Clinton's last-minute intervention on Armenian genocide bill

Posted By Joshua Keating Thursday, March 4, 2010 - 2:28 PM Share

After remaining largely silent on the issue, the secretary of state spoke up today:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, a Democrat, on Wednesday to argue that the legislation could harm efforts to normalize Turkish-Armenian relations, the White House said.

"Secretary Clinton called Chairman Berman ... and in that conversation the secretary indicated that further congressional action could impede progress on normalization of relations," said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.

Berman has gone ahead with debate on the issue anyway and a vote is expected shortly.

"Turkey is a vital and, in most respects, a loyal ally of the United States in a volatile region," Berman, an influential member of Congress because of his chairmanship of the foreign affairs committee, said at the start of the hearing. "Be that as it may, nothing justifies Turkey's turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide," he added.

"Germany has accepted responsibility for the Holocaust. South Africa set up a Truth Commission to look at Apartheid. And here at home, we continue to grapple with the legacies of slavery and our horrendous treatment of Native Americans," he added.

All in all, the level of cynicism in Washington around this tragic historical event is pretty disheartening. Like President Bush before him, President Obama was for using the word "genocide" as a candidate before he was against it as president. Former House Majority leader Dick Gephart, who supported recognition as a congressman, is now lobbying against it on the Turkish payroll.

Outside the Armenian-American community, whose grievance on this issue is understandable and shouldn't be dismissed, most Americans would probably prefer that the congress focus its efforts on preventing and ending current conflicts.

Update: Looks like the Committee approved it. Turkish Ambassador fo the U.S. Namik Tan has reportedly been recalled to Ankara to consultations. This could get ugly.

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SIRCHIROL

3:08 PM ET

March 4, 2010

Who cares!

1) Congress shouldn't be wasting its time discussing history. It's job is legislation.

2) There's no consensus there was a genocide in the first place. So cynicism has nothing to do with this. Tragic historical event yes. Genocide, probably not. When you side with an invading enemy against your country (whether you actually want to be part of that country or not), you'll likely be killed for it. Only an idiot would be surprised by the outcome.

TTSSUF

7:11 PM ET

March 4, 2010

response to SIRCHIROL

Who cares? There is a very large consensus, beginning with Ambassador Morgenthau's own account of the events. He spent the rest of his life fighting for human rights. The very word "genocide" was coined by human rights activist Raphael Lemkin in the 1930's in direct reference to the Armenian genocide. Hitler, on the eve of his invasion of Poland said (and I am paraphrasing) "Who now talks of the Armenians?" in reference to his plan to address the "Jewish question." Who cares? Are we not all a part of the world community? Are we not all human beings? How can you sit back and say "who cares"? When perpetrators are not held accountable, genocide and race extermination will continue. Tell me, how many people have to die for it to be called a genocide? Is 1.5 million not enough?

ROY IN LAS VEGAS

11:55 PM ET

March 5, 2010

Sirchirol's "Who cares!"

First, and most important, those of us who deplore and condemn the Holocaust Deniers care. Elie Wiesel cares. Mike Weiss at Jewcy.com cares. Every one of my Jewish American friends care, as much as they care about the Holocaust. And, you'd never guess it, I care.

Second, there is a consensus among all legitimate historians, particularly among those who were either there at the time or had immediate access to the facts of the situation at the time, that the then-Turkish government had instituted a policy of genocide against the Armenians.

Third, as for "... side with an invading enemy against your country ..." you begin, I'm afraid, to sound like a Holocaust denier, though a Turkish one. Are you going to say that the old men, the women, the infants, the children, the cripples, were siding with some enemy army against their own country?

If I wasn't a gentleman, I'd make a personal comment about your integrity, Mr. Sirchirol. Or perhaps your lack of same.

Cordially,

Roy

OZZIE

12:42 PM ET

March 25, 2010

Allegations - Facts

It is clearly not enough just to say these tragic events constituted a Genocide. There is no evidence backing this claim other then people saying "that's what I have been told". If there was a real consensus as some people suggested, The European Court of Justice (the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law), would not invoke this decision in 2004 ( http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en --- Case Number: C-18/04 P)
As for the number of people claimed to have died during that time, 1.5 million seems a little high since there were only 1.25 million Armenians living there (according to census data) at that time .
We are all sympathetic about killings that took place during the war, but making it sound something it is not without any evidence to support it wont make things better.

GRANT

3:21 PM ET

March 4, 2010

In re. to SIRCHIROL, there's

In re. to SIRCHIROL, there's a fairly widespread consensus. Even among Turkish scholars there's growing acceptance of it. Also if memory serves the reasoning was that the Armenians had rebelled several times in the recent past and couldn't be trusted (not that siding with the British would have justified it anyway).

On the matter itself, while I don't have anything against the Armenians I can't see any gain from this. There are plenty of things we can recognize as genocide and get the moral high ground from without irritating already wavering allies.

DAVID BOYAJIAN

12:37 PM ET

March 5, 2010

Consistency needed on genocide

Concern about Turkey’s reaction to an Armenian genocide resolution in the US Congress is vastly overblown and, in the face of facts, hard to understand.

Fact is, the US has four times explicitly acknowledged the Armenian Genocide as “genocide” with barely a whimper from Turkey:

President Reagan’s Proclamation 4838 in 1981.
Two U.S. House of Representatives resolutions that passed (Res. 148 in 1975 and Res. 248 in 1984).
And a while back it was discovered that the U.S. government made an official submission recognizing the Armenian genocide to the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1951.

Turkey has also barely reacted to the official acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide by some 20 countries, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (2001), the European Parliament (1987, 2000, and 2002), the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1985), and the Vatican.

Turkey did get angry over France’s acknowledgment of the genocide, and allegedly did not allow France to bid on a satellite contract that it would probably not have won anyway.

Funny, therefore, that people are getting bent out of shape about Turkey’s threats. The clear record is that Turkey’s bark is infinitely louder than its bite. Last time I looked, the US was the superpower, not Turkey.

Ordinarily, the US foreign policy establishment would not bow to threats from a foreign country, but in this case when Erdogan says boo, Americans jump.

And does Turkey itself not realize that the world is against it on this issue and that the US has already acknowledged the genocide? Why fight against the current genocide resolution that differs from previous ones only in its detail? The Armenian genocide is a fact, says (many times) the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

The US Congress continually passes legislation of various kinds decrying the Holocaust, genocide denial, and present day genocides. Presidents decry genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, and elsewhere, but when it comes to Turkey, they get cold feet. This is hypocrisy.

Why is it wrong for an Iranian leader to diminish or deny the Holocaust, which causes the President and Congress to become outraged, but when Turkey time and again denies the genocide of Christian Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks), this is somehow OK?

We need to be consistent about genocides lest we lose our already meager credibility. I want to refer readers to www.Armenian-genocide.org (click on Int’l Affirmations), www.NoPlaceforDenial.com, and http://www.anca.org/endthegagrule/briefingbook.pdf.

We also need to be consistent about human rights. The US foreign policy establishment cannot go around decrying human rights violations in Russia, China, Iran, and elsewhere to score political points and then turn around and remain virtually silent about the treatment of the few remaining Christians, and also Kurds, of course, in present day Turkey.

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.