The title of today's
New York Times story on House resolution 106, "
Planned House Vote on Armenian Massacre Angers Turks," does not sound very promising at first glance. But the article itself should inspire optimism among advocates of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. The article frames the issue mainly as one pitting the Turks and the White House against House Democrats. From the article, the issue clearly emerges as one of strategic and commercial interests versus morality and justice. This kind of framing provides all the more reason for Nancy Pelosi to support the resolution - rightly or wrongly, most Americans believe that U.S. foreign policy ought to be and is guided by moral values. Furthermore, many Americans probably resent what they perceive as undue pressure exerted by the Turkish government, especially when expressed in a half-threatening, half-paternalistic warning by Abdullah Gul. The Turkish foreign minister told the
Times that
As the elected government of democratic Turkey, we would not be able to remain indifferent. However, I am confident that common sense would prevail at the Congress.
The article does mention the restoration, by the Turkish government, of the Armenian church at Akhtamar near Lake Van (depicted in our banner). This is definitely a good public relations move, that will engender sympathy among Americans for Turkish efforts at reconciliation.
2 comments:
It is regrettable that the Times used the word 'Massacre' in the headline. Its offical policy is to use 'genocide' in referring to the extermination of the Armenians during WW1. it does use genocide in the text of the article.
As far as the restoration of Akhtamar the Turks have done the right thing for the wrong reasons.
They had originally planned to hold the opening on April 24 which is the date Armenians commemorate the beginning of the genocide in 1915. They then moved it to April 12 which is April 24 under the old calendar. Finally they moved it March 30. Hrant Dink wrote about all this in his last column for AGOS.
The restoration did not include a cross on the top and it is a museum and not a functioning church. The Turks insist on calling it Akdamar and not Akhtamar the original name.
They invited guests from Armenia but would not open the border to let them in. Consequently what would have been a 4 hour trip became a 16 hour one as the Armenian delegation had to venture to Georgia first and then back down to Van.
Everything is done to mark points and not out of generosity of spirit.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69630
The Independent is even more sanguine about the Akhtamar restoration:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2405139.ece
Post a Comment