Bush warns against Armenia bill

[traynod]

President George W Bush has urged US legislators not to pass a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to be genocide.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," he said hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Such a move, already taken by France's parliament, would do "great harm" to US relations with Turkey, Mr Bush added.

Source BBC News

According to Wikipedia:

The Armenian Genocide was the forcible deportation and massacring of hundreds of thousands to over 1.5 million Armenians during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire.

It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides, as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide. To date twenty-one countries have officially recognized it as genocide. The government of the Republic of Turkey rejects the characterization of the events as genocide.



I find the hypocrisy startling. The Nazi genocide of Jews is undisputed in Washington and rightly so. To deny it, one shares an esteemed category of crackpots with the likes of Ahmadinejad. However, Israel, one might argue, is a significant contributor to the problems in the Middle East. Ultimately it is the source of many headaches concerning US foreign policy. Despite this, the US would never deny the existence of the Jewish holocaust; to do so would be almost heretical in Washington.

The Armenian genocide is a similar event. Yet, the Bush administration is reluctant to define it as a genocide for fear of aggravating Turkey and destabilizing the Middle East further (i.e Turkey's strategic position with regard the 'war on terror', north Iraq and Israel). One would agree that the costs of causing a rift with Turkey could indeed prove great.

But why the hypocrisy? Why acknowledge the occurrence of the Jewish holocaust, and cause consternation in the middle east through the unequivocal support of Israel, yet deny the Armenian genocide to avoid the same kind of Middle Eastern aggravation? Seems a bit selective to me.....

[Armchair Activist]

But why the hypocrisy? Why support the notion of the Jewish holocaust, and cause consternation in the middle east through the unequivocal support of Israel, yet deny the Armenian genocide to avoid the same kind of Middle Eastern aggravation? Seems a bit selective to me.....

Wouldn’t quite call the holocaust a notion!

However it is appalling for the Americans to overlook any act of ethnic cleansing or genocide, but who can argue with the World Police.

[traynod]

But why the hypocrisy? Why support the notion of the Jewish holocaust, and cause consternation in the middle east through the unequivocal support of Israel, yet deny the Armenian genocide to avoid the same kind of Middle Eastern aggravation? Seems a bit selective to me.....

Wouldn’t quite call the holocaust a notion!

However it is appalling for the Americans to overlook any act of ethnic cleansing or genocide, but who can argue with the World Police.

thanks, I agree...t'was quite lax. reworded it slightly now..

[Skin]

President George W Bush has urged US legislators not to pass a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to be genocide.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," he said hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Such a move, already taken by France's parliament, would do "great harm" to US relations with Turkey, Mr Bush added.

Source BBC News

According to Wikipedia:

The Armenian Genocide was the forcible deportation and massacring of hundreds of thousands to over 1.5 million Armenians during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire.

It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides, as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide. To date twenty-one countries have officially recognized it as genocide. The government of the Republic of Turkey rejects the characterization of the events as genocide.



I find the hypocrisy startling. The Nazi genocide of Jews is undisputed in Washington and rightly so. To deny it, one shares an esteemed category of crackpots with the likes of Ahmadinejad. However, Israel, one might argue, is a significant contributor to the problems in the Middle East. Ultimately it is the source of many headaches concerning US foreign policy. Despite this, the US would never deny the existence of the Jewish holocaust; to do so would be almost heretical in Washington.

The Armenian genocide is a similar event. Yet, the Bush administration is reluctant to define it as a genocide for fear of aggravating Turkey and destabilizing the Middle East further (i.e Turkey's strategic position with regard the 'war on terror', north Iraq and Israel). One would agree that the costs of causing a rift with Turkey could indeed prove great.

But why the hypocrisy? Why acknowledge the occurrence of the Jewish holocaust, and cause consternation in the middle east through the unequivocal support of Israel, yet deny the Armenian genocide to avoid the same kind of Middle Eastern aggravation? Seems a bit selective to me.....

Spot on!

[codology]

But buisness is buisness in Bushes eyes.

[Rocky]

The Armenian genocide is a similar event. Yet, the Bush administration is reluctant to define it as a genocide for fear of aggravating Turkey and destabilizing the Middle East further (i.e Turkey's strategic position with regard the 'war on terror', north Iraq and Israel). One would agree that the costs of causing a rift with Turkey could indeed prove great.

But why the hypocrisy? Why acknowledge the occurrence of the Jewish holocaust, and cause consternation in the middle east through the unequivocal support of Israel, yet deny the Armenian genocide to avoid the same kind of Middle Eastern aggravation? Seems a bit selective to me.....

A few points on this. First this issue still shows a lot about the immaturity of the Turkish State. In Germany the government wouldn't even think of denying the Holocaust or putting any pressure on any government to do so either. If anything they would do the opposite and the way Germany deals with their genocide is the way any proper democratic state should deal with Genocide. In many ways I think the day Turkey accepts the Armenia genocide, will be day I will support their entry into the EU. This whole issue really doesn’t reflect well on Turkey.

Now to deal with your point. First it's not the fact that the US or anyone else recognises the existence of the Holocaust that is causing problems in the Middle East it's the existence of Israel, now Israel uses the Holocaust to justify itself to an extent, but that's a different issue. The existence of Israel is of course very different to something that is purely symbolic, like this act because of cause Israel existing isn’t symbolic and effects the lives of a lot people, mainly the people who live in Israel. The issue of the existence of Armenia isn’t really disputed at all and isn’t really linked to this issue.

Bush’s point is it worthwhile annoying Turkey and potentially causing more problems in the Middle East, for something that is purely symbolic and I’d say probably not. In reality this shouldn’t even by an issue at all, but as I said that Turkey’s fault. It is a very difficult one, but I’d say real politick has to win out.

[Dee Four]

In a perfect world this event would have already been recognised as genocide. However, we do not live in a perfect world. What real good will this Bill do in the world we live in? I would argue that it does not one bit of good, but could end up doing a whole lot of harm.

For starters, what bloody difference does it make if the President calls it genocide? Most people in Western Europe who are knowledgeable about such things probably regard it as genocide, and they didn't need their head of state to give them a history lesson. It isn't Bush's job to put classifications on these things. Let that be done by history books or in opinion pieces by journalists. That is my theoretical argument against this Bill.

On a practical basis, this Bill achieves nothing but potentially risks everything. Turkey has already refused to co-operate with France in any military activities, following Paris' decision to make genocide denial a crime. America cannot afford Turkey taking similar action. Not only would this make continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq very difficult, it would also lessen America's hands in any Middle Eastern peace talks.

Furthermore, this Bill would harden support for Nationalists within Turkey, ending any hope that the government will change article 301 (which prohibits calling the massacre genocide) which President Gul supports. It could even lead to more violence, such as was witnessed by the killing of Hrant Dink.

[Keith-M]

I really don't see the point of Congress discussing this issue. It's not as if there aren't issues out there today (Somalia, Zimbabwe, Darfur, and that's just Africa) that are far more urgent. How would Americans like it if foreign legislatures started discussing its treatment of native Americans and using the loaded "genocide" word?

[Stevie Chalmers]

Bush’s point is it worthwhile annoying Turkey and potentially causing more problems (...)

...and there would be problems if the bill was recognized by US Congress:

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... wsid=85619

Another interesting article on the issue:

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... wsid=85579

[traynod]

Latest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038900.stm