed that,
"Because the historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor is
ambiguous, the Department of State does not endorse allegations that
the Turkish Government committed genocide against the Armenian people."
Similarly, Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense
in President Bush’s first term, stated in 2002 that "one of the things
that impress me about Turkish history is the way Turkey treats its
own minorities."
The operative clause of the resolution simply calls upon President
Bush "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects
appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related
to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in the
United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, and for other
purposes." Therefore, if President Bush really doesn’t want Congress
to pass such a resolution, all he needs to do is make a statement
acknowledging the genocide. Not surprisingly for someone with a
notorious lack of knowledge of history, however, he has refused to do
so. Bush has only gone as far as acknowledging that what happened to
the Armenians was simply part of "a horrible tragedy" which reflects
"a deep sorrow that continues to haunt them and their neighbors,
the Turkish people," even though Turkey has never expressed sorrow
for their genocide.
Failure to pass a resolution calling on President Bush to acknowledge
the genocide, then, amounts to an acceptance of his genocide denial.
Genocide Denial
Given the indisputable documentary record of the Armenian genocide,
it would appear that at least some of those who refuse to go on
record recognizing Turkey’s genocide of Armenians are, like those who
refuse to recognize Germany’s genocide of European Jews, motivated
by ignorance and bigotry.
Claims that it would harm relations with Turkey or that the timing is
wrong appear to be no more than desperate excuses to deny reality. If
the Bush administration and members of Congress recognized that
genocide took place, they should have no problem going on record
saying so.
One problem may be that members of Congress, like President Bush, are
themselves ignorant of history. For example, the Middle East scholar
most often cited by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress
as influencing their understanding of the region is the notorious
genocide-denier Bernard Lewis, a fellow at Washington’s Institute
of Turkish Studies. In France, where genocide denial is considered a
criminal offense, he was convicted in 1996 following a statement in Le
Monde in which the emeritus Princeton University professor dismissed
the claim of genocide as nothing more than "the Armenian version of
this story." The court noted how, typical of those who deny genocide,
he reached his conclusion by "concealing elements contrary to his
thesis" and "failed in his duties of objectivity and prudence."
This is not to say that every single opponent of the resolution
explicitly denies the genocide. Some have acknowledged that genocide
indeed occurred, but have apparently been convinced that it is contrary
to perceived U.S.
national security interest to state this publicly. This is just as
inexcusable, however. Such people are moral cowards who apparently
would be just as willing to refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust if
the Bush administration told them that it might also upset the German
government enough to restrict access to U.S. bases.
Though it has been Democratic members of the House, led by California
Congressman Adam Schiff, who have most vigorously led the effort this
time to recognize the Armenian genocide, opposition to acknowledging
history has been a bipartisan effort. In 2000, President Bill Clinton
successfully persuaded House Speaker Dennis Hastert to suppress a
similar bill after it passed the Republican-led Foreign Relations
Committee by a vote of 40-7 and was on its way to easy passage
before the full House. Currently, former Democratic House leader Dick
Gephardt has joined in lobbying his former colleagues on behalf of
the Turkish government. And now, the current Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi, despite having earlier promised to place it before a vote of
the full House, appears ready to pull the bill from consideration.
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.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He
is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the
author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
(Common Courage Press, 2003.)