Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 10 2009
The winners and losers with the so-called Armenian genocide resolutions
by
Mehmet Kalyoncu*
Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines "genocide" as "any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a national, ethnical, and racial or religious group, as such:"
(1) "killing members of the group"; (2) "causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group"; (3) "deliberately inflicting on
the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part"; (4) "imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group"; and (5) "forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group." So, the key is the "intent to
destroy, in whole or in part," or in other words, the intent to
"annihilate, or put out of existence." Therefore, the committing of
any or all of these acts constitutes genocide only if done with such
intent. By this definition, the Holocaust obviously constitutes
genocide because the very definition of the word "genocide" seems to
almost perfectly describe the Nazis’ horrendous treatment of the Jews
during World War II.
However, describing what befell a portion of the Ottoman Armenians as
genocide is tantamount to either refuting the credibility of the
Holocaust, or paving the way to describing every kind of war casualty
as genocide because "causing casualties within a group while
internally displacing a portion of that group in the time of war, or
causing unintentional civilian casualties within that group" is not a
part of the "genocide" definition. Similarly, the exploitation of the
UN convention on genocide to prosecute crimes retrospectively is
contradictory to the very logic of law, if such a law had not been
enacted with such a purpose in the first place, which, if it was,
would jeopardize the credibility of all other international
laws. Another matter of curiosity is the fact that then-Ottoman
Minister of Interior Talat Pasha’s controversial telegrams, which
allegedly approved the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians, are the
only evidence to certify such intention and that the very authenticity
of those telegrams is still questionable and has yet to be verified.
One wonders if Reps. George Radanovich (R-Calif.), Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) paid
attention to these nuances, or if they were even aware of these
nuances, before they introduced the so-called Armenian genocide
resolution, HR 106, in the House of Representatives. It would not be a
surprise if they had not or were not because of what some would call
the so-called Armenian genocide industry seems to have long been
yielding lucrative profits for the resolution sponsors, the Armenian
diaspora organizations and for Washington’s lobbying
establishment. Next month, the whole "Armenian genocide resolution"
play is likely to be staged once again and to strain US-Turkish
relations, thereby yielding lucrative profits for some while harming
others.
Armenian diaspora and the so-called Jewish lobby
Within the Armenian diaspora, the proponents of the so-called genocide
resolution think they simply have nothing to lose no matter how long
they prolong their campaign against Turkey. After all, there are two
likely outcomes. If the resolution does not pass Congress, and/or the
US president does not mention the "g"-word in his annual speech
commemorating the 1915 tragedies, then business continues as usual:
The Armenian diaspora reaffirms its allegedly "underdog" status,
portrays Turkey as an anti-democratic state incapable of facing its
history and embarks on yet another year of intensive political
campaigning, which in turn strengthens the diaspora’s solidarity and
creates lucrative lobbying opportunities.
If the resolution passes Congress and the US recognizes the so-called
genocide, then the whole so-called genocide enterprise becomes an
international business. Relying on the fact that the US government
recognizes the so-called genocide, a US state or federal court or an
international authority such as an International Criminal Court (ICC)
prosecutor could take the issue to The Hague to prosecute the late
Ottoman government for the alleged genocide and war crimes. Similarly,
the proponents of the so-called genocide would try to convince one or
more of the UN member states to take the issue to the International
Court of Justice against Turkey. The ICC cannot rule for any
reparations to be given to the Armenians because the ICC does not have
jurisdiction over Turkey, as Turkey is not a signatory to the Rome
Statute, which founded the ICC. However, the mere existence of the ICC
prosecution would bring, the Armenian diaspora thinks, satisfactory
damage to Turkey’s image. No need to mention that such an outcome
would materialize, if ever, only after several decades throughout
which lucrative lobbying opportunities would emerge, and Turkey would
be forced to a series of concessions to the Armenians — and not
necessarily only to the Armenians.
The Armenian diaspora organizations’ unrelenting defamation campaign
against the Turks and Turkey is somewhat understandable given the fact
that the hatred of the Ottoman Empire — if not of the Turks and
contemporary Turkey — seems to be the only factor binding the
different factions and generations within the Armenian diasporas, and
that the so-called genocide resolutions seem to be the most effective
means for the political mobilization of the Armenian
diasporas. However, some Jewish-American organizations’ pattern of
shifting loyalties vis-?Ã? -vis the so-called Armenian genocide
allegations is confusing at best.
In his "Backstabbing for Beginners," Michael Soussan observes what
used to be probably the most distinguishing characteristic of Jack
Abramoff, Washington’s legendary lobbyist who is currently serving a
prison term for federal felony charges. Soussan suggests that
potential clients would walk into Abramoff’s office thinking that they
had a tiny problem, and then walk out thinking that they were in huge
trouble and that Abramoff was the only person who could help them
out. From one perspective, what Abramoff used to do was just "business
as usual," doing what any other Washington lobbyist would do. It also
reflected general characteristics of the broader entity that Abramoff
belonged to: what the two American scholars John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt termed as the "Israel Lobby." From another perspective,
what Abramoff used to do was not any different from what certain
Jewish organizations do whenever a so-called Armenian genocide
resolution is introduced in the House of Representatives. Simply
stated, certain Jewish organizations in the US have taken advantage of
these infamous resolutions to manipulate Ankara and make the Turks
agree to what they might not otherwise vis-?Ã? -vis Turkish-Israeli
relations. Although it would be unfair to assume that these
Jewish-American organizations have simply been manipulating US-Turkish
relations for the sake of Israel’s interests, the continuous shift of
these organizations’ attitude toward Turkey that almost always occurs
in parallel to the changes in the Turkish-Israeli relations makes one
rethink the situation.
It seems like certain Jewish-American organizations — and Israel
indirectly through them — have vastly benefited from the recurring
waves of the so-called Armenian genocide resolutions popping up on the
US House Committee on Foreign Affairs agenda every year around
April. However, with the changing political and economic dynamics both
in the US and Turkey, not only are such resolutions no longer
profitable, but also what some may term "Jewish opportunism" may grow
increasingly detrimental to the wellbeing of Jews in general.
One should be reminded of the fact that — no matter how hypothetical
a situation it is — if the Americans turn cold on the Jews and Israel
at some point in the future, the Turks are pretty much the likeliest,
if not the only, people whose help the Jews can seek and possibly
get. At least, that is what history teaches. With that thought in
mind, the Jewish organizations in the West in particular and the world
Jewry and Israel in general would be better off avoiding the
shortsighted practices and policies that would alienate the Turks in
the long run. Although seemingly a hypothetical situation at the
moment, it has already been forecasted by many Jewish intellectuals in
the US. Thankfully, despite the oscillating attitude of certain
Jewish-American organizations, there have always been Jewish-Americans
who have never wavered in their support for Turkey and for the
improvement of the US-Turkish and Turkish-Israeli relations.
The US and the American people
Although the United States and the American people have always been
victimized by the manipulation of the US Congress by certain interest
groups, there have not been many — if any — scholarly studies that
scrutinize the impact of the so-called Armenian genocide resolution on
US interests. Some tend to make comparisons between the Ottoman Empire
in its last century and the United States today. As the argument goes,
in the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire introduced a
comprehensive series of democratic reforms that intended to improve
the political environment so that the non-Muslim minorities, a
prominent component of which was the Ottoman Armenians, could become
more politically active and take a role in the Ottoman
administration. However, it continues, that certain militant Armenian
groups such as the Tashnaks exploited this window of opportunity to
pursue their own narrow interests, thereby contributing to the
collapse of the empire. Similarly, as the argument goes, in the last
several decades certain Armenian-American organizations such as the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which itself originates
in the Tashnak movement, have been exploiting American democracy to
pursue their narrow group interests, even though it gravely damages
the US’s image and interests.
Whether such a similarity exists is certainly something that their
fellow Americans are to decide. However, one difference is certain:
While within the Ottoman Empire numerous militant Armenian groups
engaged in armed conflict against the empire, massacred some 800,000
Muslims and defected to the invading Russian army, such is not the
case today in the United States. The only similarity is that Armenian
terrorists such as Murad Topalian and his accomplices in the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) inflicted terror on
American soil long before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 by
assassinating Turkish diplomats and attacking the American scholars
who called for an objective investigation of the genocide
allegations. While these terrorist acts deserve condemnation, they
should not overshadow the fact that today there seems to be a sizeable
peace-loving Armenian-American community that is as disturbed by ANCA
as many Americans and Turks are.
What should Turkey do?
Turkish Ambassador to the US Nabi ?Å?ensoy recently commented that
"the Turkish nation is ready to struggle altogether against [a
possible passage of the so-called genocide resolution in the
Congress]," and hoped that the US administration would understand the
importance of Turkey, the meaning of this issue to the Turkish people
and the harm it would bring to Turkish-American relations. More
important than the US administration’s comprehension of this is the
American people’s understanding of how such resolution and its
concomitant political intrigues harm their country.
In this regard, by reaching out to the American people via ads in the
major newspapers, Ankara should express Turkey’s respect for the
rights of Americans and for their representatives in the Congress to
do what is right and rational, and what they believe serves the US’s
national interests. The ad should point out that Turkey believes that
passing a controversial resolution in Congress recognizing the
so-called Armenian genocide is neither right nor rational, nor does it
serve US national interests. Nevertheless, it should assert that
Turkey would respect it no matter how wrong, irrational and
detrimental to the US interests that resolution would be. Moreover,
the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government should say
what it can guarantee is that it would do its best in the aftermath of
such a resolution to counter the Turks’ rising discontent with the US
and everything related to it, because Turkey is committed to the
US-Turkish partnership.
However, the AK Party government should clarify that it cannot
guarantee that Turkey will be able to maintain its responsiveness to
cooperation with the United States. The American people would
appreciate the fact that, just like any other democratic nation’s
government, the Turkish government is bound by the preferences of its
citizens.
Finally, the Turks should remain calm and enjoy the blessings of the
Armenian diaspora’s defamation of Turkey, because there could
literally be no better justification and reason for mobilization than
this continuous defamation effort for the Turks to reach out to the US
Congress and the American people, introducing Turkey and all it stands
for.
*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst and author of
the book "A Civilian Response to Ethno-Religious Conflict: The G?Ã?¼len
Movement in Southeast Turkey."
etaylar.do?load=detay&link=169118&bolum=10 9