Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

[UrMistake]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

So maybe if we pust in UN that Great Calamity in Armenian its same with Genocide or,if u say in Armenian "Great Calamity" u mean the word Genocide,so if we pass it in UN (lets just for a moment say that we are the J ews) then Obama or all other US presidents will turn out that thet realy said the Genocide word.


Ruben Safrastyan: Obama excelled his predecessors
25.04.2009 14:44 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ U.S. President Barack Obama excelled his predecessors in his annual April 24 statement and this fact is welcome, an Armenian professor said.

“Obama employed the term Genocide, which is used by Armenians and has no legal power, while Genocide is the term used in international law. Nevertheless, I think progress has been fixed and adoption of the Armenian Genocide resolution will not be opposed by the White House any longer,” Ruben Safrastyan, director of the NAS RA Institute of Oriental Studies, told PanARMENIAN.Net.

At that, he thinks that the joint statement issued by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign Ministries was not the key reason for Obama’s not saying ‘genocide’.

“Turkey is an important ally for U.S. in case with Afghanistan and Iraq. The Armenian-Turkish relations have nothing to do with it,” prof. Safrastyan said.

[hrai]

Re: Obama On Tour In Turkey

It's all very good for Obama to say the US "still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans" but what would be the reaction in the US if foreign governments started issuing genocide statements against them. I'm guessing:

a) they would laugh
b) they'd tell you to mind your own business,
c) or they would simply ignore it!

I'm guessing, retrospectively applied, the 'genocide definition' could also be quite easily applicable to the appalling treatment of the Native Americans.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Of course it should, but stop using it as a brick to divert attention and focus on the AG and turkey's responsibilities and blame.

[KanadaHye]

Obama On Tour In Turkey

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/090406/w040651A.html

Earlier, Obama said he stood by his 2008 assertion that Ottoman Turks had carried out widespread killings of Armenians early in the 20th century, but he stopped short of repeating the word "genocide."

Gul said many Turkish Muslims were killed during the same period. Historians, not politicians, Gul said, should decide how to label the events of those times.

In his 2008 campaign, Obama said "the Armenian genocide is not an allegation," but rather "a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."

Now that he is president, the genocide question may not be Obama's best issue for taking a tough stand that antagonizes a key ally. It is important in U.S. communities with large numbers of Armenian-Americans, but it has a low profile elsewhere.

In his speech to the parliament Monday, Obama said the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. He also noted that the United States "still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans."

[UrMistake]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

ow men if Armenia were not in CSTO i could tell that Turkey would have no negotiations with USA cause Armenia would send some BigAss troop to Afganistan so US will be hapy and dont need Turks in the ragion.

[Alexandros]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

This official White House photograph shows President Barack Obama meeting with Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian (L), Swiss Foreign Minister (and mediator) Micheline Calmy-Rey (2L), Turkish undersecretary of the foreign ministry Ertugul Apakan (C), and Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan (2R) during a reception in Istanbul

Here`s an interesting pic.

[Alexandros]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

I always felt it was in Turkey's interest to accept the Armenian Genocide, as it would signal a more tolerant and less chauvinistic Turkey. Obama in today's speech to the Turkish Parliament did refer to the Ottoman Islamic driven massacres of Anatolian Christians (which shows he is no push-over, he could have easily not brought it up at all), but was short of saying the politically charged G word.

This in the short term was very smart. Who says he had to fulfill his campaign promise of awknowledging the Armenian Genocide right away? As Obama said, relations between Armenia and Turkey are improving, the border might even eventually be opened. Describing the massacres as genocide now would embolden extreme Turkish nationalists and support their claim that reconciliation of Armenia and Turkey is part of the USA's grand scheme to weaken Turkey.

This is a very optimistic view, but perhaps Obama is waiting for relations to be normalized between Armenia and Turkey before awknowleding the Armenian Genocide. And anyway, the American-Armenian Lobby has no interest in peace between Turks and Armenia and is thankfully now in a very weak position.

Perhaps, the term "Genocide" will be replaced with the "Great Calamity", as the massacres were originally referred to. As Bell suggested, Genocide is a legal term, and implies reparations by the Turkish government, which in all honesty I am against. My main desire is to see Turkish citizens of Armenian descent be in peaceful co-existence, as Armenians, with the Turkish people and government.

This in the short term was very smart. Who says he had to fulfill his campaign promise of awknowledging the Armenian Genocide right away? As Obama said, relations between Armenia and Turkey are improving, the border might even eventually be opened. Describing the massacres as genocide now would embolden extreme Turkish nationalists and support their claim that reconciliation of Armenia and Turkey is part of the USA's grand scheme to weaken Turkey.

This is a very optimistic view, but perhaps Obama is waiting for relations to be normalized between Armenia and Turkey before awknowleding the Armenian Genocide.

I kind of agree.It seems like it`s heading in this direction.However I do think that the AG resolution will have a better chance to pass next year since it will be Congressional elections in USA which means that Senators and Representatives will be fishing for (Armenian) votes - especially in California(which is big state with many Reps.) - and the Armenian lobbies will be out in full force.

Anyway, I hope I`m wrong and that the AG resolution passes this year and that Obama uses the "G" word so we could see an end of this circus.

[egeli]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

I always felt it was in Turkey's interest to accept the Armenian Genocide, as it would signal a more tolerant and less chauvinistic Turkey. Obama in today's speech to the Turkish Parliament did refer to the Ottoman Islamic driven massacres of Anatolian Christians (which shows he is no push-over, he could have easily not brought it up at all), but was short of saying the politically charged G word.

This in the short term was very smart. Who says he had to fulfill his campaign promise of awknowledging the Armenian Genocide right away? As Obama said, relations between Armenia and Turkey are improving, the border might even eventually be opened. Describing the massacres as genocide now would embolden extreme Turkish nationalists and support their claim that reconciliation of Armenia and Turkey is part of the USA's grand scheme to weaken Turkey.

This is a very optimistic view, but perhaps Obama is waiting for relations to be normalized between Armenia and Turkey before awknowleding the Armenian Genocide. And anyway, the American-Armenian Lobby has no interest in peace between Turks and Armenia and is thankfully now in a very weak position.

Perhaps, the term "Genocide" will be replaced with the "Great Calamity", as the massacres were originally referred to. As Bell suggested, Genocide is a legal term, and implies reparations by the Turkish government, which in all honesty I am against. My main desire is to see Turkish citizens of Armenian descent be in peaceful co-existence, as Armenians, with the Turkish people and government.

[Alexandros]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

Transcript of Obama and Gul Press Availability

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________ _______________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2009

JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND PRESIDENT GUL OF TURKEY

Cankaya Palace
Ankara, Turkey
1:55 P.M. (Local)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As a U.S. senator you stood with the Armenian-American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide and you also supported the passage of the Armenian genocide resolution. You said, as President you would recognize the genocide. And my question for you is, have you changed your view, and did you ask President Gul to recognize the genocide by name?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, my views are on the record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one.

I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly very soon. And so as a consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right now but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage them.

And so what I told the President was I want to be as constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my sense is, is that they are moving quickly. I don't want to, as the President of the United States, preempt any possible arrangements or announcements that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we are going to be a partner in working through these issues in such a way that the most important parties, the Turks and the Armenians, are finally coming to terms in a constructive way.

Q So if I understand you correctly, your view hasn't changed, but you'll put in abeyance the issue of whether to use that word in the future?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I'd like to do is to encourage President Gul to move forward with what have been some very fruitful negotiations. And I'm not interested in the United States in any way tilting these negotiations one way or another while they are having useful discussions.

Q Thank you.


More here

[Alexandros]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide

Ethic Cleansing

The New Republic

by Michael Crowley

Whose genocide are you on?

Post Date Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Are you a current or former leader of the House of Representatives? Then the government of Turkey wants to talk to you! In recent years, Turkey has hired as lobbyists at least four men who held senior House posts. Currently working Capitol Hill for the Turks is former Democratic leader Richard Gephardt. Schmoozing Republicans is the former House speaker, Dennis Hastert. Hastert was signed up to replace Bob Livingston, a former House speaker-designate (now plying his trade for the Libyans), and former House Republican leader xxxx Armey. Steny Hoyer, what are you waiting for? Have you seen Gephardt's new house in Sonoma?

Turkey pays these men handily to defend its many interests in Washington. But one mission overrides all the others: blocking an official U.S. government declaration that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people at the end of World War I. For years, lobbyists for Turkey have smothered congressional efforts, fueled by America's vocal Armenian community, to pass a resolution recognizing the genocide. They warn that such a blasphemy of Turkey's founding fathers would ignite public outrage there, alienating a moderate Muslim ally and perhaps costing the United States access to an air base vital for Iraq operations. The result has been a classic perennial Washington issue that mostly serves to appease interest groups and enrich lobbyists, much like asbestos reform or tax loophole fights--except, in this case, there are up to 1.5 million murdered innocents involved.

But, as Barack Obama prepares for his upcoming state visit to Ankara in early April and the day of a traditional presidential statement to the Armenian-American community that follows a couple of weeks later, this debate may finally be coming to a head. Obama is the first American president elected after explicitly promising to invoke the dreaded G-word. And, thus, a trip designed to defuse tension between the United States and the Muslim world will have the small matter of genocide culpability hanging over it like a foul odor.

As a candidate, Obama was perfectly clear. "The facts are undeniable," he said in a January 2008 statement. He called the massacre not an allegation or matter of opinion--many Turks maintain that the killing resulted from anarchy accompanying the Ottoman Empire's collapse--but a clear exercise in race-based killing: "As president," he vowed, "I will recognize the Armenian genocide." Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, who said America's "morality" and "credibility" demanded such a statement, agreed. And why not? Last year, all were presidential candidates looking for easy ways to sound bold and noble, not to mention courting Armenian-American votes and money.

But, now that Obama is in the Oval Office, the world may seem rather more complex than it did on the campaign trail. The smell of capitulation is in the air. "At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past," a National Security Council spokesman told the Los Angeles Times last week. When a top Turkish official emerged from a recent meeting with National Security Advisor Jim Jones, he sounded sanguine on the question, declining to say whether Obama was standing by his campaign promise, yet adding cheerily that he and Jones "went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner."

Obama has also been joined by a new cadre of influential advisers. Take his chief of staff. When Congress considered a genocide resolution in late 2007, then-Representative Rahm Emanuel opposed it. The new State Department official with purview over Turkey, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon, has warned about a possible anti-American backlash in Turkey resulting from recognition, and, in 2006, Gordon wrote that "[u]ltimately, historians, not governments, should be the ones to decide these sensitive issues." Jones has close ties to the Turkish military from his time as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. And Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, strongly opposed the 2007 resolution, which he feared could result in Turkey cutting off supply lines the United States relies on to support its troops in Iraq.

Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the Armenians' annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White House will be expected to release a statement. In the past, these proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year, for instance, George W. Bush lamented "mass killings and forced exile" and "epic human tragedy"--but did not use the term "genocide." The Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to use the occasion to say the magic word.

But sources on Capitol Hill and those familiar with Ankara's thinking both predict Obama will punt on the issue. "I fully expect him to fold," laments one human rights activist who wishes otherwise. "I would be shocked if he didn't." But the real shock should be in seeing Obama break such a clear promise. Reasonable people can differ on whether recognizing the genocide is worth the possible consequences. It is not debatable, however, that Obama made a promise, or that he ran as a man of integrity and principle. To be sure, Obama's high-minded rhetoric has always concealed a deeply rooted pragmatism (think of the convenient difference between troops and "combat troops" in Iraq). But there is a line between pragmatism and hypocrisy, and Obama may be about to cross it.

Last week, Aram Hamparian, the genial executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, sat in his Dupont Circle town-house office surrounded by books with titles like The Banality of Denial and Blood and Soil and recounted how his grandparents had been forced out of their villages by the Ottomans and marched through the Syrian Desert. Hamparian said he wasn't nervous that the cause he has worked on for years will once again lose out to Turkey's strategic clout. "The basic civics-class understanding of the situation should be that folks run for office on a certain promise, and they should govern that way," Hamparian said. Hopelessly naive words? In Barack Obama's Washington, they shouldn't be.

Michael Crowley is a senior editor of The New Republic.

Link

[Alexandros]

Re: Obama Recognizes Armenian Genocide


White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs


White House spokesperson avoids commenting Armenian Genocide

04.04.2009 23:16 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Ahead of President Barack Obama's trip to Turkey, at a news briefing the White House spokesperson avoided discussing the Armenian Genocide when asked by a reporter to comment on the matter.

Responding to a reporter's query on whether “the President still believe that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians,” White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, said: “We'll get into that I think later on.”

When pressed to comment further, Gibbs said: “I'll leave that for--I can't give away everything in one gaggle, for goodness sakes.”

Gibbs explained the trip to Turkey aimed to strengthen an important relationship.

“I mean, again, I think it's to strengthen an important relationship and reach out to--and demonstrate the importance of--their importance in our relationship and, again, issues that we have in common that we want to work on. I mean, look, I think it's an opportunity to probably go also to a country that people may not have expected us to visit on our first trip over here, and I think it's an important signal for the President,” explained Gibbs, Asbarez.com reports.

Link