Which one of these is not like the other? We’ve condemned Burma, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, and even powerful Russia for each country’s mistreatment of ethnic minorities. Yet Turkey continues to play the victim, campaigning for EU membership even as it eschews European values, not the least of which is recognition of human rights for ethnic and religious minorities. In the post-WWII era, this commitment is one of the most central unifying features of Europe.
During WWI, Turkey massacred its Christian Armenian population, whom the Turks characterized as fifth columnists. One million or more were murdered. Turkey, unlike Germany, has not come to terms with its past. It routinely dismisses any characterization of the forced marches, concentration camps, and outright massacres of Armenians as genocide. Yet Hitler himself used these acts as a model, noting “Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
Now George Bush, champion of all things liberal and democratic in the Middle East, is leading the charge to prevent a Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide for what it was. Bush’s “idealism,” it should be clear by now, is a slippery thing. It takes absolutely no courage for him and others to condemn a poor and insignificant country’s misdeeds, such as those of Burma or Sudan. And it is also no great shakes to employ moralistic rhetoric when one’s perceived strategic interests are aligned, as in our ritual condemnations of atrocities in Iraq, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. But Turkey is different; it is a nominal ally that is also seeking to forge closer ties with the West. While it speaks our language on the whole–secular state, freedom of religion, separation of powers, elections etc.–its tone and grammar betray its alien roots. It is still a fiercely nationalist place peppered with radical Islam, and neither tradition has much use for dissent and criticism . . . or Armenians, for that matter. To condemn Turkey over its mistreatment of the Armenians might actually cost us something, and it might cost Turkey something too.
Turkey needs to grow up, recognize its awful and bloody past, and behave like a normal country if it wants to be treated like one. From its election of Islamic fundamentalists to its threatening moves on Iraq’s border, it shows more and more that it is not ready for prime time. On reflection, it would not be such a bad thing if the whole world saw its leaders denying the undeniable: that the Ottoman regime massacred an enormous number of innocent Armenians; this was an official policy; and the Turkish nation has never lifted a finger to recognize this wrong-doing, let alone to rectify it.
I would be sympathetic with complaints against this Congressional Resolution if they were lodged by consistent realists, who adopt an across-the-board policy rejecting interference with other nations’ internal affairs. But the defenders of Turkey’s right to live in a world without criticism are normal, run-of-the-mill western politicians–these, the same people that piously utter “never again” at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. In Turkey’s defense, the Madeline Albrights and Cyrus Vances of the world are standing shoulder to shoulder. I’d like to see where Bronco Bomber is on this, considering his punctilious concern for human rights in Pakistan and at Gitmo. This could be a great show.
Or is the real reason that so many big wigs are skittish about condemning Turkey’s record not an arcane matter of foreign policy, but rather seemingly unrelated matters of domestic policy? After all, if we call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, then surely we must recognize the same about events in Cambodia. And if Cambodia, then why not the Soviet Union, Ukraine, China, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia? But of course, such recognition would ultimately contextualize the Nazi genocide, depriving it of its unique role in our moral imagination. This development would call into question the dominant “exceptionalist” account of western history that classifies Europe’s sins to be worst among equals because of the Holocaust. The Armenian Genocide suggests a gruesome precedent for the Holocaust may indeed exist, and, disturbingly for the anti-Western Left, this precedent comes from a non-Christian nation outside of Europe.
Subscribe To This Feed
“I’d like to see where Bronco Bomber is on this…”
Annika is gonna be so proud of you when she sees that!
I wonder whether there is any wisdom in national parliaments passing historical judgments about other countries other than provoking resentment and tensions between people. What will they do next, pass judgment on modern art or big bang? Can’t they just stick to their main responsibility of enacting legislation to deal with the concrete problems of *today* and *tomorrow*? The question before us is whether the world public is doing anything useful to stop the bloodshed in Iraq, Darfur, Myanmar, or other places of the world *now*. Are they doing anything useful *now* to stop the environmental destruction of the globe that will have serious consequences for tomorrow’s generations?
Another question: Does the US legislature have the moral standing to judge others in matters of history if it hasn’t done so regarding its own past and even present? Iraq anyone? How about the not only one but two A-bombs dropped not on the same day but days apart and not by accident or by air force pilots gone crazy but on the orders of the US president on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with the explicity intent to destroy them (and not as unintended ‘casualties’)?? Have you ever looked up the definition of genocide as given by the UN Convention? Here it is for your reference:
“genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Wouldn’t US action in WWII against Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki fulfill four out of five of the criteria described therein? Has the US ever come to terms with its own actions? Not having done that, what kind of moral authority does the US legislature have in passing judgment on events that happened almost a century ago??
Given the definition of genocide as established by the UN Convention, it would seem difficult to imagine an act of war that didn’t qualify.
Sadly, wars are invariably fought “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” particularly by:
“(a) Killing members of the group.”
Can anyone think of how you fight a war, even on the noblest terms, without intending to, at least in part, destroy the enemy, and isn’t the enemy bound to fall into at least one of the above categories?
It seems to me that for a legal finding of genocide to have any meaning, the term needs to be more narrowly defined.
I would guess that, in common understanding, genocide suggests a coordinated, systematic attempt to ENTIRELY eliminate a national, ethnical (is this really a word?), racial, or religious group, particularly if that group has surrendered to or is not at that time engaging in armed conflict with the more powerful force.
I’m not claiming that this is perfect definition (I’ve cooked it up off the top of my head), but I think we do need to distinguish between genocide, and massacre, and ethnic cleansing, and killing in armed combat, for the same reasons that we distinguish between first degree murder, and second degree murder, and manslaughter, and justifiable homicide.
I don’t actually like the term genocide, other than in this colloquial sense: the deliberate mass killing of a group because of its race, ethnicity, language, religion, class status, wealth, lack of wealth, political party, and the like. That’s what happened to the Jews in Germany, the Kulaks in Russia, massive numbers of “bourgeoisie” in Cambodia, etc. It’s also what happened to the Armenians.
I think atrocity is a better term because it embraces all of these different types of crimes: murder of civilians, killing of POWs, ethnic cleansing, forced labor to point of death, etc.
I also agree perhaps we should not be passing judgment on everyone everywhere. I certainly don’t think we should be going to war for it. But if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be saving Kosovar Albanians from the Serbs in a contested territory just because it’s the right thing to do according to CNN and the mainstream media.
I am more interested in the US government passing a resolution condemning the US genocide against the indigenous peoples, against the CSA, against Germans and Japanese, against Viet Namese and Laotians. And, of course, against the Israeli “atrocities” against Palestinians.
Only then will the US government deserve something other than contempt.
Duane, I’d say your ability to distinguish cases needs some work. We did not kill other than in the course of battle against the Germans and Japanese, which is quite a bit different than deliberate murder when no battle is underway. Likewise with the Vietnamese and Laotians, who suffered far more mightily under their own people after we departed. I can’t deny many shameful crimes were committed against the Indians, but not every battle or killing of the Indians fits under that label, nor were all Indians equally innocent. The Commanche, for example, are far different than the Witchita. As for Israel, both sides have done a lot of wrong, and one side seems far more addicted to deliberate killing of civilians as of late, and it’s not the Israelis.
I guess your last post does reveal one problem with this “moral sense of the Congress” kind of resolution. We could spend all day having these dunces talk about things they know little about.
PS Would you care to tell me who bombed Pearl Harbor and how we should have responded if you were king of America in ’41?
What genocide were you talking about in Czechoslovakia? The Sudeten Germans?
The morality of their expulsion is debatable, but it is not comparable to the Turks treatment of the Armenians.
The mass killing in ’68 by the Soviets, though, while we’re on the subject the 1-2 million Germans killed in forcible relocation from East Prussia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe was pretty shabby.
I actually prefer the term atrocity to genocide because debating about whether this or that mass killing meets the genocide definition always seemed a bad way to rank evils.
I think Rod Dreher said it best:
“Not everything that’s true needs to be said, or said by Congress. I think we’ve learned a lot this decade about what can happen when the US acts on moral idealism without fully thinking through the real-world consequences.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, particularly as we are so dependent upon Turkey for supply lines into Iraq. I do think it’s funny how Bush’s on again/off again idealism asserts itself. Better to always be a realist in my opinion, at least then you have more credibility.
[…] Roach makes an excellent point here: I would be sympathetic with complaints against this Congressional Resolution if they were lodged […]