President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke against a House resolution that would officially call the killings of Armenians as "genocide".
In their comments they said that, "passage of the resolution would hurt relations with an important U.S. ally" and that "good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by the U.S. forces in Iraq flies through Turkey."
Condoleezza Rice said, "We recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago...But the passage of this resolution at this time would, indeed, be very problematic for everything that we're trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts."
Representative Adam Schiff spoke out against the White House's response saying, "The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives. But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here US economic interests conflict with perhaps our moral obligations. If we pass the resolution, we could hurt our relationship with Turkey. But if the US sides with Turkish denial of the genocide, aren't we just "continuing genocide" as one of our guest speakers said?
-What should the United States do?
-What is more important, our economic interests or moral obligations?
-Does the fact that Iraq is involved in the situation affect how you think about it? Should it?
-Do you think the US is being selfish in refusing to call it genocide?
-Do you agree with Schiff, that this sets the tone for how the US deals with genocide and especially the current situation in Darfur?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902347.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Wow this is a really tough situation-- even I'm torn between which is more important. It is going to be hard for any politician to think that accepting the Armenian massacre as a genocide is more importnat than our current issues at hand. Many people live more in the present and are more inclined to make a certain decision based on what will benefit them right now. Because our government is being stubborn and not pulling out of Iraq, it would surprise a lot of Americans if we pulled out of Iraq because we are accepting a past massacre as a genocide. Pretty much, our presence in Iraq cannot be substantiated without the support of Turkey, so we need to follow their resolutions.
I personally don't think that this is morally right because we all know that the genocide DID occur. We are denying it to help our economic interests which doesn't seem very legitimate.
I do not agree with Schiff in that this sets the tone for how the U.S. deals with genocide because most people can figure out (i hope) that we are only selfishly denying a genocide to help a current issue. Otherwise, the government would label it a genocide. If we don't have economic interests in a country and genocide is occuring, then yes, the U.S. would most likely label this as a genocide. I think that this is a special case. It is unfortunate that our economic interests prevail over our moral obligations.
If presented with this dilemma, I would find the answer quite simple. The moral should supersede the political and economic. I am pretty appalled that the US (but not surprised) took the war-based, economic route. While I do believe that strong allies are necessary to a peaceful globe, the fact that our government is condoning the genocide by not naming it one is disturbing.
I think that there is a time for everything, and now is not the time for this resolution. Labeling the Armenian genocide as such is just that - labeling it, ink on paper. I understand that the ink on paper represents a greater idea of not condoning genocide and taking a stand, but I think our present condition is more important than labeling a past event.
The fact that Iraq is involved definitely changes how I think about the situation, but more importantly the location of Turkey changes how I interpret the situation. Should it? Probably not. Does it? Yes, because we live in the real world where everything is connected and everything has consequences. If it is true that so many resources bound for Iraq pass through Turkey, then it is important that we keep good relations with them. I do not support the war, not at all, but Turkey all of a sudden shutting off its borders to us is not the way to stop the war. I think such an abrupt change would lead to chaos, disorder, and probably cause more deaths and more problems than if this resolution had waited for a more opportune moment. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but no one can really know when dealing with present events that can profoundly affect the future. In this, the U.S. is not being selfish; it is being practical and cautious.
I do not think this has any effect on the U.S.'s dealings with Darfur. Although they are both genocides, they are in entirely different circumstances.
Everyone is making valid points on this blog. I think that given the present circumstances and the potential chaos of hurting our relationship with Turkey, it would be wiser not to label the Armenian genocide for what it is until the US is out of Iraq. I want to say that the government should put out statements fully explaining that the reason they will not sign this is not because it is not a genocide, but because it is imortant that Turkey does not shut its borders. However, I feel that such a statement would anger Turkey just as much as the resolution itself. If the genocide were not officially labeled a genocide, then, the government would be relying on the general public to be informed about why this decision was made, so that it is still considered a genocide publicly, if not officially. The problem here is that people often put much faith in their government rather than doing outside research for themselves. Therefore, I think that as soon as the signing of the resolution would not put so many people at risk, it shoudl occur.
i understand all of your comments about the timing and the current situation in iraq... but just as we depend on turkey, Turkey depends on the US economically as well (at least to some extent.)
Turkey has threatened to do the same thing when another country (i don't remember which one) decided to declare that the armenian genocide occurred... they only acted on their threat for a little while before they decided that they needed that country's economy...
isn't there a chance that this is an empty threat that may not last long?
if that is true... should the US base its decision on a chance?
just offering another perspective... i honestly don't know what I think is the 'right' decision yet....
Post a Comment