LIMITS OF OBAMA BASHING
By Edmond Y. Azadian

AZG Armenian Daily
18/06/2009

Armenian Genocide

Since April 24 of this year, Obama bashing has become a national
sport in the Armenian press worldwide. President Obama had pledged to
the American-Armenian community to recognize the Genocide, upon his
election as president of the United States, yet on his first Martyrs’
Day statement he failed to fulfill his pledge. Adding insult to injury,
he reduced aid to Armenia, although as a continuing policy of reduction
that was working its way for many years during the Bush administration.

The big guns in the Armenian press turned against the president. Our
respected columnists resorted to extremes in characterizing this
non-fulfillment of his pledge. Some groups on the West Coast even
picketed fundraising banquets featuring as keynote speaker President
Obama.

The condemnation is in unison and uniform throughout the country, and
beyond, so much so that any opposite view or an analytical approach
could be interpreted as a sacrilege.

However, I would like to stop and ponder, because political processes
are not football games, whose conclusion is instantaneous and black
and white.

Having said that, I do not intend to play the devil’s advocate either,
because the jury is still out on the Obama pledge and performance,
and rash conclusions could prove to be unwise.

A political game involves give and take; Mr. Obama promised to
recognize the Armenian Genocide, in return, perhaps, for our support
for his candidacy. Now that we know President Obama thus far has not
kept his pledge, we need to analyze our side of the bargain.

To question Mr. Obama’s morality would not be fair as he stated in
Ankara, in the presence of the Turkish leadership, that he is on record
on his Genocide stand and that he has not changed his position. He
further took the Turkish leadership to task, when he gave a speech at
the Turkish parliament calling the Turkish government to come to terms
with its ugly history. There was no dearth of topics or problems for
the president to choose; but he took the opportunity to remind us
of his moral stand on this complex and painful issue. So much for
his morality in politics; we know that the two always don’t mix,
like oil and water.

Coming back to the use or non-use of the word "genocide," we may detect
in that speech Samantha Power’s handwriting, who most probably had
crafted the president’s speech, which had not avoided all the facts
around the act of genocide. She had tried to hide behind a precedent,
created by Pope John Paul II, when he visited Armenia. He was the
one to first transliterate the phrase "Medz Yeghern" to avoid using
the word "genocide"; while he was not a politician, he was supposed
to have the moral courage to call a spade a spade.

Samantha Power is too valuable to be lost to the Armenians, with
all apologies to our friend David Boyajian, who called for her
resignation. Ms. Powers was in Obama’s inner circle, during the
election campaign, when she had a public fall out with Hillary Clinton
and resigned as a result of pressure. Obama’s firm hand brought her
back into the center of power, and it is too early to count her out
as a person who reneges on her principles.

We still have three more years of the Obama administration to push
him to deliver on his pledge, and all the reminders, all the prodding,
albeit, sometimes very harsh and naïve, will have their role to play.

We still have an uphill battle to have HR252 Resolution pass. It is
very apparent that the president will keep his moral high ground,
making us believe that he will sign the resolution when it hits his
desk, yet the dirty work will be carried out by the legislators who
will fail to garner enough votes to approve the resolution, saving
the president another show down with the Armenian lobby.

When we come to judge the president for his action or inaction, we
must consider the political context of the issues, and the concrete
factors determining his conduct.

It is more the rule than exception that pledges of candidates are
always different from the pledges of elected officials. President
Reagan may be counted among the exceptions.

When a president is elected, cabinet members are replaced, political
favors are dispensed to the supporters. But rank and file, analysts,
career diplomats remain in place to analyze political situations
and to chart a course on every single issue of importance to the
country. Of course, in our case, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
past dealings with the Turkish lobbying groups may have played their
role too in the Genocide issue.

Our press and our lobbying groups boast of a 1.5 millionstrong
American-Armenian community. Yet Obama’s well-calibrated election
machinery knew better than we did, that what percentage of that
force we could mobilize and what portion of that mobilization could
be translated into actual votes. Besides all niceties, they knew the
exact weight of our political clout in the country.

Let us be honest and acknowledge that a large group of Armenians are
not politicized. We also may hate to admit that some Armenians are so
bigoted that the skin color of the candidate was enough for them to
vote against him. Others failed to lend their support dogmatically,
not to tarnish their Republican credentials. Therefore, in the
political arena, we may bark but we can seldom bite.

On the policy balance of the US government, the Armenian factor is
weighed against Turkey’s strategic importance, at a time when a policy
change was charted to bring the war in Iraq to end and withdraw the
US forces out to Afghanistan through the Turkish territory. At that
very delicate point, when Ankara was exerting tremendous pressure on
the Genocide issue, the president had to choose between his strategic
priorities and some domestic concerns. Of course, the balance tipped in
favor of Turkey, which in its turn, had snared the Yerevan government
to sign on a fictitious "Road Map," which reinforced Ankara’s hand.

As far as foreign aid is concerned, the US administration will derive
its conclusions, based on relative importance of Armenia versus
Turkey’s strategic value, as well as Baku’s oil wells. We should not
forget that today Turkey has more leverage on the West than during
the Cold War period because it can count on Moscow’s support and
the solidarity of the Islamic world. Therefore, we may draw our own
conclusion – what does Armenia represent in the strategic balance of
the region versus Turkey and Azerbaijan and then swallow the bitter
pill that our voices are not heard in Washington or elsewhere, in
the major capitals of the world.

Therefore, the conclusion is that we have to politicize the masses,
to be able to deliver them to the highest bidder, at any given
election. Could any candidate in the US renege on his/her commitment
to any Jewish lobby?

Armenia, on the other hand, is divided internally. It lacks natural
resources, and its strategic importance does not measure up to that of
its neighbors. We cannot do too much to enhance Armenia’s strategic
relevance, but we can work harder to become a relatively important
political factor in this country to make our voices heard. It is absurd
in the realm of politics to believe that any power will support us
because our cause is just. Power talks, as money talks.

Before making assumptions, and raising our hopes, we need to figure
out our strengths and our assets, so that we may have the true
assessment of our potentials, which will eventually determine our
realistic expectations.

Unfortunately, besides our desires, there are other political factors,
which will shape our cause. Mr. Obama was elected to run this country,
based on its priorities. In the course, he may have to scrap many of
his pledges, which he made to different groups during his election
campaign. One casualty may also be our cause.

But we cannot rush to judgment. There are three more years to mobilize
and to muster clout, to make an impact on Washington politics.

In the meantime, Obama bashing is not politics.