Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ans/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301221,00.html

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey ordered its ambassador in Washington to return to Turkey for consultations over a U.S. House panel's approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

So, is it worth risking US relations with Turkey which are crucial to the progress of the Iraq War to make sure the Armenian Genocide isn't lost in history?

[FactionHeir]

I'd say so, yes.

Relations may be more or less useful for the 'war', but there are other nations in the region too which are US vassals.

Besides, wouldn't it be ... hypocritical to not denounce a genocide just because you want to be in someone's good will? Denounce terror and genocide and those who do not support you, but your friends can do all that and get away with it?

Of course that would be nothing new.
So what's next? Darfur is not a genocide?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

[PanzerJaeger]

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

[FactionHeir]

Its not like the current German government is responsible for the holocaust either though.

Either way, this is not about which government is responsible, but to highlight the plight of those affected and their extended families and survivors. If Turkey feels not directly responsible, then they shouldn't make a fuss about it.

[The Wizard]

That's the weird part. Neither the Turkish Republic nor its founders had anything to do with the genocide (unlike the German state which is the legal successor to the German Reich; mind you we're talking legalities here, if we're talking practical matters it's something different), but it's the Turkish Republic that is so virulently denying it was a genocide in the first place, allowing the Armenian state (rightfully so after that) to demand an apology.

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

[AntiochusIII]

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

Probably they thought some illusory "national pride" is at stake.

Bah, nationalists.

[Samurai Waki]

I think the Turk's refuse it on a matter of pride (not that this is necessarily a bad thing) as it can be argued the the Armenians weren't exactly peaches to begin with either. I don't condone mass killings of any kind, (der) but I'm of the belief that this was an armed uprising handled very very incorrectly, not a genocide.

[Proletariat]

As much as I love a smack in the chops to the freakishly nationalistic state Turkey, this was just stupid pandering to Armenian constituents by US Senators like Pelosi (I'm sure there were Republicans doing the same). Every living Secretary of State signed a letter to the House saying this was stupid.

[The Wizard]

Hey, this was a predetermined mass murder perpetrated by the Ottoman military, commanded by Enver Pasha, as the main act in the Ottoman part in a period of major and incredibly bloody violence between Muslims (Turks, Kurds, Laz) and Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Russians) in the Eastern part of what remained of the Ottoman empire, bordering Russia. The Armenians and their Russian buddies did plenty of killing too (this is where the official Turkish view on things is correct), just that they didn't resort to forcing thousands upon thousands of people to walk halfway across the Middle East without food or water.

Besides that, Congress has adapted resolutions like this before. The only consideration that can (and should) play is: is it worth doing the right thing (recognizing the existence of a genocide on Armenians, with the anecdote that the Armenians weren't exactly lambs for the slaughter either) if that can lead to your men and women trying to do their life-threatening job somewhere getting in big, big trouble? Considering it's unlikely the Turks can stare Washington down, I'd say yes.

[IrishArmenian]

I have to post but I don't really want to say too much, I'm far too biased.

We're all brothers: Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Azeris, and we should act brotherly. I don't blame Turks for the Genocide. I don't blame the Turkish government for the Genocide. All the people who are responsible are dead. However, the denial of it is incredibly insulting and it feels like a kick while one is down.

Now, I am not going to play the innocent card, many of us were rather angry with the government at the time, especially after the Hamidian massacres. I don't endorse the retalitory acts by Armenians, but I could see why the relationship quickly took a turn for the worse.

The use of the word 'deportation' is just plain wrong for a few reasons, but chiefly, why are people burnt, shot, and stabbed for a deportation? The burning is what really gets me, that is too obvious.
I doubt the U.S. will approve of this bill because the higher ups prove time and time again that they care about one thing: power. If they do this, they sour a relationship with a powerful friend.
I don't buy this "set-back for Turkish-Armenian relations" rot. This is a step forward!
Why does the Turkish government deny the Genocide anyway? They didn't do it, the Turkish people didn't do it. It was put into action by a few crazy nationalists-- who, tragically were in extreme positions of power-- and carried out by large amounts of convicts and like minded nationalists.
I seriously do not understand the nationalism behind this. Why could someone be so naive as to think their country has done no wrong? Hell, my country has, even recently in the Azerbaijan conflict.
I am puzzled, truly confused as to why the Turkish government cannot admit it. Are they afraid the Grey Wolves will attack? Why do they continue?

Again, I'm really biased, but I would like to read potential answers to the questions posed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You too, eh? Quite a déjà vu.

[Tribesman]

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

[IrishArmenian]

Yes, really. And they think we work with the PKK! I support the idea of a Kurdish nation in Northern Iraq, but I will not tolerate terrorism or the killing of innocents. I really hope that with this we can join Georgia in being supported by the US rather than Russia. Georgia really came out of the USSR firing on all cylinders, which I truly do admire-- although they didn't have to deal with a devastating earthquake and some stupid conflict caused by nationalism and a lack of truly caring leaders.
Why the cynicism? We're human but we're not evil.

I apologize, I seem to display the Armenian stereotype of being a political one-trick horse. We're not actually like that, but I don't really think that the crowd here at the .Org is the closeminded generalisation favoring group.

[KukriKhan]

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

Yes, indeed. If Turkey, further emboldened by anger at the US resolution, launches anti-PKK attacks into northern Iraq, what leg has the US to stand on if Iran does the same, to respond to their PKK cross-border attacks? Repel Iran, but not Turkey? Or repel both Iran and a NATO ally? Or stand there crying "stop"?

And, as a side note, if we're gonna offocially deplore genocides (a term not coined until 1943), how soon will we see the resolution deploring the genocide of native americans?

[Husar]

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding.

That said, I don't know what's so bad about acknowledging the bad things someone else has done, is it just because he happened to be born inside the same national borders?

I don't know why the US even thinks about how to look upon this but then big organizations always want to say something about events that hardly have anything to do with them.
Guess it's to show support for the armenian community as some said.

[Tribesman]

Now heres a thought that perhaps one of the Turkish members could ponder .
If people in Turkey campaigned against 301 which is used to cover prosecution for calling the events genocide , would they be breaching that law by their actions?

[Samurai Waki]

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

[HoreTore]

I don't support the idea that governments are to decide history.

That should be left to the historians. And laws constricting their research(both ways, of course) are idiotic and pointless, and serves only to poke at each other. The turks pokes at armenians by jailing people calling it a genocide, now other countries wants to poke the turks for not calling it genocide. A pointless role for a state to play.

[PanzerJaeger]

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

[Komutan]

Now heres a thought that perhaps one of the Turkish members could ponder .
If people in Turkey campaigned against 301 which is used to cover prosecution for calling the events genocide , would they be breaching that law by their actions?

It depends on the judge. 301 has such a broad range, that in theory even saying something like "Turkish soccer team sucks" may get you in trouble But of course they don't exaggerate it that much. There are many people protesting 301.

I don't think the real question here is whether there was a genocide or not. The question is whether a political body has the right to make a judgement for something that has happened in history. Of course a genocide that happened 5 years ago should be discussed as you can do something about it, like bringing the ones that committed the crime to trial etc. But this has happened almost 100 years ago. None of the people responsible for it are alive. What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)? They only result in fueling the hatred between Turks and Armenians. Every time such a vote is discussed, the voice of Turkish extreme nationalists gets stronger. If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.

Actually I hope the bill will be passed this time, so we will not hear anymore about it. But I doubt it will pass. Until now USA played both to Armenians and Turks; discussing it for Armenians sake, and then not passing it for Turks sake. It will probably continue that way.

[Stig]

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... or don't deny it the way they do ... sure this has nothing to do with America, but most Europeans aren't as stupid as they look, they also hear with Turkey says about this now. And they might not like it.

[Komutan]

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... .

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.

[AntiochusIII]

What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)?

Apart from propaganda value, not really.

I agree that a place like Congress is the most appropriate to discuss historical issues, unless there's a diplomatic agenda at work.

If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.

Oh, but that is a problem, you see, because meanwhile the Turkish government and whatever extreme nationalist scumbags within it will proceed to brainwash your nation from the roots: by whitewashing the history textbooks. The consequence of that, if successful, would be for the genocide to be forgotten forever, unacknowledged.

The activists and I suppose some historians cannot accept that, so they continue to raise the issue, even if the calm from controversy might just as well be the thing the Turkish people needs from another perspective. As long as the controversy continues no one will forget.

[Samurai Waki]

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

[Lemur]

Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can.

Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

I think we're talking on two different levels.

Like Lemur said, I certainly am not arguing that the Native Americans are treated well or that the US has or is repairing the damage. Im just saying that the US government does not deny what was done to them and in fact it has become an increasingly large part of American History classes. I remember in school there was a whole chapter devoted to the treatment of the slaves, the Native Americans and the immigrant Asian workers, along with descriptions of the treatment of the Indians in other chapters.

[Samurai Waki]

Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

Well... this is kind of tricky actually, because while as Americans we do not deny the genocide of Natives it doesn't actually read the same on paper; its sort of the exact opposite situation that the Turks face. Americans don't deny it, and our government doesn't either, but it's not willing to "Officially" Recognize it as a Genocide because the Federal Government feels it compensated the Natives by giving them Federal Aid and their own respective Sovereign Nations (albeit fully in control by the Federal Government). But the Reservation System while a good idea in theory, was seriously taken out of context in the 1880s-1890s, because the Government really didn't want to pay for it, nor do anything to solve the situation. after most of the population had already been massacred they just corralled them into their own neighborhoods and threw money at them, even if they never had any use for it to begin with.

And being a Montanan and living around some of these Neo Nazi...*bleh* Hill Folk, I can certainly tell you that to some people living around here, have to some extent a bias (though never spoken of publicly) they don't believe the Genocide ever took place, or wish they would have fully finished the job. Its really disgusting, considering some of the best friends I've ever had in my life were Natives (mostly Blackfoot and some Sioux). And these people STILL believe that the Federal Government are just trying to throw money at the problem instead of attempting to build up commerce, or put some kick in their economy so that they can live a higher standard of life (and this doesn't include Indian Casinos as most Natives believe these aren't the positive kinds of change they want).

We don't deny our own genocide. But we're unwilling to do anything in earnest to solve it 110 years later. I don't know which ones worse.

[Stig]

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

[HoreTore]

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

Not really, just have them stop prosecuting people for talking about it should be enough.

Although I do suppose the french could behave like idiots and demand idiotic things...