Obama celebrates annual breaking of campaign promise to 1.5 million Armenian Americans
On the 24th Obama participated in the annual rhetorical exercise where U.S. Presidents avoid calling the Armenian genocide a genocide. I expressed irritation about the same event last year.
The recent NYT article reinforces my failure to understand this American policy position. I’ll succinctly express my confusion by grouping the following items:
(1) Every year, the President marks the occasion by using phrases like “one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century” when “1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death.”
(2) Often, before he is elected, the President has made unequivocal statements. In the case of Obama as late as January 2008: “the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact.”
(3) The president does not renounce previous statements. Obama has said explicitly he agrees with his previous statement: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.”
(4) Every year, Turkey expresses outrage at the president’s language despite the fact that he hasn’t used the word genocide. This year: “Third countries neither have a right nor authority to judge the history of Turkish-Armenian relations with political motives.”
(5) This year, Congress passed a resolution in March condemning the genocide, over protests of the Obama administration. Turkey’s response? “Turkey briefly recalled its ambassador from Washington in protest.”
I do not see the credibility of foreign policy concerns over Turkey’s reaction to American acknowledgement of the genocide. They evidently are happy to maintain relations with the United States when the man holding the presidency has acknowledged the genocide, the Congress has officially acknowledged it, the President has agreed with his own previous statements, and so on. We do not sugarcoat the crimes of the Soviet Union or the Nazis in order to placate Russia and Germany, respectively. Why do we sugarcoat crimes in this case? The alleged political fallout would be slightly more credible if the President avoided talking about the genocide at all; but how is it that he can describe literally what happened, but just can’t use the word genocide? Are there legal ramifications? What does Turkey credibly leverage over us? Etc.
Probably when you become President, you learn some secret knowledge about how the world will blow up if you discuss this particular event. Maybe someday the National Security Archive will publish relevant documents, but I doubt it.
Lastly, isn’t it bizarre that 1.5 million is both the size of the Armenian-American voting bloc and the number of people massacred by the Turks?
This is depressing. Thank you for your annual expression of irritation; I only wish I could foresee it soon becoming unnecessary.
While it’s perhaps not a case of sugarcoating to placate a country, lately I’ve been reading a bit about the Soviet Union and am starting to think we’re not as aware of their crimes as we should be. At least, I’m certainly not. For example: “A measure of our slowness to face up to the real history of the Soviet Union is that the expression ‘Kirov Ballet’ does not strike us as obscene. The expression ‘Himmler Youth Orchestra’ would. So, to be fair, would ‘Pol Pot Academy of Creative Writing’ or even ‘Madame Mao School of Calligraphy.’” (Clive James, from his book “Cultural Amnesia,” in which I learned that the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Sea Canal fell under Kirov’s jurisdiction.)
I’m also ashamed, particularly as somebody with Ukrainian ancestry, to only just recently be learning about the scope of the Holodomor. Thank goodness my great-grandfather got out before that happened, but God only knows how many great aunts and uncles starved. Rafael Lemkin considered it a genocide and he’s the one who coined the term.
http://www.ukemonde.com/lemkin/
I vaguely knew about it, but I never heard it mentioned in school, not even in college. I’m sure many of these gaps in my knowledge are my own fault, and also there are numerous reasons the Holodomor is easier to ignore or forget than, say, the Holocaust (the Nazis kept such good records, and Allied troops came face to face with the Holocaust…). But these reasons don’t excuse my ignorance, and I still can’t understand why we continually fail the Armenians and many others. “May the dead forgive me that their memory’s but a flicker.” (Wislawa Szymborska)
I think its a legal issue. Calling it a genocide invites potential liability under international law. Massacre does not.
But can’t he just continue say “Ottoman Empire” and exempt Turkey’s current establishment from legal culpability?
Also, even if there is some historical or otherwise political continuity between perpetrators of the genocide and current leaders in Turkey, I don’t see this arising as an issue for Germany, Russia, or China, when we discuss their various past crimes.
Well the first part is a tricky issue due to the genocide occurring sort of between the two states.
Genocide is normally supposed to have international response. Here it really isn’t an issue though just because of the long time period. Hard to show the intent necessary for it to be an international crime at this date, plus who would you hold accountable?
I think refraining from using genocide is fueled mainly by the desire to have strong allies in the area, and Turkey still denies that it was a genocide.
BTW, I agree with you. I think these reasons are bad, precisely for the reasons you laid out. Just trying to explain the potential motivation.