Turkey "Baffled" by Lantos

The Turkish Daily News reports that Ankara is "baffled by [Democratic Congressman Tom] Lantos's vote" to approve the Armenian genocide resolution for a floor vote in the House. The source of the confusion? According to the newspaper's unnamed Washington sources, "Israel had been lobbying against the resolution's passage." Since the longtime House representative and chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs "is one of Israel's strongest supporters in Washington," he was, so the logic goes, expected to vote against the resolution. Ankara has continued to warn American Jewish groups that their support for recognition would damage Turkey's relationship with Israel.

Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America expressed his gratitude to the House Foreign Affairs Committee for supporting the resolution in the face of pressure from the White House.

Aram Hamparian of the Armenian National Committee of America called the adoption of the resolution by the House Committee a "meaningful step toward reclaiming our right, as Americans, to speak openly and honestly about the first genocide of the 20th century."

At the risk of sounding pedantic: the Armenian Genocide was not the "first genocide" of the 20th century. This statement is unfortunately repeated unthinkingly by many people working toward the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. I don't really understand why it is necessary to claim any sort of primacy (does it make the tragedy worse?), but if one is going to do so, there is at least one earlier case - the genocide of the Herero and Nama in South-West Africa by German colonial troops between 1904 and 1907.

AJC Executive Director David Harris Recognizes Armenian Genocide

After Foxman's statement, the American Jewish Committee, arguably the most prestigious organization representing U.S. Jewry on the national as well as international stage, for the first time recognized the killings of Armenians during WWI as genocide:

At the same time, I cannot escape the events of 1915 and the conclusions reached by credible voices, from Ambassador Morgenthau to Harvard professor Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of A Problem from Hell: American and the Age of Genocide, to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, about the nature of what took place: it was a genocide, they determined, albeit one that occurred more than thirty years before the term was coined (see full press release).

This is a huge development whose significance cannot be overstated. It marks a major policy shift for the organization. To think that all this started from the controversy in Watertown is actually deeply inspiring. Truth and justice have triumphed over realpolitik.

It remains to be seen what the fallout will be for relations between American Jewish organizations and Turkey. To be sure, Turkish diplomacy has been dealt a serious blow. With the issue having taken center stage, neither the ADL nor AJC could any longer afford to take a "neutral" or strategic position.

Thanks to R. for the link.

Foxman Recognizes Armenian Genocide

Perhaps my cautious optimism below was not unfounded. Today, the ADL released a press statement, in which Abe Foxman called the massacres of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman empire "genocide":

We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.

The ADL did, however, maintain its line that a Congressional resolution is "counterproductive."
Nevertheless, this is a very welcome development. I dare say that the whole affair has vindicated the recognition cause and that the prospects for a resolution passing are now better than ever.

Thanks to Peggy for the link.

ADL Continues to Stumble

Throughout this week, an "Open Letter to the New England Community" will appear as a paid advertisement in various newspapers in the region. The advertisement is an attempt by the national ADL to justify its ongoing position of "neutrality" on U.S. House resolution 106. As R., who brought this to my attention, points out, the document smacks of inconsistency and poor logic. I was flabbergasted, for example, upon reading this paragraph:

We believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past. We take no position on what action Congress should take on House Resolution 106. The Jewish community in Turkey has clearly expressed to us and other major American Jewish organizations its concerns about the impact of Congressional action on them, and we cannot ignore those concerns. We are also keenly aware that Turkey is a key strategic ally and friend of the United States and a staunch friend of Israel, and that in the struggle between Islamic extremists and moderate Islam, Turkey is the most critical country in the world.

The first sentence is a staple of those who oppose the recognition of the Armenian Genocide as genocide by foreign governments. I'm not at all convinced by this claim.

Yes, recognition resolutions may make large sectors of the Turkish population more intransigent on this issue, but how has inaction on this front helped matters? If anything, we have ample evidence from the past 9 decades proving that neutrality by foreign powers on this question has actually increased the strength of the denialist camp. Several generations of Turks have grown up reared on textbooks and popular mythologies that deny not just the genocide but massacres of Armenians in toto.

Furthermore, it seems rather unfair to extend this kind of courtesy to Turkey, while frustrating the aims of Armenians and non-Armenians who want recognition of this genocide. Isn't the continued frustration of attempts to achieve recognition also counter-productive to these people's attempts to come to terms with their past?

The second sentence of this paragraph, which claims that the ADL "takes no position" on H.R. 106 strikes me, with all due respect, as a blatant lie. If the ADL is indeed "neutral" on this matter, why does the same paragraph invoke fears about the safety of Turkey's Jewish community, as well as Turkey's importance as a strategic ally?

I sympathize with the fears of the Turkey's Jews as much as I sympathize with the anxieties of some Armenians living in Turkey, who have also expressed opposition to genocide recognition resolutions abroad. But the kind of argument that is being made here is extortion pure and simple. It reminds me of some of the claims made by early-19th-century German legislators who refused to grant civic emancipation to Jews in their territories because they believed this would lead to attacks against Jewish people by the hostile population. Turkey is responsible for the safety of its citizens - it is a modern state with all the powers of an advanced security apparatus at its disposal.

I do agree with the ADL that it

is regrettable that such an important program as ADL’s No Place for Hate® Program, which provides a framework for fighting hatred and bigotry while increasing diversity awareness and fostering respect, has been mired in a controversy having nothing to do with the program.

But the ADL knows very well that if an educational program had been launched by a group that it perceived as hurtful, it would do everything possible to shut it down, no matter how beneficial it may have been to the community. If large segments of the population in New England find the position taken by a sponsor of a program on a certain issue to be objectionable, they have the right to oppose the program too. NGOs do not have immunity from public pressure.

I do have a question for my perpetually pessimistic friends. Is there not some grounds for optimism when one reads the following line?

We will continue to work to convince Turkey to pursue recognition and reconciliation, and we will seek ways to encourage this process [emphasis added].

Schiff presses Rice on Genocide

Congressman Adam Schiff (Photo: Schiff's House Site)

Following is the original transcript of an exchange between Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California, 29th District) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the United States, on March 21. It is somewhat long, but I thought some of Rice's answers were worth noticing, sometimes for their brutal honesty, more often for their diplomatic contortions.

The exchange took place at a House Appropriations Committee hearing before the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on which Schiff sits. The transcript is from a press release on Schiff's online newsroom.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome.
About a week or so ago, Madam Secretary, you and Secretary Gates sent a letter to some of the chairs of committees here on the Hill opposing recognition of the Armenian genocide.
This concerned me for a number of reasons, not the least of which that I don't see how we can have the moral authority that we need to condemn the genocide going in Darfur if we're unwilling to recognize other genocides that have taken place, if we're unwilling to recognize the first genocide of the last century, where 1.5 million people lost 
their lives.
We're all well aware of how the Turkish lobby and Turkey has, either implicitly or explicitly, threatened because it doesn't want the genocide recognized and its own difficulty in coming to grips with that chapter of Ottoman history.
So I'm not going to ask you about that, but I do want to ask you, is there any -- do you have any doubt, in your mind, that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 constituted genocide? Is there any doubt about that, in your mind?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Congressman, I think that these historical circumstances require a very detailed and sober look from historians and what we've encouraged the Turks and the Armenians to do is to have joint historical commissions that can look at this, to have efforts to examine their past and, in examining their past, to get over their past.
But I will tell you, Congressman, I don't think that it helps that process of reconciliation for the United States to enter this debate at that level. I just don't think it's helpful.

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, your comments, you think that there should be some kind of debate or discussion about the genocide suggests that you have a question about whether genocide occurred.
Is that correct?

RICE: Congressman, I believe that this is something that Turks and Armenians are best to address through their own processes of coming to terms with their history.
Lots of people have had to come to terms with their history...

SCHIFF: Yes, and, Madam Secretary, we have to come to grips with our own history.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And we did.

RICE: I personally am well aware of that.

SCHIFF: But, Madam Secretary, you come out of academia.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: Is there any historic debate outside of Turkey? Is there any reputable historian you're aware of that takes issue with the fact that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians constituted genocide?

RICE: Congressman, I come out of academia, but I'm secretary of state now and I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms about this.
Lots of people are coming to terms with their history in Asia, in Europe people have had to come to terms with their own history and that's...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, we have no reluctance to recognize genocide in Darfur. We have no reluctance to talk about the Cambodian genocide or the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust.
Why is it only this genocide? Is it because Turkey is a strong ally? Is that an ethical and moral reason to ignore the murder of 1.5 million people? Why is it we don't say, "Let's relegate the Holocaust to historians" or "relegate the Cambodian genocide or Rwandan genocide ?" Why is it only this genocide that we should let the Turks acknowledge or not acknowledge?
And, Madam Secretary, Hrant Dink, who was murdered outside of his office, is not a testimony to Turkish progress. The fact that Turkey brought a Nobel-winning author up on charges of insulting Turkishness because he talked about the murder of the Armenians doesn't show great efforts of reconciliation of Turkey.
Why is it only this genocide we're incapable of recognizing?

RICE: Congressman, we have recognized and the president recognizes every year in a resolution that he himself issues the historical circumstances and the tragedy that befell the Armenian people at that time.
We do recognize it. But I don't -- if you'll just allow me. I do not see that this situation is going to get better in the sense that it allows Turks and Armenians to move on to deal with their present unless we are able to let them deal with their past as to the murder that you...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, because I'm going to run out of time.
You recognize more than anyone, as a diplomat, the power of words.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And I'm sure you supported the recognition of genocide in Darfur, not calling it tragedy, not calling it atrocity, not calling it anything else, but the power and significance of calling it genocide .
Why is that less important in the case of the Armenian genocide?

RICE: Congressman, the power here is in helping these people to move forward. After the murder that you talked about, Turks went into the streets to embrace Armenians and to say that this is not the way that Turks behave.
The foreign minister himself has called into question the issue of arresting people for Turkishness. I do think that there is an evolution that is going on in a Turkey that is democratizing and democratizing before our very eyes and where Turks will be able to deal better with their history.
But I do believe that people are better left to try and deal with this themselves if they're going to be able to move forward.
We have to ask ourselves, "What is the purpose here," and I think the purpose is to acknowledge, of course, the historic tragedy, but the purpose is also to allow Turks and Armenians to be able to move forward.
And, yes, Turkey is a good ally and that is important. But more important is that like many historical tragedies, like many historical circumstances of this kind, people need to come to terms with it and they need to move on.
We've done that in our own country. People have done it in Europe. People have done it in Asia and I think... 
 


SCHIFF: Madam Secretary...

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: ... the best to have them move forward together.

LOWEY: Thank you, Mr. Schiff.

State Department Urging Congress to Reject Genocide Resolution

Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried
(Photo: Dept. of State)

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried is urging Congress to reject the proposed House resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide. According to Fried, Turkish officials have told the U.S. that Turkey would shut down the American air base at Incirlik or restrict U.S. overflights, should the resolution be approved. Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, made the remarks at a Thursday session of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe. The full transcript of his remarks is now up.

In bringing up these arguments, Fried is appealing frankly to American strategic interests. There is no doubt that the base has been vital to ongoing American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More dubious, however, is Fried's argument, which has been adopted by other anti-recognition activists, that

such a step would undercut voices in Turkey calling for a truthful exploration of these events in pursuit of Turkey's reconciliation with its own past and with Armenia.

Supposedly, there are now growing calls in Turkey for changes to the infamous Article 301. But if there is such a furor now about a House resolution, I don't see how this is strengthening the extremists. I think there is also some confusion of cause and effect. Haven't the Article 301 prosecutions actually emboldened the violent extremist groups in Turkey? Why is it that the onus of responsibility for fostering a more democratic climate in Turkey and for a real engagement with the past is placed on people in the U.S. who want recognition of the Armenian Genocide? It's pretty clear that this is a ploy, an affectation of concern for justice and reconciliation, which is being instrumentalized to prevent passage of the recognition resolution.

Fried reached another low when he claimed to speak on behalf of the "60,000-70,000 Turkish Armenians" who oppose the U.S. measure because it would "dramatically ... threaten their personal security." Sorry, but the Dink assassination demonstrated all too clearly that the Armenians in Turkey are living in a state of fear. The Turkish government bears responsibility for their security - it cannot blame America for supposedly "inciting" violence.

Thanks to Taline for bringing this report to my attention.

From the Jewish Grassroots

A lead editorial in the Wednesday, February 28 edition of The Jewish Press condemns the efforts by the Turkish government to enlist Jewish organizations in a bid to prevent the passage of House Resolution 106, which would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide:

We are certainly not insensitive to the significance of Turkey’s support of Israel. But the Turkish government’s attempt to capitalize on that support by pressing the American Jewish community to oppose a Congressional resolution that condemns as “genocide” Turkey’s murder of a million and a half Armenians during World War I strikes us as being the height of chutzpah.

The editorial refers specifically to the February 5 meeting of Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül with several American Jewish organizations, where Gül solicited their support in blocking passage fo the resolution (see my previous post).

The Jewish Press's implicit support for House Resolution 106 is very significant. The weekly has a circulation of at least 95,000. Its orientation is generally right-wing, and most of its readers identify as "Modern Orthodox." The paper's editorial line is unequivocal about its support for the State of Israel, and many of its readers identify with religious Zionism; in the past, one could be sure that they would support the Likud or parties to the right of it. It would certainly be hard to accuse them of not having the national security and strategic interests of Israel in mind. Having said all this, the paper's editorials frequently provoke controversy in the religious Jewish community in New York and elsewhere. Its columns are often widely discussed.

While the Jewish Press editorial argues that "opposition to House Resolution 106 does not necessarily signify lack of sympathy with the victims, or, indeed, sentiment against the concept itself," the board is unequivocal about its own position on the genocide:

Anyone who seriously and objectively considers those events cannot but conclude that there was a calculated and purposeful effort to exterminate the Armenians. After all, approximately 1.5 million perished.

The Jewish Press especially condemned Foreign Minister Gül for using the argument of the Shoah's uniqueness to make the case that Jews should quash an Armenian Genocide resolution:

The Turkish official reportedly appealed to the participants by noting – outrageously, we think – the uniqueness of the German genocide against the Jews.

It concludes that

acknowledging as genocide the systematic murder of a million and a half human beings of a particular ethnic heritage in no way detracts from recognition of the Holocaust as a uniquely monumental evil in the blood-soaked annals of human history.

Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Another Round

Much will depend on Congressman Tom Lantos,
Chair of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs

On January 30, 2007, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California, 29th District) submitted House Resolution 106 to the 110th U.S. Congress. The bill

Call[s] upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide (...).

It was co-sponsored by Congressmen George Radanovich (R-California, 109th District), Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey, 6th District), Joe Knollenberg (R-Michigan, 9th District), Brad Sherman (D-California, 27th District; member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), and Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan, 11th District). The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is chaired by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California, 12th District), a veteran legislator and the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve as a House representative. The Committee will decide whether the resolution should be considered for a vote on the floor of the House. The sponsors of the bill are upbeat that the 110th Congress might finally pass this resolution, assuming that it passes the Committee. But House Resolution 106, which would call for American official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, faces formidable obstacles.

After Turkish diplomacy's recent defeat in France, where a bill outlawing denial of the Armenian Genocide was passed in in October (see my post on Kishkushim - it also includes coverage to the resolution's pre-history), and in the wake of the Hrant Dink assassination, Turkey is doing all it can to thwart the passage of the House resolution. As in previous years, it is attempting to enlist Jewish organizations in its fight. I do not have space here to get into the complex history of the relationships between Turkey, the U.S., Israel, and American Jews. I leave this for a future post. Suffice to say, that some Jewish organizations have in the past supported Turkey's efforts, with an eye to geopolitics - specifically, Turkey's relations with the U.S. and Israel. It is possible that we are witnessing the beginning of a shift in the positions of these Jewish organizations (groups concerned primarily with foreign policy), but it is still too early to tell.

On February 6, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Turkish Foreign Minister

Abdullah Gül met for 90 minutes Monday night [February 5] with representatives of the United Jewish Communities federation umbrella group, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, American Jewish Congress, Chabad-Lubavitch, B’nai B’rith International and the Orthodox Union. He asked for assistance in facing down legislation sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is Jewish and who has a substantial Armenian-American constituency.

The article also mentioned that the bill had picked up 169 co-sponsors (JTA).

In fact, the meeting was held after a direct appeal by the Turkish government to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which explains the presence of such communal and religious groups as Chabad-Lubavitch, B'nai B'rith, and the Orthodox Union. It is probable that Gül appealed directly to the foreign policy groups to urge House representatives not to pass the bill. Significantly enough, no Jewish organization has come out with a statement on the matter yet, which suggests that most of the Jewish groups are lukewarm about engaging in this dirty work.

But Turkish diplomacy has certain carrots and sticks that it brings to the table. Disregarding the Jewish angle for a moment, Turco-American relations matter a great deal to most members of the current U.S. administration as well as to many Democrats from the Clinton years. Most of the State Department, Pentagon, and other foreign policy types are deeply invested in America's special ties to Turkey. They frequently cite the importance of Incirlik Air Force Base, and the symbolic value of having a Muslim ally such as Turkey more or less (indeed, these days it is less and less) behind America. American Jewish organizations dedicated to foreign policy are also concerned about the prospects of the U.S. losing a strategic ally such as Turkey. They carry two additional concerns - the state of Turkish-Israeli relations and the position of the Jewish community in Turkey. The Turks know this and they will most likely do what they can to use these pressure points.

As was to be expected, the Turkish moves have received a fair amount of coverage, certainly among Armenians in the diaspora and in Armenia. Collectifvan posted a French translation of the JTA article, and PanArmenian.Net cited the Armenian Assembly of America's Regional Director for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Arpi Vartanian, who at a Yerevan press conference remarked that

the Turkish delegation uses the large influence of Jewish Lobby, which strongly supports Turkey. “Almost there are no relations between Armenian and Jewish lobbies, they meet rarely for the sake of certain common issues. But recently here too we notice some changes. Some influential Jewish lobbyists started to speak about the Armenian Genocide, they bring as evidences the words of U.S. Ambassador to Ottoman Turkey Henry Morgenthau during World War 1, archival documents. Moreover, Turkey has already approximately calculated that the 106th resolution can be adopted and has doubled its efforts in this direction,” Vartanian stressed.

Talk about the "large influence of [the] Jewish Lobby," especially with the latter term capitalized in this manner, is unlikely to endear the AAA to ordinary American Jews. It would have been wiser to speak with more nuance. There are different Jewish organizations who lobby Congress; they have distinct interests and do not really act cohesively. How large their influence is continues to attract significant debate. Armenians probably realize better than anyone that Jews are sensitive about accusations that "the Jewish Lobby" exercises disproportionate influence on American policy. But Vartanian is right about the state of Armenian-Jewish relations (at the level of organizations) in America. I do not expect much progress on this front over the next year.

However, as I do not tire of repeating, the Jewish grassroots will support this resolution if they are engaged and mobilized. Jews at the grassroots and at the organizational levels are at the forefront of the Darfur struggle. Some Jews, as individuals, have long supported the Armenian struggle for genocide recognition. Given the compelling moral arguments in favor of recognition, there is no reason why an equally large number of Jews might not be enlisted in the recognition cause as well. All it takes is a little more effort.

The Jewish organizations dedicated to foreign policy know that their grassroots membership largely supports recognition. The geopolitical concerns, which require a great deal of explanation, are simply not that compelling when stacked up against the moral arguments. But so far the foreign policy types have counted on the relative lack of awareness among the American Jewish public (though the awareness is probably higher than among Americans as a whole). Given access to the right information, many ordinary Americans would no doubt support the efforts for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Among American Jews, the connection is even more intuitive. Jews cannot help but sympathize with the efforts of Armenians to achieve recognition of the tragedy that befell the Armenian people. They know how painful it is to have the historical reality of genocide denied to spite the victims and their descendants. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that most American Jews would agree with me that we have a moral responsibility to support the passage of House resolution 106 to achieve the long overdue official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

I hope that we can reach out to each other and ask American Congressmen to vote for the bill - together and in one voice.

On ne plaisante pas avec les mots…

Sanction diplomatique pour abus de… vérité : c’est bien ce à quoi ressemble le rappel de l’ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en Arménie, John Evans, qui a quitté Erevan samedi dernier, un an avant la fin de sa mission. En avril dernier, peu avant la commémoration du 90ème anniversaire du génocide des Arméniens, le représentant de l’administration Bush avait dérogé à la loi de l’omission qui caractérise le discours politique américain sur cette question depuis des années.

Le funambulisme rhétorique de tous les Présidents américains au moment du 24 avril peut faire figure de certificat es acrobatie au cirque politique ; pour mémoire, rappelons simplement les contorsions du 24 avril dernier : « a terrible chapter of history" that "remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance and the dignity and value of every human life." En utilisant le terme de génocide pour qualifier les massacres de 1915-1917, Evans a encouru les foudres de ses chefs, et en a payé les conséquences par l’abréviation de son mandat en Arménie. Il a eu beau, par la suite, tenter de minimiser le fait en expliquant qu’il donnait là son point de vue de particulier, forgé depuis deux ans par une connaissance plus approfondie de l’histoire du peuple arménien, rien n’y a fait. Justification maladroite peut-être, puisqu’elle mettait l’administration Bush devant une alternative soit peu flatteuse, si on choisit de lui accorder l’ignorance, soit franchement accusatrice, si on opte pour la mauvaise foi la plus totale face à des intérêts de puissance plutôt que d’humanité. Certes, dans l’un comme dans l’autre cas, l’administration Bush n’en serait pas à son coup d’essai…

Dernier rebondissement de l’affaire : la semaine dernière, le Sénat n’a pas pu faire approuver la nomination du bien-pensant Richard Hoagland en remplacement de John Evans, le sénateur Menendez ayant publiquement désavoué le refus des Etats-Unis de reconnaître le génocide arménien. Coup d’épée dans l’eau bien entendu puisque l’administration Bush a déjà tiré les conséquences de ce malheureux écart : maintenir la position américaine sur cette question gênante en prenant soin d’éliminer tout facteur de déviance dans le jugement …