TWO VIEWS OF OBAMA’S ARMENIAN GENOCIDE POLICY

Atlantic Online
_views_of_obamas_armenian_genocide_policy.php
Apri l 24 2009

View one. Obama broke his campaign promise. This YouTube makes it
clear. Samantha Power (who is a new mommy today — congrats to her)
— said Obama would speak truth to power. Obama himself said he’d
use the word "genocide." And he didn’t. He needs Turkey too much.

View two, courtesy of reader BJ: Most analysts see Obama
as capitulating on the Armenian issue due to real-world foreign
affairs. I see it differently. If you watch Obama’s behavior patterns
in the controversial arenas (torture, anyone?), he seems doggedly
determined to not let emotionally charged issues (however valid)
derail far more important agendas.

In the case of the Armenian genocide, Turkey and Armenia are making
real, substantial diplomatic progress on their relationship, and the
Turkish prime minister has acknowledged the role of historians in
reaching some type of conclusion (however complex). While I realize
that Obama does not mind dodging a bullet for now, I also believe
that he is even more reticent to inflame passions and risk setbacks
while the Turkish and Armenian governments build new bridges. The
real question is, "What action (or inaction) at this moment will help
us reach the goal (Turkish-Armenian rapprochement) in the shortest
timeframe and with enduring results?"

It’s the same, I believe, with the torture issues. It’s a huge moral
issue, it must be dealt with, but the costs of settling it "right now"
would put many important national goals in serious risk of failure. How
would history judge the Obama administration if he settled everything
on the torture front quickly and thoroughly, but lost the small window
of political momentum where financial reforms, health care reforms,
entitlement restructuring, new energy policies, etc. wasted away to
the Washington purgatory they’ve been in for generations?