HyeOctane

What do Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey (perpetrator of the first genocide of the 20th century), and Omar Al-Bashir, the President of Sudan (perpetrator of the first genocide of the 21st century), have in common? Well, it should be obvious, but we’ll let the transcripts do the talking:Deportation and War, not Genocide

Erdogan (Remarks at the National Press Club, Nov 5, 2007):

“I’ll tell you something now. There is no [Armenian] genocide here. What took place was called deportation. Because that was a very difficult time. It was the time of war, in 1915.”

Al-Bashir (MSNBC Interview with Ann Curry, March 19, 2007):

“The geographic displacement of people that took place in Darfur is due to the fight in Darfur. The citizen has to move out of the fighting areas to a place of security, seeking peace and security. . . yes, people were killed but not as much [as you say]- it’s a war! There is a tribal conflict inside that war.”

Our Culture Does Not Allow It

Erdogan (National Press Club, Nov. 5):

“In fact, our values do not allow our people to commit genocide. It does not allow it and there is no such thing as a genocide.”

Al-Bashir (MSNBC Interview, March 19):“Villages were burned, and people were killed, but it is not in the Sudanese culture or people of Darfur to rape. It doesn’t exist. We don’t have it.”

The Victims Rebelled

Erdogan (National Press Club, Nov. 5):

“This was about the time when there was rebellion in different parts of the empire. But given the context of the time and the events that took place at that time, there was provocation by some other countries and the Armenians became part of the rebellion in those years.”

Al-Bashir (Asharq Alawsat Interview, February 17, 2007):“There is a rebellion problem in Darfur, and it is the duty of a government in any state to fight the rebellion. When war takes place, civilian victims fall, and this has been exaggerated.”

On Tuesday, November 13, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen held a news conference for their newly established Genocide Prevention Task Force. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) issued a press release and transcript of the conference and AP was one of several outlets that covered the story.

Off the bat, it seems quite puzzling how two officials who failed to respond to the genocide in Rwanda and who continue to lend their name to the denial of the Armenian Genocide can claim any credibility in stopping future atrocities. Maybe the press conference would help allay such concerns? Unfortunately, no, it only reinforced them.

For example, in response to a question asking whether “for political expediency purposes” we should or should not “be taking action on future genocides because of what it could mean to U.S. interest,” Cohen confirmed, “there are no absolutes in this.” So, in the face of the destruction of an entire ethnic group, we may have to let human extermination slide. There are other factors to consider, after all. Perhaps we can even revise the vow “never again” to “not always” or “maybe sometimes”?

Cohen later went on to state, “I don’t know that the UN has declared that genocide occurred in the Armenian situation,” as if the fact that they haven’t declared what’s going on in Darfur genocide prevents anyone from realizing the veracity of the crimes taking place there. Besides, it is well known that the term genocide itself was coined by Raphael Lemkin precisely with the Armenian Genocide in mind. Perhaps the head of a new task force commissioned to prevent genocide should brush up on his history.

Albright got in the act too, stating that the new group will focus its efforts on what is “practical” (e.g. politically expedient) and that it is her hope they will not get themselves “into emotional appeals because that does not work.” I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise from a woman who famously responded to a 60 Minutes question regarding the death of half a million Iraqi children under US-sponsored sanctions by saying, “We think the price is worth it.” One wonders whether someone who can so coldly make such a statement (and act on it through her policies) has any emotion at all.

Last Thursday, November 8, David L. Phillips—the architect behind the State Department’s discredited Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)—gave a talk on Turkey and the PKK at American University in Washington, DC. The title of his presentation was “Turkey in Crisis: Strategies for Disarming, Demobilizing, and Reintegrating the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK)” and was based on a recent report he prepared for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy.

Although his presentation failed to highlight the heart of the problem between the Kurds and Turkey—namely the latter’s repression and refusal to recognize the rights of the former—it did urge Turkey to come to terms with (and embrace) the reality of an Iraqi Kurdistan being formed to its south. At the moment, such an outcome doesn’t seem so likely given the latest Turkish bombardments of Kurdish villages and the fact that Turkey has not only refused to recognize the Kurdish Region of Iraq, it has threatened to invade it if a referendum on the oil-rich city of Kirkuk takes place, as scheduled, later this year.

And all this time, the administration thought our “ally” Turkey would make trouble in Iraq over reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide. As usual, Ankara has its own plans.

The Turks say the Armenians died in a ‘civil war’, and Bush goes along with their lies

Robert Fisk, The Independent, November 13, 2007

“There was, briefly, a historic moment for Bush to walk tall after the US House Foreign Relations Committee voted last month to condemn the mass slaughter of Armenians as an act of genocide. Ancient Armenian-American survivors gathered at a House panel to listen to the debate. But as soon as Turkey’s fossilised generals started to threaten Bush, I knew he would give in.” [read more]

The United States Should Be Squeezing Turkey, Not the Other Way Around

Christopher Hitchens, Slate, October 29, 2007

“In the past century, the principal victims of genocide or attempted genocide have been, or at least have prominently included, the Armenians, the Jews, and the Kurds. During most of the month of October, events and politicians both conspired to set these three peoples at one another’s throats. What is there to be learned from this fiasco for humanity?” [Read More]

Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus, October 22, 2007

“Ironically, Congress earlier this year overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to acknowledge the German genocide of the Jews. That same Congress, however, appears quite willing to refuse to acknowledge the Turkish genocide of the Armenians.

While awareness of anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to dismiss those who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust to the political fringe, it appears that tolerance for anti-Armenian bigotry is strong enough that it is still apparently politically acceptable to refuse to acknowledge their genocide.” [Read More]

Samantha Power, TIME, October 18, 2007

“First, the House resolution tells the truth, and the U.S. would be the 24th country to officially acknowledge it. In arguing against the resolution, Bush hasn’t dared dispute the facts. An Administration that has shown little regard for the truth is openly urging Congress to join it in avoiding honesty. It is inconceivable that even back in the days when the U.S. prized West Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, Washington would have refrained from condemning the Holocaust at Germany’s behest.” [Read More]

Scott Jaschik, INSIDE HIGHER ED, Oct. 16, 2007

“Normally, you might expect historians to welcome the interest of governments in convening scholars to explore questions of scholarship. But in this case, scholars who study the period say that the leaders of Turkey and the United States — along with that handful of scholars — are engaged in a profoundly anti-historical mission: trying to pretend that the Armenian genocide remains a matter of debate instead of being a long settled question.” [Read More]