THE DANGERS OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
By Michael Radu
Spero News
March 15 2007
Insights: Democracy and Human Rights
Not only does Armenia continue to occupy a large part of Azerbaijan’s
territory, much beyond its admittedly legitimate claims to the
Nagorno-Karabakh region, but is serves as the cat’s paw of Moscow
The European Union has told Turkey that in order to become a "true
democracy" worth joining it, it must acknowledge responsibility for
the 1915 Armenian "genocide," even if the Republic of Turkey as such
did not exist until 1923.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has now decided to bring to a
vote a non-binding resolution declaring the events of 1915 in
Eastern Anatolia a "genocide." Despite its moralistic claims,
this is a dangerous-indeed, in the present circumstances, a highly
irresponsible-assault on U.S. national interests in Iraq and elsewhere.
The issue is both clear in terms of whose interests are at stake and
complex as to the events themselves. For many Armenians in the U.S.
(concentrated in California-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the bill’s
sponsor), the issue is hate for everything Turkish and an attempt to
rewrite history for emotional fulfillment. For Armenians in Armenia,
it is the hoped-for beginning of a process leading to compensation,
including financial, from Ankara, and a welcome diversion from their
domestic difficulties.
Central to the issue is the definition of events during World
War I in the Ottoman Empire. A few key facts are clear. One is
that many hundreds of thousands (over a million, according to the
Armenian lobby) Armenians in Eastern Anatolia died at that time,
of exhaustion and famine as well as killed by Kurdish villagers and
Ottoman soldiers. It is also a fact that the Armenian community and
its leadership in Anatolia at the time took arms against the Ottomans,
in open alliance with the latter’s traditional enemy, Russia. Invading
Russian troops and Armenian irregulars, whose occupation of the
city of Van was the immediate cause of the deportation of Armenians,
also engaged in indiscriminate violence, albeit on a smaller scale,
against the mostly Kurdish population of the area; and all that during
a war in which the very fate of the Ottoman Empire was being decided.
Whether the Ottoman authorities were guilty of "genocide" in a legal
sense is doubtful, since the term itself did not exist in international
law until after World War II; in a moral sense, doubts could also
be raised, since if "genocide" means intentional destruction of a
specific group because of its nationality, religion, race, etc., the
survival of the Armenian community of Istanbul, outside the conflict
area, is hard to explain. But leaving all this aside, there is one
reality that cannot be ignored. That is that whatever happened in 1915
happened under the Ottoman Empire, not under the Turkish Republic,
established in 1923. Thus contemporary Turkey is no more responsible
for the events of 1915 than Russia is for Stalin’s annexation of the
Baltic states or the Federal Republic of Germany for the pre-1914
colonial abuses of the Wilhelmine Empire.
In regional terms, any form of open American support for Armenian
claims against Turkey would only encourage Yerevan to persist in its
destabilizing role.
Not only does Armenia continue to occupy a large part of Azerbaijan’s
territory, much beyond its admittedly legitimate claims to the
Nagorno-Karabakh region, but is serves as the cat’s paw of Moscow,
the former colonial power in the Caucasus and still the main threat
to its stability.
The main problem, however, is still Turkey. Turkish nationalism,
on the rise as it is and now with a disturbing new element of
anti-Americanism, reaches hysterical levels when the Armenian issue is
mentioned. Although most elites may not share it yet, it is unlikely
that they could control a wave of anti-Americanism if the U.S. House
of Representatives considers the proposed resolution. And it cost the
French billions in lost or cancelled contracts with Turkey when the
lower house of their parliament passed a resolution last year making
it a crime to deny that genocide occurred.
France had no strategic interests in Turkey, nor is Paris known for its
traditional pro-Turkish sympathies. The United States, however, has
a vital interest in a friendly Turkey, a NATO ally of long standing,
Israel’s only friend in the region, and a neighbor of Iran, Syria,
and Iraq. The latter is particularly important now.
As it is, Ankara has a legitimate complaint against our main Iraqi
allies, the Kurds, for their inaction or implicit tolerance of
the terrorist PKK organization, which is safely ensconced in Iraqi
Kurdistan. So far, the Turks have demonstrated, most of the time,
an admirable patience with PKK terrorist attacks across the border,
but a less than friendly Turkish military could not be counted
on to continue on that path. Nor could Ankara be expected, if it
is insulted by Washington, to stand by if Kirkuk, with its large
Turkoman minority, is annexed by the Iraqi Kurds. Are those likely
consequences worth paying for the sake of the emotional satisfaction
of the Armenian lobby?
The answer is clearly negative, which is why Presidents Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush all opposed such
attempts. The House leadership does not seem to mind doing damage
to our relations with the only democratic and secular Muslim state
in the region at a crucial time. Although the intended measure is
non-binding, and thus it avoids a presidential veto, that does not
make it harmless or intelligent.
Michael Radu, Ph.D., is Co-Chair of FPRI’s Center on Terrorism,
Counter-Terrorism, and Homeland Security. He is currently at work on
a book on Islamism in Europe.
p?idarticle=8456
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
