Forgetting the Armenians, 2009 Edition

Monday, 30th March 2009

At the New Republic Mike Crowley picks up where this post left off and lays-out the familiar arguments on US recognition of the Armenian genocide. It's tough for the Armenians: all they have on their side is principle (and Obama's campaign promises) while, as Crowley points out, the Turks have realpolitik and a well-oiled lobbying machine (that currently employs the combined efforts of Dick Gephardt and Denny Hastert) that takes opposing any formal, President-endorsed recognition of the genocide very seriously indeed. As Mike reports:

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.

All true. But hypocrisy can breed opportunity. As Daniel Larison - who has written a lot about this - observes, relations between Turkey and Armenia show signs of improving. Opening the border between the two countries and "normalising" relations between them might do rather more for the average Armenian than a welcome, but still symbolic, declaration from the American Congress and President.

Larison suggests that delaying the resolution (again!) for another year might not be the worst thing in the world. And that seems reasonable. Provided, that is, Washington pressures Ankara to improve its relations with Yerevan. Indeed, suggesting that Washington will certainly recognise the genocide next year if there's no significant progress in moving towards Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That might at least permit Obama a less than wholly shameful retreat from his campaign positioning on the issue. Of course, the Armenians have heard "wait for next year" many times before. If Obama does choose expediency over principle - and one would be amazed if he does not - then he should also make it clear that this is a one time only offer*.

Of course, this may be far too optimistic.

*Suppose there is this progress you seek? Wouldn't recognition next year be seen as being too risky and too likely to jeopardise that progress? Perhaps. But that's something to be determined at a later date. Meanwhile, the genocide issue would, for once and at last, be being used to advance Armenian (and, in the wider scheme of matters, Turkish) interests rather than being just a political irritant to be dealt with as shabbily and as quietly as possible.

Filed under: Armenia (9 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

cuffleyburgers

March 30th, 2009 6:16pm Report this comment

I can't see what is to be gained by a declaration about something that happened a long time ago. If the issue can be used to apply pressure on Turkey to improve relations with Armenia that is unquestionably the best outcome.

I would much rather see presidential energy expended on issues such as Somalia, Darfur and Zimbabwe to name but three current horrendous nightmares.

Victor

March 30th, 2009 8:56pm Report this comment

Cuffleyburgers,

The Armenian Genocide occurred only 25 years before the Jewish Holocaust - will you say in 25 years times what happened to the Jews is irrelevant? The difference between other Genocides is that Turkey still uses all means to deny it was Genocide - in fact according to them it was the Armenians who killed the Ottoman Turks.
Darfur is of great importance - did you know the main allies of the Sudanese government are China and Turkey? Perhaps if Turkey had accepted that Ottoman Turkey had committed Genocide it would now not send arms or increase its trade with the Sudanese Government.

Hyola

March 31st, 2009 6:11am Report this comment

Cuffeyburgers is obviously reading Turkish lobby talking points. Completely absurd arguments.

Phantom

March 31st, 2009 5:46pm Report this comment

If Obama wants to use the Armenian Genocide as a bargaining chip than the least he can do is use it effectively. He should be telling the Turks, open your borders and establish relations before April 24 of this year of I will honor my campaign promise.

Not to mention, all of this really plays against Turkey's dream to erase the Genocide issue from the world's collective memory. The entire topic of U.S. Turkey relations has turned into whether or not Obama will utter the word "Genocide" or will use euphimisms like past U.S. Presidents. This only confirms to anyone who reads the news articles about this situation that what happened was Genocide and the world's powers are simply using it as a bargaining chip against the Turkish Republic. Can Turkish leaders be that stupid that they don't recognize this? Are they living in a bubble that they don't understand that everyone knows this was a Genocide?

Sick of Bias

April 23rd, 2009 10:57am Report this comment

It is time for writers as the above to put aside their prejudices and insist on real evidence to prove the crime -- instead of making blanket statements such as "The Armenian Genocide occurred."

The Britsh themselves could not find any evidence during the Malta Tribunal process (1919-21) while the events were fairly fresh.

In addition, people should try a little to stifle their racial preferences. The Armenians oonducted a massive systematic extermination campaign while in occupation of wide territories of eastern Anatolia with their Russian, and later, their French allies. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents, verified by the reports of their own allies, such as Russian officers, and their sympathizers, as the U.S. investigative team of Niles and Sutherland, as well as secret Ottoman documents. If one is to harp on an unproven Armenian genocide, one would be highly racist to ignore this other side of the coin.

Post comment