Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives decided to delay the vote on the Armenian genocide resolution which we discussed in class last week. The main reason given as a justification for putting off the vote until a later date was due to the fear of crippling U.S.-Turkey relations. An article in the S.F. Chronicle noted that lawmakers believe the resolution will be supported by the majority of House at a more favorable time (when it will not affect important U.S.-Turkey relations). Condoleezza Rice told House panelists that passing the resolution now "would really damage our relations with a Democratic ally who is playing an extremely important strategic role in supporting our troops." California Democrat Adam Schiff, one of the primary sponsors of the resolution said that "we [the primary sponsors] want to make sure that when the measure is brought to the floor, we're confident the votes are there. I think the worse thing would be that you take it up and you're not successful, and Turkey argues that it's a denial of the genocide."
To see the full article from which this information was taken, visit:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/25/national/w135735D42.DTL&hw=genocide&sn=008&sc=576
What do you think the benefits and down-sides are to delaying the vote?
Do you agree or disagree with Schiff's worry that by delaying the vote or re-trying the vote at a bad time, there is a possibility of Turkey using the failure as a means of furthering denial of the genocide? Why or why not?
Is there a more appropriate time to continue the fight to pass the resolution? If so, when?
7 comments:
I thik that delaying the vote after so much coverage of the resoliton damages the sincerity of the whole thing. I understand why they delayed it, because although the troops shouldn't even be there in the first place, while they are there they need supplies. If the bases in Turkey are that integral to the survival of the troops, recognizing what happened to the Armenians is not worth the cost. But because so much has been made of the ordeal, and I'm sure many supporters of the resolution have gotten their hopes up, the delay has unfairly caused pain. It might have been better if it never got this far in the first place.
I agree with Leo that the resolution getting this far hsould hav been delayed before it got this much coverage. It is frustrating that a resolution written to inform about and therefore prevent future genocide has to be delayed in order to prevent another kind of violence. However, since the ultimate goal of the bill would be to prevent unneccessary violence in the future, delaying it to prevent violence in the present seems to be the best decision at this point, although not necessarily a good one.
The answer to the question to when the resolution should be passed is NOW. I don't see why this has been delayed for so long and I think that it should have been recognized by the U.S. right after the term "genocide" was coined. I think the later we put it off, the less meaning it has. If we do it sooner, it shows that we are actually concerned about the issue. The U.S. needs to stay on top of things like this to help prevent future genocides. What's it going to do for Darfur now, if a resolution is passed in 50 years?
i agree with Aileen's comment although is it really more important to pass the resolution now when it may cause more deaths in iraq than to wait a few more years? just to play devils advocate... we've waited this long... what's a few more years?
Aileen, I agree with you that the resolution should have been passed right after the term genocide was coined; it could have spread awareness about the potential for future genocides. However, this did not happen, and the reality now is that passing this resolution is risking lives. Also, the genocide in Darfur is being acknowledged as a genocide right now, and even that is not impelling people to action, so the resolution about Armenia would be more about spreading general genocide awareness for the future than helping citizens of Darfur.
I also realize that spreading genocide awareness in general will help Darfur, but what I think will help more is a bill about Darfur itself.
For instance, there's this resolution "calling for the urgent deployment of a robust and effective multinational peacekeeping mission with sufficient size, resources, leadership, and mandate to protect civilians in Darfur"
(http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:14:./temp/~c110HveBxA::)
or this one "calling on the President of the United States and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls [in Darfur]" (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:15:./temp/~c110HveBxA::) among others.
Let me state again also that this does not mean I do not support the resolution, I think it is extremely long overdue and should have been passed directly after the Genocide Convention, but I think that passing a resolution with the ultimate goal of saving lives when it would actually be risking lives is not the right decision.
Turkey is one of our few remaining Middle Eastern allies in this occupation of Iraq. How does recognizing the genocide of the Armenians, which was almost 100 years ago, exceed the need to maintain healthy relations with one of the few countries that still likes us.
I question the motives of the people who presented this resoultion. It comes at such a bad time, that I feel it is a way for the democrats to indirectly scuttle the war in Iraq. They have failed to do anything except continue to give funding to Bush. That is the only explanation that I can think of which justifies the timing of this bill.
Post a Comment