The
US Congress’s cynical manipulation of the Armenian genocide is hypocritical and
a slur on the memories of those who perished.
November 2007
Nearly a century after the event, the US
Congress is debating whether to label as “genocide” the
crimes committed against the Armenians during the World War I.
From a historical perspective, this is
unnecessary. There is a general consensus among non-Turkish historians that
there was an Armenian genocide and that it must count as one of
the worst crimes against humanity in modern times. In fact, the very term “genocide”
was coined by the Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin to describe the massacres of
Armenians and Assyrians.
Estimates vary as to exactly how many Armenians
were killed by the ultra-nationalist Young Turks regime, with the collaboration of the Kurds,
between 1914 and 1918. The final death toll was anywhere between 500,000 and
1.5 million out of two million Armenians in the Ottoman empire.
Unlike the Jewish Holocaust during World War II,
the outside world was well aware of the extent of the horror as it occurred. US
diplomats, for example, often risked their lives to document what was
happening. But the world did nothing.
Although many of the leaders who ordered the
slaughter were court-martialled by the Ottomans and the international community
in the immediate wake of the war, the issue slipped into collective
international amnesia.
The victorious powers were silenced by their
inaction to protect the Armenians and their efforts to carve up the defeated Ottoman empire and bring the
modern Turkish state into the western fold. For its part, Turkey,
motivated by shame and national pride, took the classic imperial line of
downplaying the nature of the crime and sweeping the question under the carpet.
Several historians believe that Hitler was
emboldened in his designs to exterminate the Jews by the international apathy
towards the plight of the Armenians. When discussing the situation of the Poles
with his generals in 1939, he is reported to have asked rhetorically: “Who,
after all, is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?”
So, given this tragic chapter in history,
should we applaud this belated attempt to recognise the Armenian genocide? It
will be interesting to read what others on this forum think.
“I am a bit conflicted [and] a bit ambivalent
about it,” confesses Jeff Sommers, an American historian. “On one
level, it would be heartening to have the world’s most powerful nation stand up
against genocide... [However], the US has a history of condemning such
crimes when they no longer impinge on its immediate interests.”
Personally, I find this belated bid to frame a
resolution an insult to the memories of those who perished. It strikes me as a
cynical attempt both to appeal to the Armenian-American vote and to undermine
the Bush administration by stirring up a crisis with a staunch American ally, Turkey.
“The resolution on Armenia
is interesting in that it has revealed the conflict between US realpolitik considerations and that of well-organised
nationalist communities using the US government to advance their
agendas,” Sommers observes.
I can understand why Congress, or any other
national parliament, may condemn an ongoing atrocity in order to pave the way
for international action to stem it. But what is the point of voting on a
historic injustice, especially since today's citizens cannot be held directly
accountable for the sins of their ancestors? And if Congress plans
retroactively to pass a resolution, should it then not, out of decency,
apologise for having not acted to arrest the killing at the time?
On a more fundamental level, millions of people
around the world will view this display of self-righteous indignation as
bitterly ironic and hypocritical. In fact, what has Congress's record been on homegrown atrocities? “The Congress really has not much
addressed these issues,” Sommers says, citing as an
example: “Little has been done with the issue of slavery.”
A native American
living on an “out of sight, out of mind” desert reservation may wonder when
Congress will turn its ire to the almost wholesale destruction of the
indigenous population – viewed by many historians as the most successful
genocide ever. Although today’s Americans are not directly accountable for
this, they are responsible for addressing the modern consequences of this
historic crime.
“Native Americans have been treated shamefully.
They exist on the margins of American life with the highest rates of drug
abuse/alcoholism, high mortality rates, and most social pathologies resulting
from being marginalised,” Sommers describes.
To address possible allegations of digging up ancient history, let’s
look at the 20th and 21st century. Many Americans I have
talked to about the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki,
causing the instantaneous slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, justify it as “unavoidable” and, employing some gory and
questionable arithmetic, actually have the boldness to claim that it saved
notional lives.
But with Japan
faltering on the verge of defeat after a major Soviet offensive, this seems
highly improbable and many senior US army officials at the time
condemned the planned atomic bombing as unnecessary and barbaric. “Soviet and US weaponry was
too advanced in 1945 and the Japanese too weak to present much formal military
resistance. Moreover, significant factions within the Japanese establishment
were seeking surrender before the bombs were dropped,” Sommers
notes.
He goes on to add that: “Foreign policy-makers,
especially secretary of state James Byrnes, wanted to teach the Soviets a
lesson ... about US
strength,” sparking the nuclear arms race in the process.
In 1995, then president
Bill Clinton refused, point blank, the notion of
apologising for the nuclear atrocity. He also refused to apologise for the Vietnam war, during which more than 1.5 million Vietnamese and 58,000
Americans combatants were killed, and between a million and 5 million civilians
died. One wonders whether Congress’s notion of morality will prompt it to
apologise for the hell it has unleashed in Iraq.
I must stress that I’m not singling out America as
unique in this regard. Many countries, particularly former imperial powers,
have ugly skeletons in their closets. For instance, I found France’s decision, in 2006, to outlaw denial of the Armenian genocide hypocritical
and against the spirit of free speech. What about the atrocities committed by France in Algeria
and Indochina, among others? Has France come to
terms with those?
Japan has also failed to recognise the
crimes against humanity it committed in the second world war,
while Britain downplays or
ignores its own colonial atrocities in Africa, the Middle
East and the Indian subcontinent.
Some may ask what’s the harm in a country
condemning the crimes against humanity committed by others, even if it fails to
come to terms with its own? Isn’t that, at least, a
start? In my view, the danger in this is that the dizzying heights of the moral
high ground tend to distort a country’s self-image, leading it to believe it is
more noble and the rest of the world less so. The
classic modern manifestation of this is America’s image of itself as a
benign power and a light unto the nations. If there were more honesty and
self-appraisal, then the deadly folly of Iraq may never have happened.
“I think Americans were more independent-minded
and less trusting of power.... Much effort, and most
of it successful, was put into creating consent after the second world war for
the new permanent military industrial complex and Cold War,” Sommers observes. On the upside: “Some 30 years of
neo-liberalism and increased insecurity, however, is undoing much of this
former consent for the exercise of US power.”
The same distorted self-image applies to a
lesser degree in Britain.
The British people, to their credit, seem to be more aware of their country's
less-than-honourable past than their leaders, and that would partly explain why
there was such overwhelming public opposition to war in Iraq.
Nevertheless, while the public has lost its
appetite for war, Blair and accomplices seemed eager to relive gory past glory.
Had they bothered to read the disastrous history of British involvement in Mesopotamia following the first world
war, perhaps they would have been less eager to hop on board the
American warship.
Turkey, too, needs to recognise the crimes
committed during the break-up of the Ottoman empire and the ugly form of Turkish
ultra-nationalism it spawned. This should be done through historical dialogue
and debate both within Turkey
and with the outside world. Brave voices, such as the Nobel laureate OrhanPamuk and several historians, are defying
the law prohibiting the description of what happened to the Armenians as
genocide. The next step is to push Turkey to scrap that law and begin
an honest process of national soul searching.
Germany is perhaps the only country that has
truly come to terms with its ugly past and that is why it is highly unlikely
that it will ever engage in such destructive folly again. Others could learn
from Germany’s
example.
July 2005 – Istanbul is one of those
cities where a sojourn of a few days is simply not enough. In fact, it is the
kind of place where one can imagine a couple of weeks expanding into several
years. Read on
Turkey and Europe must get
ready to go back to the future
April 2005 – Turkey’s
rich history is no bar to its EU membership bid, argue KatleenMaes and KhaledDiab. Read on
Uncovering
Anatolia’s delights
August 2003 – As an army of holidaymakers mount
their annual beachinvasion and
thousands – caught in the crossfire between sun, sand and sea – drop onto their
towels, we rush the other way to explore the charms of Antalya,
the capital of Turkey’s ‘Mediterranean Riviera’. Read on
ã2007 K. Diab. Unless otherwise stated, all the content on this website
is the copyright of Khaled Diab.
