The Assyrian Democratic Organization
By Tracy Dove
US – uspolitics.einnews — A sensitive bill is about to go before the US Congress, and it won’t be the first time that this initiative has been struck down by careful congressmen- only this time for the wrong reasons.
The word “genocide” is not taken lightly in international arenas, and this means that governments have to be especially careful of which atrocities they recognize as genocide and which they give credence to as horrible human tragedies- but no more. If the United States recognizes the deaths of between 300,000 (Turkish estimates) and 1.5 million (Armenian estimates) Armenians as genocide, it may cause new lines to be drawn in the sands of the Middle East, but it would also be a courageous gesture in an era when moral certitude is lacking in foreign policy. Here are some considerations to think about in recognizing this event as genocide.
The main agitator against the bill’s passage is of course the modern state of Turkey which- if it tried- could better disassociate itself from the triumvirate of bad Pashas during World War I who ordered the systematic annihilation of Armenians in Turkey. The initial waves of Armenian slaughter must be understood as the attempts of the Young Turks in the weak Ottoman government to establish a modern, though powerful state that would be exclusively Turkish and Muslim. They were assisted by the Ottoman Pasha’s ill-conceived decision to side with the Germans and Austrians, which pre-destined the country to partition along ethnic and religious lines if the Axis should ever lose the war.
With that concern foremost in his mind, the Pasha allowed for the legal expulsion of Christians from the territory of Turkey. Because of its geographic dispersion throughout Turkey, it was the Armenian community which would suffer the brunt of this measure, since the Turkish forces who were fighting against the Russians in 1915 were severely defeated by an army that was comprised of- understandably- Armenians. Sensing a Christian conspiracy, the Turkish government in Istanbul began conducting a purge of those territories where Armenians resided and allowed for revenge to be taken out against them. Interestingly enough, the conceptual genocide may have been ordered by angry Young Turks, but it was physically carried out by another ethnic minority within Turkey- the Kurds.
This presents an interesting paradigm in current Turkish-Kurdish relations which can be relegated to “very bad” when one considers Iraqi Kurdistan today. The Turks of 1915 were not powerful enough to secure their eastern frontier and relied on the Kurds for the nefarious job of driving the Armenians out. To be specific, there were two large groups of Sunni Kurds in the region, and the Ottoman government was successful in turning them against each other while giving the Ascheti Kurds a dominant position in return for carrying out the atrocities. As a result, Kurdish tribes at that time became estranged from one another because of their poisoned relations with the Turks, and this animosity continues in Kurdish politics to this day. The irony here is that if the Kurds can be blamed for the Armenian executions, then the present Turkish government has a useful propaganda tool at its service.
Turkish tradition dictates that any tarnishing of family honor be punished severely, and for this reason it is illegal to speak “against Turkishness” in public forums. The dishonor enters when one considers that the country’s beloved founder- Mustafa Kemal Attaturk- was one of the army officers who carried out the genocide in both 1915 and 1920. To criticize Attaturk is paramount to disrespecting one’s father, and for this reason Turkey will not accept the label of genocide for what happened in the eastern regions of the country. The Turkish-Armenian War was fought in 1920 and won thanks to Attaturk’s leadership, which further exonerates the Turks from guilt, since the Armenians were the ones who had declared war. As the Turks advanced on one side into Armenia in 1920, the Bolsheviks advanced on Armenia from the other, and by the end of the war the tiny republic had been reduced in size by one-half.
The implications for today’s Turkey are considerable, since many in the international community have already recognized the event as genocide. Firstly, the United States stands to lose two allies- the Turks in Ankara and the Kurds in upstart Iraqi Kurdistan. There will be social backlash against America in Turkey, and it will benefit the Islamists and their cause for returning to religious traditions if the US admonishes them for this historic crime. The Kurds, however, will feel a national victory in that their nation will be able to claim a moral distance from the Turks, despite their participation in the crime, and further their efforts for statehood.
Last to consider is Israel; relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara in the post 9/11 Middle East have been exceptionally good, but there is the historic equivalent in the Armenian holocaust which many in the International community are pushing Israel to recognize. Turkish-Israeli cooperation will suffer if the Americans recognize Genocide in the Armenian massacre, since Israel is known for standing behind US policy as long as it doesn’t outwardly jeopardize Israeli security. In the end, no one will benefit from a strong American stand on this issue.
The irony lies in the fact that while the Congress of the United States may well pass the bill- as it has done more than once in the past- the Senate will have a hard time mustering up the votes necessary. In the end, short-term political gains will be sacrificed for the moral courage to stand with the international community and call a spade a spade. In this way, the foreign policy maxim of the Bush administration will be upheld- “you are either with us, or against us”- and in this case Turkey and Israel will rest easy with America’s moral vacillation where national security is concerned.
