No good time to condone genocide

[Gavur]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58217

Posted: October 19, 2007
Bill Press



In August 1939, Hitler gave a military order to exterminate the Jews. His goal was "the physical destruction of the enemy." And they should be sent to their death, he stated, "mercilessly and without compassion." Then Hitler added: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Those chilling words alone are sufficient reason for characterizing the slaughter of Armenians as genocide – and condemning it as such.

And make no mistake, that's what it was. During World War I, the leaders of the Ottoman Empire, while siding with the Central Powers against Allied Forces, ordered the deportation and massacre of anywhere from 500,000 to 1.5 million Armenians. Like Hitler several decades later, their goal was the deliberate, systematic elimination of an entire population.

For President Teddy Roosevelt, it was "the greatest crime of the war." Winston Churchill called it an "administrative holocaust." Twenty-two nations so far have labeled it genocide. Indeed, how could it be considered anything but? Yet the Bush administration opposes a congressional resolution condemning the Armenian genocide and a divided Congress refuses to act.





Why? Because, they argue, the timing isn't right. And besides, we can't upset the Turkish government, our important ally in Iraq. What a moral cop-out.

The timing isn't right? That's ridiculous. Please, tell me: When is it a bad time to condone genocide? And when is it a good time to condone it? In Turkey, it's actually against the law even to mention the Armenian genocide. Last year's Nobel Prize winner, Orhan Pamuk, faced criminal prosecution just for writing, "A million Armenians died in these lands." Now we've let the Turks muzzle us, too.

As the example of Hitler proves, the problem with remaining silent is that every time genocide happens and we turn our heads the other way, some other evil leader is encouraged to commit the same atrocities – believing he, too, can get away with it. We looked the other way in Rwanda, and look what's happening now in Darfur.

In the end, there's only one reason we wouldn't declare the mass murder of Armenians to be genocide: because modern-day Turkey doesn't want us to. In retaliation, they might kick us out of Incirlik Air Base or shut down the supply routes to U.S. forces in Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even warns that offending Turkey might "harm American troops in the field."

Did anyone ask her how? It's hard to imagine how our taking a stand against mass murder could possibly harm our troops in the field. As for possible Turkish retaliation, the truth is that Turkey wouldn't dare sabotage our conduct of the war in Iraq for one simple reason: If everything blows up, neighboring Turkey would be the first country to suffer.

And besides, Turkey doth protest too much. Nobody's blaming today's leaders for what happened. Condemning genocide conducted by their grandfathers is no more serious than condemning slavery practiced by our great-grandfathers. But when Turkey demands that we abandon our values and condone mass killing as the price of their cooperation in Iraq, we should draw the line. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, torturing prisoners. And now genocide, too? That's too high a price to pay. Better to lose the war than lose our soul.

The irony, of course, is that while weak-kneed members of Congress balk at offending Turkey, they did not hesitate to offend China by awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The only difference is that Turkey hired better lobbyists. How much more honorable it would have been to ignore criticism and do the right thing in both cases: condemn genocide and honor the Dalai Lama.

In the end, the battle over the Armenian genocide transcends politics. It's a classic moral dilemma. There's no doubt that genocide occurred. There's no doubt that the right thing to do is to condemn it. And there's no doubt we will upset the Turks if we do.

Our choice is clear: Do the right thing, or bend over for the Turks. Sadly, it looks like we're about to bend over.

[Steph]

Turkey and Armenia
A resolution too far

Oct 18th 2007
From The Economist print edition
A congressional vote in Washington that could jeopardise Turkey's path westwards

THE Turks are a proud, prickly people, easily offended by criticism. That much is clear from the row over a resolution, passed by a committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 10th, calling the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 genocide. The full House has yet to vote on the resolution. But Turkey has reacted angrily, recalling its ambassador. It is talking of cutting military ties and even denying the Americans use of the Incirlik airbase that is vital for the supply of their troops in Iraq (see article).

As such threats demonstrate, Turkey is not just an angry ally. It is also a vital one, with a population of 75m and the world's 19th-biggest economy. It is a strategically important hinge between Europe and Asia; it has the biggest army in NATO after America's; it forms a crucial energy corridor to the West; and it borders on such awkward places as Iran and Syria as well as Iraq. Moreover, it is a rare example in the Muslim world of a lively, secular democracy. Yet internal tensions are exacerbated when clumsy outsiders intervene.

This year has seen a series of clashes between the army and secularists on one side and the mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the other, culminating in a big AK win in the election in July. Mr Erdogan is trying manfully to keep Turkey on the path towards membership of the European Union, even though many Europeans have become openly hostile. He also wants to preserve good relations with America despite renewed fighting with guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), some based in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. This is a bad moment for America to pick a fight over something that happened 90 years ago, before modern Turkey even existed.

That is not to deny it is a good idea for countries to face up to their past, especially when it was as violent as that of the Ottomans in the early 20th century. Germany has been admirably open about admitting the sins of the Nazi period; Japan has been less candid. It would be good for modern, democratic Turkey to come to terms with the terrible treatment of Armenians in the first world war (as also, in later times, of other minorities, including Greeks, Alevis and Kurds). In recent years, there have been encouraging signs: a few historians' conferences, an attempt to improve relations with Armenia, growing acceptance of the Kurdish language and occasional talk of amending Article 301 of the penal code. This makes “insulting Turkishness” a criminal offence and is used to shut down discussion of the Armenian genocide.

But the adoption of a highly political resolution in America's Congress is the worst possible way to encourage more steps in the right direction. Rather, it would serve only to fan the flames of Turkish nationalism and leave liberals within Turkey who want more open debate about the past even more exposed. Those in Congress who are pushing this resolution have little interest in Turkey or even Armenia, but a lot in the wealthy Armenian-American constituents who are lobbying them. It is telling that many Turkish Armenians, and even the Patriarch of the Armenian church of Istanbul, have not welcomed the House resolution.
One blunder after another

Recognising the damaging repercussions in Turkey as well as for Turkish-American relations, the Bush administration has been fighting to stop the resolution's passage. It has mustered all eight living former secretaries of state, both Democrat and Republican, to argue against it. This is testimony to the strategic importance of Turkey. But it also reflects the especially sensitive time. This week the Turkish parliament gave its approval for a possible cross-border military incursion into northern Iraq to root out PKK terrorists based there.

That would be another blunder. The Turks' frustration over northern Iraq is understandable. In the past two weeks alone, some 20 Turkish soldiers have been killed by the PKK. Repeated requests to the Iraqis and local Kurdish authorities to clamp down on the group have been ignored. Yet an invasion would not only upset the most stable region of Iraq but also be unlikely to work, as even some Turkish generals recognise. It would be better for the Americans to do more to counter the PKK in northern Iraq—and for Turkey to renew its earlier efforts to improve the lot of Kurds in its south-east.

Keeping Turkey on its pro-Western course is vital, not just for Iraq, but for the sake of all Turks, including the country's own big Kurdish population. Recent rows have helped to turn Turkish public opinion sharply against both the European Union and the United States, a situation that countries such as Iran and Russia are all too ready to exploit. Pressure to scrap Article 301 and allow open debate in Turkey should continue. But the House resolution is not the way to do it.

[Gavur]

Stephan why post this Turkish apologist crapp in this thread?

[Steph]

Stephan why post this Turkish apologist crapp in this thread?

Quite, but don't we need to read bile to see the depth of it?

[Gavur]

Yes but that would be for instance the Turkish propaganda threat or one can even make a new threat Zionist propaganda in favor of the Genocide deniers!
posting it here may lead one to think you haven't read Bill Press's op-ed.