It is in my character to be reactionary, to empathize with the liberal side and condemn the conservative side, often without any tangible knowledge on the matter or facts at hand. So, when President Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently warned the congressional House Foreign Affairs Committee against passing a bill that would officially rule the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915-1923 a “genocide”, I found my chance to attempt impartiality.
COUNTRY HISTORIES
Armenia History: "Armenia prides itself on being the first nation to formally adopt Christianity (early 4th century). Despite periods of autonomy, over the centuries Armenia came under the sway of various empires including the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Persian, and Ottoman. During World War I in the western portion of Armenia, Ottoman Turkey instituted a policy of forced resettlement coupled with other harsh practices that resulted in an estimated 1 million Armenian deaths. The eastern area of Armenia was ceded by the Ottomans to Russia in 1828; this portion declared its independence in 1918, but was conquered by the Soviet Red Army in 1920. Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by the long conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated region, assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s by Moscow. Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey imposed an economic blockade on Armenia and closed the common border because of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas." (excerpted from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook)
Turkey History: "Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 from the Anatolian remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire by national hero Mustafa KEMAL, who was later honored with the title Ataturk or "Father of the Turks." Under his authoritarian leadership, the country adopted wide-ranging social, legal, and political reforms. After a period of one-party rule, an experiment with multi-party politics led to the 1950 election victory of the opposition Democratic Party and the peaceful transfer of power. Since then, Turkish political parties have multiplied, but democracy has been fractured by periods of instability and intermittent military coups (1960, 1971, 1980), which in each case eventually resulted in a return of political power to civilians. In 1997, the military again helped engineer the ouster - popularly dubbed a "post-modern coup" - of the then Islamic-oriented government. Turkey intervened militarily on Cyprus in 1974 to prevent a Greek takeover of the island and has since acted as patron state to the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," which only Turkey recognizes. A separatist insurgency begun in 1984 by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) - now known as the People's Congress of Kurdistan or Kongra-Gel (KGK) - has dominated the Turkish military's attention and claimed more than 30,000 lives. After the capture of the group's leader in 1999, the insurgents largely withdrew from Turkey mainly to northern Iraq. In 2004, KGK announced an end to its ceasefire and attacks attributed to the KGK increased. Turkey joined the UN in 1945 and in 1952 it became a member of NATO. In 1964, Turkey became an associate member of the European Community; over the past decade, it has undertaken many reforms to strengthen its democracy and economy enabling it to begin accession membership talks with the European Union." (excerpted from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook)
ISSUE AT HAND
First, a clarification. While reports repeatedly refer to a "bill" passing the committee, we are actually dealing with a "resolution" that, if passed, would have no legal implications. I might not be explaining that well/accurately, so please feel free to comment if you have more information. The resolution, if passed, would officially state the US's opinion, for lack of a better word, that the Ottoman Empire conceived and executed an Armenian genocide from 1915 through 1923. You can read the full resolution drafted by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Cal) here.
To watch an interview between Congressman Schiff and Secretary Rice, click here. It was my hope that this interview would make clear the two opposing sides: the Schiff-side that is pushing for the passing of the resolution, and the Rice-side, the side that is opposed to the resolution's passing. I'd ask that you watch the interview first before reading on so that you can make your own assessment of the interview.
Rice avoids directly answering Schiff's questions and Schiff constantly interrupts Rice to make accusations. It's a perfect example of the political polarization in our country, and why people like myself find it difficult to be informed and impartial, or to even bear witness to what constitutes a debate these days. Schiff entered into the "interview" believing he knew exactly what Rice would say, and Rice entered into the "interview" knowing exactly what she needed to say. So when Rice began to state her Agenda, Schiff countered with his Agenda. It's like watching two people who are supposed to be looking at one another looking into separate mirrors instead; neither sees the other, only the reflection of what they already know reinforcing their existence, their purpose.
Of the two, I know Schiff's position—that I can solidly say. His case as stated in the resolution is clear, informative and persuasive. I agree with him. If all of the facts he provides are accurate and true, and the US has made it their business in the past to make public their "opinion" of other atrocities constituting genocide, then yes, the US should declare the atrocities committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks genocide. Unless, of course, the opposition has a solid argument that we should consider.
Rice repeatedly states that the US should butt out and leave it to the two countries to settle, but then why has the US made it their business in the past? When Schiff asks this question directly, Rice evades. Secretary Rice: is this some new resolution that the US intends to maintain in the future, meaning, has the policy on US recognition of genocide changed? In 2004, your predecessor Secretary Colin Powell declared the killings in Darfur genocide. Why can’t you? President Bush addressed the Armenian genocide resolution by stating that "its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in Nato and in the global war on terror". Okay, so the opposition is a military strategy? If this is the case, why does Rice not state this? I want to hear more about this, Mr. President; can you please call Secretary Rice and give her a heads-up so she can accurately report your administration’s actual position? I’m really trying to be impartial here, so it would help if you guys could keep on the same page.
I entered this exploration hoping to find both sides of the coin so that I could compare them and make an intelligent, thoughtful assessment. But what it comes down to is that Rice's side of the coin is evasive, dishonest and uninformative, and, in the face of this position, Schiff's side in exasperated and aggressive. I feel cheated.
Maybe someone out there can give me a clearer picture, information, so that we can have an informed discourse?
COUNTRY HISTORIES
Armenia History: "Armenia prides itself on being the first nation to formally adopt Christianity (early 4th century). Despite periods of autonomy, over the centuries Armenia came under the sway of various empires including the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Persian, and Ottoman. During World War I in the western portion of Armenia, Ottoman Turkey instituted a policy of forced resettlement coupled with other harsh practices that resulted in an estimated 1 million Armenian deaths. The eastern area of Armenia was ceded by the Ottomans to Russia in 1828; this portion declared its independence in 1918, but was conquered by the Soviet Red Army in 1920. Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by the long conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated region, assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s by Moscow. Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey imposed an economic blockade on Armenia and closed the common border because of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas." (excerpted from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook)
Turkey History: "Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 from the Anatolian remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire by national hero Mustafa KEMAL, who was later honored with the title Ataturk or "Father of the Turks." Under his authoritarian leadership, the country adopted wide-ranging social, legal, and political reforms. After a period of one-party rule, an experiment with multi-party politics led to the 1950 election victory of the opposition Democratic Party and the peaceful transfer of power. Since then, Turkish political parties have multiplied, but democracy has been fractured by periods of instability and intermittent military coups (1960, 1971, 1980), which in each case eventually resulted in a return of political power to civilians. In 1997, the military again helped engineer the ouster - popularly dubbed a "post-modern coup" - of the then Islamic-oriented government. Turkey intervened militarily on Cyprus in 1974 to prevent a Greek takeover of the island and has since acted as patron state to the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," which only Turkey recognizes. A separatist insurgency begun in 1984 by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) - now known as the People's Congress of Kurdistan or Kongra-Gel (KGK) - has dominated the Turkish military's attention and claimed more than 30,000 lives. After the capture of the group's leader in 1999, the insurgents largely withdrew from Turkey mainly to northern Iraq. In 2004, KGK announced an end to its ceasefire and attacks attributed to the KGK increased. Turkey joined the UN in 1945 and in 1952 it became a member of NATO. In 1964, Turkey became an associate member of the European Community; over the past decade, it has undertaken many reforms to strengthen its democracy and economy enabling it to begin accession membership talks with the European Union." (excerpted from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook)ISSUE AT HAND
First, a clarification. While reports repeatedly refer to a "bill" passing the committee, we are actually dealing with a "resolution" that, if passed, would have no legal implications. I might not be explaining that well/accurately, so please feel free to comment if you have more information. The resolution, if passed, would officially state the US's opinion, for lack of a better word, that the Ottoman Empire conceived and executed an Armenian genocide from 1915 through 1923. You can read the full resolution drafted by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Cal) here.
To watch an interview between Congressman Schiff and Secretary Rice, click here. It was my hope that this interview would make clear the two opposing sides: the Schiff-side that is pushing for the passing of the resolution, and the Rice-side, the side that is opposed to the resolution's passing. I'd ask that you watch the interview first before reading on so that you can make your own assessment of the interview.
Rice avoids directly answering Schiff's questions and Schiff constantly interrupts Rice to make accusations. It's a perfect example of the political polarization in our country, and why people like myself find it difficult to be informed and impartial, or to even bear witness to what constitutes a debate these days. Schiff entered into the "interview" believing he knew exactly what Rice would say, and Rice entered into the "interview" knowing exactly what she needed to say. So when Rice began to state her Agenda, Schiff countered with his Agenda. It's like watching two people who are supposed to be looking at one another looking into separate mirrors instead; neither sees the other, only the reflection of what they already know reinforcing their existence, their purpose.
Of the two, I know Schiff's position—that I can solidly say. His case as stated in the resolution is clear, informative and persuasive. I agree with him. If all of the facts he provides are accurate and true, and the US has made it their business in the past to make public their "opinion" of other atrocities constituting genocide, then yes, the US should declare the atrocities committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks genocide. Unless, of course, the opposition has a solid argument that we should consider.
Rice repeatedly states that the US should butt out and leave it to the two countries to settle, but then why has the US made it their business in the past? When Schiff asks this question directly, Rice evades. Secretary Rice: is this some new resolution that the US intends to maintain in the future, meaning, has the policy on US recognition of genocide changed? In 2004, your predecessor Secretary Colin Powell declared the killings in Darfur genocide. Why can’t you? President Bush addressed the Armenian genocide resolution by stating that "its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in Nato and in the global war on terror". Okay, so the opposition is a military strategy? If this is the case, why does Rice not state this? I want to hear more about this, Mr. President; can you please call Secretary Rice and give her a heads-up so she can accurately report your administration’s actual position? I’m really trying to be impartial here, so it would help if you guys could keep on the same page.
I entered this exploration hoping to find both sides of the coin so that I could compare them and make an intelligent, thoughtful assessment. But what it comes down to is that Rice's side of the coin is evasive, dishonest and uninformative, and, in the face of this position, Schiff's side in exasperated and aggressive. I feel cheated.
Maybe someone out there can give me a clearer picture, information, so that we can have an informed discourse?
2 comments:
I am not really that well informed about the issue, except to say that I often worked a security/traffic detail at the Armenian Church on Greenwood Avenue in Glenview. (That was back in the late 70's and early 80's.I also once had a security detail for the "Pope" (I believe they call him by some other title) of the Armenian Church when he visited Chicago. There was some concern for his safety. I believe he was exiled to Cyprus and lead the Church from there. A real nice guy. He and others spoke of the genocide when we asked why he needed a security detail.
That's a great piece of history! You protected the Armenian pope. Seriously, you've got to write this stuff down!
Post a Comment