Professor Ben-Meir accuses the House sponsors of the bill of not fully thinking through the implications, in all likelihood correctly. I am not sure I agree with his point however that this is mere political pandering.
Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet, although not its repercussions. It was sponsored by many members of Congress, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Representatives from New Jersey and Michigan, who have especially large Armenian constituencies.
First, of course it was politicized. Genocide, last I checked was a political issue with political origins and political recourse. To condemn this action for being politicized is truly absurd. There's no other conceivable way a bill, in a political institution, with political intentions and political repercussions could be anything but politicized. He next levels an attack on Speaker Pelosi, who to be fair makes me want to scream in frustration, and other representatives with Armenian constituencies, accusing them of cheap pandering politics that will garner them support in the Armenian community. I have another interpretation, which to me is just as plausible. Representatives represent their constituencies, and it's possible, just possible, that they are expressing the political desires of their constituents.
His next point addresses the possible venues for determining whether genocide did in fact occur. He believes it did, but follows the Turkish opinion that an international tribunal needs to be set up.
Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and conduct, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.
Snip...
As one high Turkish official dismayed by what is happening told me: "The importance of the issue requires more than a cursory review by some member of the House?" By way of example he said, "It was not enough to accuse the Germans of the Third Reich with genocide. The Nuremberg Trials were set up to prosecute the executers of Hitler's madness, but also established beyond a shadow of a doubt Germany's acts of genocide." "There was never a review by an international judiciary of the alleged Turkish genocide and no such determination was ever made."
Let's examine the current imbroglio surrounding a House resolution recognizing the genocide in Armenia. The resolution is founded in part on Senate hearings from the 1920s that stated
(13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered'.
(14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages'.
They are right in stating there has not been a Nuremberg-like trial to establish to the utmost the genocide occurred in Armenia, but here we have an international crisis threatening to undermine the war effort in Iraq, which might not be such a bad result. The furor and outrage accompanying the setting up of a tribunal might cause an international backlash in Turkey of epic proportions. To date 20 countries official recognize the Genocide in Armenia, including Vatican City perhaps out of guilt for their complicity in the holocaust. 40 of the 50 states in the United States have passed resolutions recognizing that genocide occurred in Armenia between 1915 and 1917. The preponderance of evidence, and the movement of the international community towards recognizing that genocide occurred in my mind is sufficient to support the House resolution, however politically disingenuous it may be.
Ben-Meir makes a larger point however, and one that is more troubling to me, both politically and morally.
He states
Should the United States Congress hold the great grandchildren of the Ottomans responsible for sins of their fathers which might have been perpetrated 92 years ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? A generation that had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were.
Mr. Ben-Meir is a scholar of international relations and Middle Eastern studies and somehow fails to recognize how deeply acts of genocide complicate and scar international relations for generations to come. I remember sitting in on a friend's thesis presentation in which he laid out a compelling argument that much of Japan and China's current relationship is still defined in large part by Japan's continuing refusal to recognize the Rape of Nanjing. Also witness the troubled relationship between Japan and South Korea, and the continuing refusal by Japan to recognize the monumental abuses committed by Japanese troups to South Korean "comfort women." While continuing hostile relations between Turkey and Armenia are not as problematic on the international scene as troubles between Japan and China, or Japan and South Korea, at their heart of their strained relationships are the same issues. The brings us to the moral issue troubles me more deeply, and makes me question the factual veracity of Mr. Ben-Meir's understanding of Turkish attitudes towards the Armenian genocide.
He claims that modern, secular Turkey should, as such a good ally not be held in judgment by its peers without the proper trials and procedures. While this may be true to some degree, it brings to mind the ongoing conversation I have been having with my grandfather for many years regarding post-war attitudes towards crimes committed by the Japanese, Germans and Austrians during World War II. While Germany was of course largely responsible for the holocaust, Austria remained complicit in the holocaust, aiding and abetting the atrocities. While Germany, to its credit has had a long, hard, painful and powerful national discourse regarding the Holocaust, leaving no aspect of the Holocaust undiscussed, Austria has remained in a state of national denial in regards to its role in the perpetuation of the Holocaust. Germany has engaged in a proactive debate and has encouraged this same discourse, while embarking on a series of concrete actions to try to, to whatever degree possible, make amends. In short, Germany has owned up to its appalling history. Japan, similar to Austria has continued as discussed earlier to deny it committed any atrocities during World War II, and before during it's Manchurian campaign. Professor Ben-Meir states that a new generation of Turks recognizes the genocide in Armenia, and it is unfair to condemn them for the actions of their forefathers. Based upon my own experience however, this is simply NOT true. I have met Turks my age, westernized and very liberal who continue to deny the Armenian genocide. Noga has told me about a Turkish friend of hers at Columbia who finally after two years in the United States came around to recognizing that the genocide had occured. If any segment of society in Turkey recognizes the genocide in Armenia it my peers that I have met in America, wealthy and educated, and still denial abounds. Turkey is in a moral position identical to Japan and Austria. It's a moral position I find indefensible and untenable.
To his credit however, Professor Ben-Meir makes one statement I do agree with.
Yes, America must speak out against genocide. But at a time when America suffers from a sagging global image and a loss of much of its moral authority due to the events in Iraq, the United States Congress must redouble its efforts to build its case on a strong moral tenet
The United States has no moral authority to condemn a genocide that occurred 90 years ago when it is caught in Iraq, fails to take action in Darfur, encourages atrocities and Somalia and does not make a more robust effort on the behalf of Burma.
0 comments:
Post a Comment