Belatedly, the House’s History Lesson
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, October 11, 2007; A02
Wondering why Congress can’t reach a consensus on the Iraq war? Well,
consider that our lawmakers are still divided on the Turkish-Armenian
conflict. Of 1915.
With bullets flying in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, the House Foreign
Affairs Committee sat down yesterday to resolve a pressing issue:
whether to pass a resolution declaring that the killing of hundreds of
thousands of Armenians 92 years ago qualifies as genocide.
Ankara insists this is nobody’s business but the Turks’. But the
history-minded House knows better.
"I consider myself a friend of Turkey, but friends don’t let friends
commit crimes against humanity," said Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) in his
stinging rebuke of the Ottoman Empire.
Nor was Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) afraid to call a sultan a sultan.
He spoke of a need to "speak truth to Turkey" about the 1915
situation.
"Genocide is genocide, and there’s no way of sugarcoating it," agreed
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.).
Indeed not. Only 92 years late, the intrepid members of the committee
voted 27 to 21 to condemn the Young Turks of 1915. The Armenians in
the audience, wearing stickers urging "Stop the Cycle of Genocide,"
erupted in applause and tears. Among the celebrants: Catholicos
Karekin II, supreme patriarch of the Armenian Church.
Amid such fervor, only a minority of lawmakers dared to argue that it
was hardly worth antagonizing Turkey, a crucial ally in Iraq and a
rare Muslim friend, over long-ago atrocities perpetrated by long-dead
rulers of a long-defunct empire.
"This is crazy," remarked Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who once shot a
watermelon as part of his probes of Bill Clinton. "We’re in the middle
of two wars and we’ve got troops over there that are at risk, and
we’re talking about kicking the one ally that’s helping us over there
in the face."
Then there was the statute-of-limitations conundrum. If it’s within
Congress’s authority to be the arbiter of the Armenian genocide, will
it next confront the Romans for the rape of the Sabine women, or the
Greeks for sacking Troy? And if attacking the Ottomans, why not weigh
in on the siege of Constantinople in 1453?
"Whether it is the Ottoman Empire, the Japanese Empire, the
Austro-Hungarian Empire or, indeed, the Roman Empire, I mean, we could
go on for a long time condemning the atrocities committed under each,"
pointed out Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).
And maybe they will. Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that
the committee has already probed the enslavement of "comfort women" by
imperial Japan. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) announced yesterday that
he will soon introduce legislation on atrocities against American
Indians.
Ostensibly, the debate was about morality (many proponents noted that
Hitler was emboldened by the silence on the Armenian genocide) vs.
national security (several opponents observed that most U.S. air cargo
to Iraq goes through Turkish bases).
While nobody disputed that something very much like genocide happened
to the Armenians 92 years ago, support for the resolution tended to
reflect the size of the Armenian population in the lawmakers’
districts. All 10 committee members from California (where the census
counts 231,777 Armenians) voted aye, while both members from Indiana
(total Armenians: 904) voted no. The Californian chairman, Lantos,
warned that the measure could cause U.S. troops "to pay an even
heavier price" — then voted yes.
Ultimately, the threat to national security couldn’t compete with four
women in wheelchairs in the front row wearing pink stickers announcing
"I’m a survivor" of the genocide. "I don’t like Turkey — they are
animals there," reported Perouz Kalousdian, 97. She left Turkey in
1916 but remembers it clearly; "they came and they took all my
uncles," she said.
For lawmakers, the memories were rather less fresh and personal.
Lantos reached into the history books and pulled out quotes from the
U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.
"Thank you for your outstanding review of history," Sherman told the chairman.
"Very fair summary of the history," agreed Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.).
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.) thought it would be better if
"everyone opens their historic books."
"I don’t pretend to be a professional historian," demurred Rep. Howard
Berman (D-Calif.).
But Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) insisted. "We are all students of
history," he told colleagues.
Not all students of logic, however. Sherman, arguing passionately for
the label of genocide, acknowledged that the measure was "an irritant
to our relationship with Turkey" but then concluded: "That’s the best
reason to vote for it."
The debate didn’t improve from there. Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.)
complained that "I feel like I have a Turkish sword over my head,"
while Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) contributed a profound thought:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Likewise, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), arguing in favor of the
resolution, offered some pithy advice to the feuding Turks and
Armenians. "Move on," he recommended.
If only Congress could do the same.
Source: le/2007/10/10/AR2007101002493.html