Bush: Don't call Armenian massacre a genocide

[lionking]

Bush: Don't call Armenian massacre a genocide
Wednesday, 10 October, 2007 @ 6:47 PM


Washington, DC - President George W Bush has urged US legislators not to pass a resolution declaring the massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire to be genocide.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," he said hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Such a move, already taken by France's parliament, would do "great harm" to US relations with Turkey, Mr Bush added.

Turkey disputes the scale of the 1915-1917 massacre.
Armenia alleges that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed in an organized campaign to force them out of what is now eastern Turkey.

That is strongly denied by Turkey which says that large numbers of Turks and Armenians were killed in the chaos surrounding World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Armenians rose up.

Turkish indignation

Speaking before Mr Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the passing of the resolution would be "very problematic" for US policy in the Middle East.

The bill must be approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Even if it passes and is then adopted by the House, the bill will not be binding. Mr Bush has made clear that he also opposes it.

But the BBC's Sarah Rainsford, in Istanbul, says that this will have little impact on the reaction in Turkey.

Ankara has pulled out all the stops to prevent the genocide resolution reaching Congress for a vote, she adds.

Politicians have traveled to Washington to lobby lawmakers, while the country's prime minister and president have both contacted Mr Bush.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul warned of "serious problems that will emerge in bilateral relations if the bill is adopted".

All this comes on top of mounting anger that the US is not doing enough to counter the Kurdish separatist PKK group, which mounts deadly attacks on Turkey from inside Iraq, our correspondent says.

Armenian pressure

It is still extremely difficult to establish a set of undisputed facts about what happened in eastern Anatolia almost a century ago, the BBC's regional analyst Pam O'Toole says.

But the issue has been kept alive by the powerful Armenian diaspora.

Twice as large as the population of Armenia itself, over recent years it has stepped up efforts to get Western parliaments to recognise those events as genocide, and has even sought to link it to Turkey's efforts to join the European Union.

Last year, the lower house of the French parliament declared the killings a genocide.

Ankara argues that there were massacres by both sides at the time but completely rejects the allegation that there was a state policy to kill Armenians.

Some Turks fear if those events are recognized as genocide, that could open the door to claims for compensation or even territory, our analyst says.

And that taps into fears, deep in Turkey's political psyche, about the possible dismemberment of the country.

Only two years ago it seemed that a long standing taboo had been broken when academics were allowed to hold a conference in Turkey discussing the mass killings of Armenians at that time.

But since then rising nationalism inside Turkey itself has effectively halted further debate, our analyst adds.

yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/10/bush_dont_call.php
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am with condemning Turkey on its massacres definitely. Both the Lebanese and the Armenians faced massacres by the Turks.

[PhantomWolf]

Well without trying to be to harsh about it, most of the people that took part are well and truely dead, too many people in that part of the world keep living in the past (too many over here do too.) Surely it is better to have the events acknowledged as being wrong (which Turkey seems to be willing to do since they are in agreement that they happend) then get on with the future rather than pouting over the past.

[Ginnie]

It's hard to forget your history.
I'm from Irish descent. Reading a book about the Great Famine in the 1840's reminds me to this day the great injustice the English perpetrated on the Irish people. Twelve percent, or one million people died when while there was lots of other food besides potatoes to eat. Problem was, the average Irish peasant couldn't afford it, and what aid Great Britain provided was meagre and grudgingly given.
Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine. (Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine_(1845-1849)

The Great Hunger is a good book to read about the famine. A bit dry, but thought-provoking and compelling.

So, even though I am Canadian, I'm not a monarchist!

[PhantomWolf]

ginniegatrit said:

It's hard to forget your history.
I'm from Irish descent. Reading a book about the Great Famine in the 1840's reminds me to this day the great injustice the English perpetrated on the Irish people. Twelve percent, or one million people died when while there was lots of other food besides potatoes to eat. Problem was, the average Irish peasant couldn't afford it, and what aid Great Britain provided was meagre and grudgingly given.
Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine. (Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine_(1845-1849)

The Great Hunger is a good book to read about the famine. A bit dry, but thought-provoking and compelling.

So, even though I am Canadian, I'm not a monarchist!

My questions would be, a) Has the events of the 1845 affected your present life? and b) why should those alive in England today have to be seen as responsible for things they weren't alive for and thus had no control over?

[Ginnie]

My questions would be, a) Has the events of the 1845 affected your present life? and b) why should those alive in England today have to be seen as responsible for things they weren't alive for and thus had no control over?

I'm not sure how much it has affected it. I don't have any deep hatred for the English. In fact I root for them at the World Cup when Ireland doesn't make it. I like English draught, literature and cinema. .
But, you can't tell me that even today the English think a lot of the Irish (or Welsh or Scots for that matter - or am I wrong there?), The English record in the colonies was atrocious, even in my native Newfoundland.
On the other hand, I'm glad to be in Canada - my family has been here for 100 years or so - it's a great country.
as for b) It seems to me the English have an attitude about 'being proper and civilized' ', being a superior people. But perhaps that is outdated thinking. I can't make an accurate judgment because I don't live there. But do the English today care much for the Irish? Has that changed much?
There are parts of Canada's history that I'm ashamed of - the treatment of Chinese immigrants at in the early 20th century, the internment of Japanese Canadians in WWII, the persistent problem with Native peoples today. But I don't think it is part of a Canadians' character to be that way. Of course our character is 60% (maybe less today) or so from the British Isles, so go figure.
The English/Ireland/Scotland/Wales conflict goes back a thousand years. Sometimes the Irish were the aggressor, sometimes the Scots, so no one comes out clean.
The Ottoman Empire was very strict and forceful in its handling of its territories, I can't blame Armenians for having deep resentment towards the Turks.

[echnaton]

My concern is what is it about current politics that is driving this today. Appealing to Congress to call century old actions genocide is not going to immediately change the legal situation. I am curious as to what the goals of the Armenian National Committee of America are in pushing this. Groups tend to hold together better if there is some conflict that they all identify with. So this just may be a identity issue and one that helps with fund raising.

To speculate on a conspiracy, they may be hoping to eventually carve out the Armenian segment of Turkey to enlarge the Republic of Armenia. The US government labeling Turkey as a genocidal state would be a help in that regard. The timing would coincide with with a Kurdish annexation of ethnically Kurdish areas of Turkey following the establishment of a Kurdish Republic in northern Iraq. Assuming that a Kurdish Republic is founded of course, but it is realistically possible

[Jason]

I can't see any positive purpose that bringing up the crimes of a hundred years ago can serve. Go far enough into the past and nearly anyone has a greivance that has not been resolved. When do I get my reperations for my ancestors having been driven out of their homes in Navoo Illinois by mob violence? I certainly don't expect any.

[ineluki]

lionking said:

Such a move, already taken by France's parliament, would do "great harm" to US relations with Turkey, Mr Bush added.

I guess that's what they told Chamberlain about Czechoslovakia in 1938.

[gwiz]

jason said:

Go far enough into the past and nearly anyone has a greivance that has not been resolved.

Here in Cornwall it's the Prayerbook Rebellion of 1549. We objected to the Latin prayerbook being replaced by the English one - at that time most of us only spoke Cornish - and some took up arms. The rebellion was put down fairly rapidly. The grievance is down to the aftermath - English troops all over the county killing everyone they thought might be involved - something like 10% of the population were killed.

The current Bishop of Truro has recently issued an apology for the part the Church of England played in this. This is apparently the first time anyone has though an apology was required.

[lionking]

My concern is what is it about current politics that is driving this today.

it doesn't take a political reason that causes suspision, if you think about the Armenians. The Armenians in Lebanon are very much inclined to their heritage. In the university, when I came into better contact with different backgrounds, I saw their campaign that Turkey should acknowledge the massacres. They said that both them and the Lebanese suffered from the Turks massacres. Indeed, we have the Martyr's Square in Down Town where the martyrs who believed in free Lebanno were hanged in 6 May of that year. This is not to mension Jamal Basha the murderer who is very famous for causing starvation and killing the Lebanese. He was informed about the hunger in Lebanon and he said: when the mother eats her child, then hunger would start. Lebanese history books in schools are against the Turks and speaks about their crimes about the Lebanese.
The Armenians suffered a lot too and are inclined to their history and their roots. They are very famous for keeping their heritage and speaking their language. Many of them still don't know how to speak arabic well bcz they speak with each other Armenian. It is not at all bizarre to me that they reached the UN with their cause.

[PeterB]

phantomwolf said:

Well without trying to be to harsh about it, most of the people that took part are well and truely dead, too many people in that part of the world keep living in the past (too many over here do too.) Surely it is better to have the events acknowledged as being wrong (which Turkey seems to be willing to do since they are in agreement that they happend) then get on with the future rather than pouting over the past.

The problem, PhantomWolf, is that, to my knowledge, the Turks in general deny the reality of the Armenian Genocide. They accept that many Armenians died of malnutrition at the time, but they deny that there was any intent to massacre Armenian population.

This sort of distinction is similar to the one put about by some Holocaust Deniers - they accept that some Jews died, but claim it was all due to disease rather than killing with intent.

[Jason]

Why is that a problem?
Do you want the Turkish government to pay the Armenians reperations or something? Because of what the Ottoman Empire did?

[echnaton]

Lionking, as usual your reply bring some good insight.

The other part of the political equation is the Democrat's willingness to take it up at this time. It certainly is a slap at Bush's foreign policy. The Turks have threatened to withhold some access to Iraq across it's border if this passes. Imposing that restriction will make supporting US troops more difficult. So is this a way for the Democrats to undermine Bush's war policy?

[Jason]

Nancy Pelosi pushed to have the House pass a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide, but it looks like it will now fail under presidential pressure.
Interestingly enough, the same thing happened seven years ago, except then it was Dennis Hastert who was pushing an Armenian genocide resolution, and Bill Clinton telling him to cool it.
NY Times Story

Maybe it's not just Conservatives who feel no good can come of insulting an ally?
And what duty does Congress have to determine historical fact anyway?

[Jason]

In fact, it would make much more sense for Congress to pass a measure condemning the Turkish law which makes insulting "Turkishness" illegal in Turkey. Speaking out in favor of free speech and a free press would be a more worthy cause than trying to condemn the actions of a government that no longer exists that were carried out nearly a century ago.