I was going through some old files today when I came across a front-page story that I wrote for The Bee almost two decades ago about the first President George Bush's acknowledging that there was an Armenian genocide. It was a stunning position to take at a time when the Reagan Administration was fighting efforts to formally recognize the Armenian genocide.
The issue came up during a campaign stop in Fresno when Bush was running for president: He said he persoanlly believed there was a genocide and "it's a matter that the Turks have been unwilling to face up to."
Bush made that statement on May 17, 1988, when he was vice president. He was elected president later that year. His position on the issue became a matter some controversy. But I know George H.W. Bush made that statement because I asked the question and heard the answer.
The statement put Bush at odds with Reagan's State Department, which feared offending Turkey. Bush admitted at the time that the genocide question was sensitive for the U.S. government because of the strategic importance of military bases in Turkey. Bush also said, "You can never make up for the suffering that took place. But getting the facts out (will help). It is sensitive ... and there are some strategic considerations there."
But after he was elected president, Bush switched positions on supporting a formal recognition of the genocide. He later wrote a letter to Congress opposing efforts to name April 24, 1990, as a day of remembrance for the 1.5 million Armenians killed early in this century.
Those who believe there was an Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks are still fighting to get the U.S. government to formally recognize the massacre. Bush's son, President George W. Bush, also presides over a State Department that opposes passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
But this isn't a partisan issue. State Departments under presidents of both parties have long opposed the resolution
It's time to put this issue behind us. Congress should pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
After this item was posted, Lanny Larson, a former Bee colleague now working at Fresno State, sent this note, which should be of interest to readers:
Saw your blog and wanted you to know that Taner Akcam, a Turkish scholar who has published a book with what he says is evidence from Turkish government records that the Genocide was a planned extermination with approval well up the chain of command, will speak at Fresno State on Jan. 21. http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2006/12/turkishscholar.htm. .
Other than the benefit of acknowledging history as it actually occurred, what would come from this? Do you imagine passing this acknowledgment as the first step of a sanctions regime, as prelude to allowing the victims to reclaim their bank deposits, or something else?
The reason to pass this is because it's the right thing to do. That's what matters. When Hitler was questioned about his final solution his response was said to have been "who remembers the Armenians". Enough already pass this!
This is about military bases and nuclear bomb silos.
If the U.S. stands behind morals and principles to do the right thing then pass legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide.
I hope our Congressional Representatives do not cow down to the State Department, paid Turkish lobby groups, and the Turkish Governemnt's political arm twisting.
Above all, this is about human rights.
While I'm often seen as quite liberal, I still question priorities. Yes, acknowledging the truth is a good thing. However, is it so good a thing as to be worth annoying one of our few strong allies in the region? Save Israel, probably the most democratic nation in the region? Over something that happened long enough ago that no one living remains?
If you're willing to moralize so, why aren't you haranguing Japan over its skipping lightly over its atrocities committed 50 years later? (Insert another dozen examples of things we can moralize about: FGM, wars of aggression, etc.) Spending our time and effort on "feel good" legislation means less time (and political capital) for improving the daily lives of people today.
I've been struggling with this issue for awhile. While I wish Turkey would acknowledge the genocide and begin the healing, as Germany has done, I'm afraid we are in danger of ostracising one of the few (only?) secular democracies in the Islamic world. If Islamic radicals were to overthrow the secular republic (I have no idea how likely that is), the result would be less freedom for Muslims and non-Muslims in Turkey, and a world that is a bit less safe and friendly for the rest of us.
The levity of the issue goes beyond "annoying" Turkey.
How "annoying" was the genocide to the Armenians who were killed?
This would be a step forward to have some accountability toward human rights abuses against civilian populations. In this case the ultimate
Let the victims of other human attrocities come forward. Organizations who support this issue also support abuse of other peoples, such as in Darfur.
Somehow the arguement of opening the flood gates of similar attrocities wasting "political capital" is weak. What are governments suppose to be doing anyway, protecting it's citizens, not killing them and denying it.
Scott wrote:
"Spending our time and effort on "feel good" legislation means less time (and political capital) for improving the daily lives of people today."
The people who give life value do not see this as "feel good" legislation.
Also who says this would not effect the lives of people today, it would, and in a positive way.
Would the world be a better place if the Germans did not acknowledge the holocaust? I don't think so.
I do not believe the Armenian genocide issue will ostracise Turkey from the US, in the long run.
Sure they may threaten to cow down our government but who is the supposed superpower? Which country has much more to loose? militarily, economically, etc...
How helpful was Turkey when we needed them most going in the initial invasion of Iraq?
I dont think the stakes are so high on the strategic and economic partnership the US and Turkey shares.
Mike D. wrote:
"...a world that is a bit less safe and friendly for the rest of us".
Would be governments who kill it's civilian populations that go unchecked by the international community.
Also, who says the Armenian civilian populations of Anatolia were not terrorized by the Ottoman/Turkish government?
Governments are not exempt from acts of terror.
Rich, which "government" are you talking about? The Ottoman Empire has been gone for a long time now. The people who govern Turkey now weren't even born then, for the most part. Like I said, I wish Turkey would acknowledge the genocide, but the present government and and people of Turkey didn't carry it out, and acknowledging it is not going to bring one victim back. Using our superpower status to bully Turkey, as you suggest, will probably only make things worse.
The U.S. should not use it's power to influence Turkey to do anything regarding the Armenian genocide. I did not mean to suggest that. The U.S. is already proving a superpower can not use it's influence by force, using Iraq as an example (but thats another issue).
The U.S. is acknowledging the Armenian genocide, not telling Turkey to acknowledge it.
I have heard the arguement that this government is not Ottoman Anatolia, but modern day Turkey.
Two points: The Current Turkish government does not look at it in this way? They deny the Ottoman government committed genocide as well.
More importantly the structure of the Turkish governent changed but the economic gain from those who lost land, businesses, homes, etc... went directly to the government, that did not change.
This is not an issue against the "people of Turkey" but directed toward the government's policy of denial. The civilian populations at the time did not vote to commit these crimes, it was a governemnt decision.
"acknowledging it is not going to bring one victim back." No legislation can bring back the dead, only Jesus can do that, and it wasn't a government decision.
Seriously speaking, the dead were victims and victims have human rights even after death.
Even looking at this pragmatically as I believe you are in the short term it may cause some diplomatic tension, but long term I do not think Turkey will hold the genocide as a negative bargaining chip for long, it has too much too loose.
I have another perspective it is "worse" when governments kill it's civilian populations and go unchecked by the international community.
Also you mentioned that you would "wish" Turkey would recognize the genocide. I guess this is better then you working against it.
If you "wished" to be a succesful person would that make it come true? Of course not, you have to work toward making it a reality otherwise a wish, is a wish, is a wish. Nobody would even give you a dollar unless you at least asked for it.
I hope I havent digressed.
How secular is Turkey, look at how they treat their minorities, check to see why the pope went to Turkey. Look at how they treat the kurds (will remind you of saddam),Anti-semitism is on the rise, the best film made was anti american. Turkey a secular ally to the untited states, hardly.