David Schraub argues that the "Armenian Genocide" recognition bill that was just voted out by the House Foreign Relations Committee is a case where the United States should just let Turkey pitch a fit. But he starts out thusly:
The House Foreign Relations Committee just passed a resolution labeling as "genocide" the WWI Turkish killing of Armenians. The vote was 27-21 (if anyone has the vote breakdown, I'd be obliged). Such resolutions have passed House committees before, but never made it to the full body for a vote. That looks to change this time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has a large Armenian-American constituency and is thus strongly committed to getting it passed.
Publius offers the standard, mature view (taken by every living Secretary of State, incidentally), that this is not the right time. Turkey is one of our closet Muslim allies. Moreover, unlike quotation mark "allies" like Saudi Arabia, it is a bona fide liberal, democratic Islamic state. It also is one of the few Muslim states to recognize and have diplomatic relations with Israel — a relationship it has been issued veiled threats against in the event that this resolution passes. And it happens to border Iraq, where it could if it so desired cause all manner of trouble under the pretext of dealing with its "Kurdish problem." This event happened a long time ago, Publius argues, so why stir up the fuss?
Therein lies the real problem. The nation of Turkey came into existence in 1923. The events being deplored happened in 1915. The United States House of Representatives is about to drop a hammer on the best ally we have in the Muslim world – for something that happened before that nation came into existence. There are real consequences to these actions – ones that may well cost lives if the Turks use this as a justification to invade Iraq. Will those cheering the resolution then accept responsibility for the deaths that are caused as a result?
Because they will be responsible.
Another thing: it is terrifically easy to point your finger and shout "shame" on another nation for actions that happened 92 years ago – before that nation existed. Why isn't the House doing something constructive about the contemporary killing of Burmese monks for daring to stand up against a military junta that still has their boot on the Burmese people's neck? Schraub calls America the good guy here. Will you still feel that way when real blood spills as a result of a symbolic act for something long over? Will you still feel smugly righteous when real bodies have to be buried today to satisfy the anger of some people for a long-ago act? To be consistent will you come apologize to my wife and her family? (My wife is Seneca and Mohawk). Where do you stop it? Do I get an apology from the House condemning France for kicking my great-great, etc. grandparents out of France for religious differences?
Good guy, Dave? Or just the smugly self-righteous guy that the left complains America is?
UPDATE: The Associated Press reports:
Gates said 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about one-third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq.
"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said. He also said that 95 percent of new vehicles designed to better protect against mine attacks are being flown through Turkey to get to Iraq.
Unlike the majority of the Congressmen – from either party - standing on the "moral high ground" on this issue, I have more than a theoretical interest in this issue. My oldest son has served two tours in Iraq and any Congressman who votes to cut off the supply of up-armored equipment to American troops for a "symbolic gesture" is unworthy of office. That is a hard line and that is where I choose to stand.
I would argue that Turkey would be responsible if it decides to “pitch a fit” in the form of an invasion in response to merely recognizing an event that, as you say, occurred prior to its establishment as a state.
And yes, I think that in all cases where a given people deny the atrocities the perpetrated against others, we should demand recognition — particularly when the victimized group requests it. If France denied it had kicked folks out on religious grounds, we should call them on it. If the US denied that it had engaged in massive, murderous warfare against Native Americans, we should be called out too. This doesn’t even rise to the level of an “apology”, merely acknowledgment — and nearly every scholar of post-conflict reconciliation says that recognizing the harms done to the victims is crucial for any healing to proceed. Finally, as I argued in my post, refusing to grant such acknowledgment is tacit encouragement to genocidal regimes today who now know they likely will avoid even the contempt of history (let alone any actual substantive reprisals) when they engage in their own murderous rampage. The history of post-Holocaust genocide intervention makes it pretty clear to the Burmese government that we’re not going to physically stop them from their campaign of ethnic cleansing in its border regions — now they know that when the killing is complete, we won’t even recognize that it happened in the first place.
So I turn your question back: the next time a petty dictator starts engaging in ethnic slaughter because “who remembers the Armenians”, how do you plan to wash off that blood?
well, I wonder will ‘native americans’ appologize for the genocide they committed against one another before the nation of ‘america’ was founded?
Oh that right it was all peace, love and understanding when the tribes went to war over territory yet settled.
Again, Dave, will that excuse any of the current bloodshed if – as is likely – it occurs?
You are still arguing for a successor government to pay a price for something that a government that does not exist any longer did (And the story may be more complicated, but I am not in any way expert on this). Is that the standard?
There is a point at which you have got to let go of trying to place blame for past events. I don’t know that there is a set time for it or not. But if you dwell in the past – without learning from it – where are you?
If the US had passed this at the time or close to it it would be meaningful. Now it just smacks of trying to be morally righteous at a safe distance when all, or most of the people actually involved are dead.
Will we next pass resolutions decrying the Norman incursion into England? The Viking strikes on Ireland?
Where do you stop it? When have you filled your desire for revenge?
When do you get on with your life?
For that matter will ‘native American’ tribes appologize for the genocide they committed against one another before the nation of ‘America’ was founded?
“Pay a price”? What “price”, precisely, is that? I knew facts were stubborn things; I didn’t realize they were expensive as well.
Meanwhile, thus far, the “score”, if you will, of genocides promoted by lack of recognition of their existence, versus genocides promoted by recognizing their existence, is at least 1-0 in favor of the former, and probably more. For that reason, I’m not sure why I’m the one who has to preemptively apologize for prospective spilled blood. I think your position is significantly more likely than mine to result in more killing over the long run, and, thus far, history has borne me out.
Gaius,
So you feel that Turkey will react in a way which would cause real blood to be shed over a symbolic resolution for something which modern Turkey is not responsible for. Is this the kind of ally you want?
Congress has passed many resolutions dealing with historical matters including recently a condemnation of Japan for failing to recognize and compensate ‘comfort women’ prior to and during WW2. Strangely, Japan, a critical American trading partner and military ally hosting several U.S. military bases, did not cut ties with the U.S., close or limit any of those bases, threaten its Korean minority, nor accuse the Jews, for actions committed over 60 years ago by another regime.
Dave, a lot of the members of Congress pushing this are also cheerfully advocating abandoning the people of Iraq to a genocide. There’s a bit of muddiness on the moral high ground here.
It is easy to point fingers at something 92 years old, a lot more difficult to address current issues.
I’m sorry if you took this as a personal attack, incidentally. It isn’t. I’ve been posting about this for several days now.
Richard, “symbolic” for who? This is a situation where the world’s only superpower is spending the time of its legislature to condemn a country for actions that occurred before that country existed.
Symbolic for who, Richard? They read what is being said loud and clear. The most powerful nation on earth thinks they are contemptable for something someone else did.
Step back and look at what you are advocating. Think hard.
Gaius,
The Republic of Turkey is not being condemned by H.R. 106. The resolution specifically targets the Ottoman Empire. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=430
Turkey is only contemptable to the extent that it continues to deny what happened.
Read the update. I do not support this for a very good reason. This is not a theoretical exercise for me.
Gaius,
I respect this last reason of yours if not the others. It is not a theoretical exercise for me either.
I don’t think the U.S. is the only country with a dog in this fight, I seem to remember some of the EU countries asking Turkey to recognise the genocide before they could join as a member state.
In the past, Turkey has shown that it can be a good ally when it was expedient for them to do so and they have profited from being a member of NATO, but when we needed them to return the favor, they balked. I am refering to pre-invasion Iraq when they refused to let us into Northern Iraq through Turkey. This was a serious set-back for the U.S. and gave Saddam more time to move money and weapons around-to the continuing detriment of our troops.
Every year Turkish Americans organise a protest in front of the White House denying that there was an Armenian holocaust. They are still very much invested in this denial and I believe that the least they can do is acknowlege that it happened.
I can certainly see your point regarding supplies for our troops, I am surprised that we have put ourselves in the risky position of trusting the Turks when they have shown how untrustworthy they can be.
Gaius. I wonder if the people that want us to poke Turkey in the eye with this resolution are the same people that think the USA is the world’s bully?
Actually, the resolution in question does not condemn either Turkey OR the Ottoman Empire. It merely states that the US government shall recognize that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1916 was in fact a genocide. The are getting poked in the eye, alright, but they’re doing it with their own fingers.
Where do you stop it? When have you filled your desire for revenge?
When do you get on with your life?
A good many Jewish people waited about 1900 years to get their homeland back. Can’t we at least bother to remember what happened to the Armenians a scant 92 years ago?
Gaius, I suspect that the unpleasant results you predict are exactly the ones the liberals want.