2008 Woodie Awards
The truth about genocide
Sofia Mnjoyan
Issue date: 10/30/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
US consul states, "The plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race." 92 years later his words are forgotten.
On Oct. 10, the U.S. House of Foreign Affairs committee voted to condemn the 1915 mass killings of Armenians as genocide. U.S. and world records agree that the 1915 massacre of the Christian Armenian minority by the Young Turks was a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing. The resolution calls on the president to refer to the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. Every year, the U.S. president gives a speech in which he commemorates the tragedy that befell the Armenian nation in 1915; however, he fails to call it genocide. The president does not avoid calling the Darfur massacres genocide. Why does he circumvent the term in the Armenian case?
Turkey does not recognize the Armenian Genocide and has pressured the White House to avoid the issue. Before the vote on Oct. 10, President George Bush gave a speech to warn the House committee that this was not "the right response to the historic mass killings." As the comedian Jon Stewart put it, "What is the correct response to historic mass killings? Historic mass flowers?"
The American public has been scared into believing that the passage of this non-binding, symbolic resolution will somehow harm the U.S. troops in Turkey. Senator Tom Lantos told CNN, "The Turkish government will not act against the United States because that would be against their own interests." In 2003, when there was no mention of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey blocked a northern front against Iraq, which, according to the Department of Defense, contributed to the strength of the insurgency. Now, the Turkish government plans an incursion into Iraq to battle the Kurdish guerillas. "If there had not been the Armenian resolution, there still would have been the problem with the PKK," said Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey.
The senators who voted against this resolution's passage had no doubts about the genocide but argued that "this was not the right time." It has not been "the right time" for the past 20 years. The presidents preceding George W. Bush also claimed that the time was not right for such a resolution. John Evans, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, used the word "genocide" in 2006 and was fired from his post as a result. This is the result of a fierce Turkish lobby in Washington. A New York Times article published on Oct. 17 mentions Robert Livingston, a former representative, who, according to the Justice Department, has received $1.2 million since August 2006 from the Turkish government for lobbying against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Sadly, young people in Turkey are brought up oblivious to this genocide's history. "The word 'genocide,' as cold as it is, causes a deep reaction in the Turkish society. Having been taught about its glorious and spotless past by the state rhetoric for decades, people feel that they could not have possibly done such a terrible thing," said Ferhat Kentel, a sociologist from Bilgi University in Istanbul.
Fethiye Cetin, a Turkish lawyer, told the New York Times, "We grew up knowing nothing about our past." The passage of this symbolic, non-binding resolution will hopefully make the Turks take another realistic look at their past and come to terms with their history.
The time is now!
-----------------------------------------------------
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Cauldron editorial staff. All other columns and opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of the author.
On Oct. 10, the U.S. House of Foreign Affairs committee voted to condemn the 1915 mass killings of Armenians as genocide. U.S. and world records agree that the 1915 massacre of the Christian Armenian minority by the Young Turks was a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing. The resolution calls on the president to refer to the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. Every year, the U.S. president gives a speech in which he commemorates the tragedy that befell the Armenian nation in 1915; however, he fails to call it genocide. The president does not avoid calling the Darfur massacres genocide. Why does he circumvent the term in the Armenian case?
Turkey does not recognize the Armenian Genocide and has pressured the White House to avoid the issue. Before the vote on Oct. 10, President George Bush gave a speech to warn the House committee that this was not "the right response to the historic mass killings." As the comedian Jon Stewart put it, "What is the correct response to historic mass killings? Historic mass flowers?"
The American public has been scared into believing that the passage of this non-binding, symbolic resolution will somehow harm the U.S. troops in Turkey. Senator Tom Lantos told CNN, "The Turkish government will not act against the United States because that would be against their own interests." In 2003, when there was no mention of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey blocked a northern front against Iraq, which, according to the Department of Defense, contributed to the strength of the insurgency. Now, the Turkish government plans an incursion into Iraq to battle the Kurdish guerillas. "If there had not been the Armenian resolution, there still would have been the problem with the PKK," said Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey.
The senators who voted against this resolution's passage had no doubts about the genocide but argued that "this was not the right time." It has not been "the right time" for the past 20 years. The presidents preceding George W. Bush also claimed that the time was not right for such a resolution. John Evans, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, used the word "genocide" in 2006 and was fired from his post as a result. This is the result of a fierce Turkish lobby in Washington. A New York Times article published on Oct. 17 mentions Robert Livingston, a former representative, who, according to the Justice Department, has received $1.2 million since August 2006 from the Turkish government for lobbying against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Sadly, young people in Turkey are brought up oblivious to this genocide's history. "The word 'genocide,' as cold as it is, causes a deep reaction in the Turkish society. Having been taught about its glorious and spotless past by the state rhetoric for decades, people feel that they could not have possibly done such a terrible thing," said Ferhat Kentel, a sociologist from Bilgi University in Istanbul.
Fethiye Cetin, a Turkish lawyer, told the New York Times, "We grew up knowing nothing about our past." The passage of this symbolic, non-binding resolution will hopefully make the Turks take another realistic look at their past and come to terms with their history.
The time is now!
-----------------------------------------------------
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Cauldron editorial staff. All other columns and opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of the author.