Armenian agency accuses USA of "political hypocrisy"

Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
19 Mar 07

The Armenian news agency Mediamax has described as political hypocrisy
the US administration’s reluctance to recognize as genocide the
killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey in the early 1900s. The agency
also criticized Turkey for its failure to "stretch out its hand to
Armenia". The following is an excerpt from the Mediamax report in
English on 19 March headlined "Time to renounce hypocrisies"; the
subheading has been inserted editorially:

It is obvious that this year the US Congress will not pass the
resolution on the recognition of the Armenian genocide. On 7 March, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates sent a joint letter to Speaker of the US House of
Representatives Nancy Pelocy "strongly urging" her "to refrain from
allowing the resolution to reach the House floor".

[Passage omitted: quotes latest statements by US officials]

The latest two years the US administration keeps to the new tactics –
"we have never denied the mass killings and forced exile of as many as
1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire". The
given word-combination started to be especially actively used after
the scandal related to the actual dismissal of US ambassador to
Armenia John Evans, who used the word "genocide" going against the
official stance of the US administration.

[Passage omitted: more quotes]

Now let us remember how the Armenian genocide was described by US
President George W. Bush in his annual messages of 24 April – the
Armenian Remembrance Day.

2001 "Today marks the commemoration of one of the great tragedies of
history: the forced exile and annihilation of approximately 1.5
million Armenians in the closing years of the Ottoman Empire. These
infamous killings darkened the 20th century and continue to haunt us
to this day."

2002 "Massacre of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced
exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire."

2003 "Horrible tragedy, the mass killings and forced exile of
countless Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire." "Many
Armenians refer to these appalling events as the ‘great calamity’."

2004 "Annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and
murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire." "The events of 1915 have
become one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century."

2005 "Forced exile and mass killings of as many as 1.5 million
Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire." "This terrible
event is what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great
Calamity’."

2006 "Today, we remember one of the horrible tragedies of the 20th
century – the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million
Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire in 1915."

Let us try to understand: is it possible to exterminate and forcibly
exile 1.5 million people of a certain nationality without a detailed
planning? The answer is obvious – no. What happened in 1915 was
exactly genocide – a purposeful mass extermination of people based on
their nationality. [US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and
Eurasia] Daniel Fried’s use of the term "ethnic cleansing", which is
widely used after the events in former Yugoslavia, was not
accidental. Ethnic cleansing is the same genocide.

It comes to the point that representatives of the US administration,
who so carefully have been avoiding the "g" word, have started openly
using it in their speeches. The same [US Deputy Assistant Defense
Secretary for European and NATO policy] Daniel Fata said on 15 March
in the House of Representatives: "The passage of an Armenian Genocide
Resolution would have a wide range of negative repercussions." As we
see, here we could not find the usual Aesopian language – "the
so-called genocide", "what you call genocide".

Political hypocrisy

All this evidences that we are dealing with political hypocrisy. The
first manifestation of that hypocrisy is the fact that the president
of the most powerful country of the world six years on end openly
states that 1.5 million of people of one single nationality were
cruelly murdered and deported, but refuses to call it genocide. At
that, the US president and his administration say that historians, and
not politicians, should deal with the terminology. But, if the
president and his administration openly recognize the fact of the
committed crime – 1.5 million of Armenians were killed – what is the
object of examination for the historians?

The second manifestation of hypocrisy is the stance of Turkey, which,
as far as we can see, is ready to resign to all the accusations,
except for the word "genocide". It turns out that the term "ethnic
cleansing" embarrasses the Turkish government less than "genocide",
and it recognizes the responsibility of the Young Turks’ government
for the killings of people, based on ethnic characteristic? No, the
Turkish government is silent when Daniel Fried is the one talking
about the ethnic cleansing. However, as soon as any representative of
Armenia starts talking about that, the Turkish side describes it as
"fabrications of the Armenian lobby". And this is already double
hypocrisy.

It seemed that the violent murder of [Turkish editor of Armenian
descent] Hrant Dink would become the "moment of truth", which would
make the Turkish government stretch out its hand to Armenia. However,
it did not happen – the Turkish leaders continue the harsh rhetoric
addressed to Armenia. Instead, the Turkish government presents as a
"sensation" the opening of the restored Armenian church on the
Akhtamar Island (Lake Van), scheduled for 29 March. First, the
Turkish government should have restored the church long time ago and
it should not have allowed it to find itself on the verge of
destruction. Civilized governments have to preserve historical
monuments, not depending on their cultural or religious
belonging. Second, if the Turkish government really wants to present
the action as a gesture of good will, why were there the cheap
"discussions" as to whether there should be a cross on the dome of the
church or not?

The US secretary of state and the secretary of defense in their letter
and Daniel Fried in his speech in Congress recalled the slogan "We are
all Hrant Dinks, we are all Armenians", with which the residents of
Istanbul entered the streets on the day of the murdered journalist’s
funeral. But what did the Turkish government do to support its
citizens? Nothing, except for the abstract promises on the
reconsideration of Article 301 of the Criminal Code.

It came to the point that the US secretary of state and the secretary
of defense in their letter to Nancy Pelocy point out as a positive
development the fact that representatives of the Turkish leadership
met Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia Arman Kirakosyan, who was in
Istanbul to take part in the funeral of Hrant Dink. It is well known
that no progress was marked during those meetings, and it is
impossible to understand why the mere fact of those meetings taking
place should convince the US legislators of anything.

The problem of recognizing the Armenian genocide, undoubtedly, is a
very complex one. However, the issue of recognition of the Armenian
genocide has neither a political, nor a terminological character, but,
first of all, a moral one. The only super power in the world exhausted
the limit of political hypocrisy in that issue. The USA, which wants
to lead the world, cannot avoid calling the extermination of the
considerable part of the Armenian ethnos by its real name. The only
super power in the world does not have the right to fear the "g" word.