The people arguing that passing a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide right at this moment doesn't seem like a particularly sound method of advancing the national interest are, of course, correct. At the same time, though, one ought to recognize that on a realist account these gloom-and-doom predictions of US-Turkish relations in the wake of the resolution are false. Turkey is going to formulate its policy vis-à-vis the United States of America in light of Turkey's interests and not actually radically restructure things in the wake of a symbolic resolution. Things like the strategic partnership with Israel and membership in NATO (and the base-hosting it entails) stand or fall on their own merits and Turkish-US partnership in Iraq is going to be determined by the ability of Turkish and American officials to forge a compromise position on the Kurds that both sides prefer to no compromise at all.
« Republicans and Global Warming | Main | Health Care Plans for All »
Realism and the Armenian Genocide
17 Oct 2007 12:27 pm
Comments (49)
It would be funny if the Turks retaliated by given their full scoop on what exactly went on with that Israeli raid on Syria. The planes used Turkish airspace. They know more than they're saying.
US/Turkey relations have to truly be built on a foundation of sand if this thing actually does give the Turks a reason to act against their own interests. Relying on such a fickle partner would be most likely doomed at one point or another.
However, I tend to agree, Turkey's interests are largely the same as those of the US despite these toothless stances.
I do think it's interesting that some of the folks who are bleating most loudly about the US being offensive to a largely Muslim country are also the ones who championed the duty of the West to criticize the awful actions of the Moslem world via cartoons.
Turkey is going to formulate its policy vis-à-vis the United States of America in light of Turkey's interests and not actually radically restructure things in the wake of a symbolic resolution.
Yeah, one would hope so. A lot of the freaking out in the U.S. surrounding the Armenian-genocide-recognizing resolution seems to rest on the (usually unspoken) premise that Turks, like other swarthy folk, are insanely sensitive to slights against their honor and are liable to do something irrational and self-destructive in response to this. There's a bit of stereotyping at work here, I think.
"A lot of the freaking out in the U.S. surrounding the Armenian-genocide-recognizing resolution seems to rest on the (usually unspoken) premise that Turks, like other swarthy folk, are insanely sensitive to slights against their honor and are liable to do something irrational and self-destructive in response to this. There's a bit of stereotyping at work here, I think."
Have you been watching these people though? In this case with the Turks it's the truth!! There really is a chance they'll flip out, however it is pretty darn absurd of them and I do tend to side with Matt that Turkey is going to do what it's going to do. We don't want them to invade Kurdistan, but the truth is resolution or not if Turkey sees it in their interests they're going to do it eventually. They won't stand for this Kurdish quasi-independence in Iraq and one day or another is going to take care of it whether we pass a bill or not. I can see this bill going down and Turkey invading a few weeks later. What a great lose-lose, we compromise morality and history and in exchange we get exactly what we did that to avoid!
The real reason there's a problem in US-Turkish relations is that the US is propping up Kurdistan, which is harboring a terrorist group (the PKK) that frequently crosses the border into Turkey and kills Turks. And it's not just me, but the US State Department, that calls them a terrorist group.
In this environment, simultaneously refusing to do anything about the PKK and then passing an Armenian genocide resolution will be received as a deliberate "screw you" by the Turks.
Yes, the Kurdish minority in Turkey is ill-treated, and has legitimate grievances. The same was true of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, but that didn't justify the IRA's tactics.
The problem with this analysis is that it posits the existence of a single being with the name "Turkey." Turkey is not a person, it's a polity, and there are contesting factions within it. This action will increase popular resentment of the US and will empower anti-US forces at the governing level.
This is what Juan Cole said on Oct 12:
"...no dispassionate observer could avoid the conclusion that the Congressional vote condemning Turkey came at a most inopportune time for US-Turkish diplomacy, at a time when Turks were already raw from watching the US upset all the apple carts in their neighborhood, unleash existential threats against them, cause the rise of Salafi radicalism next door, coddle terrorists killing them, coddle the separatist KRG, and strengthen the Shiite ayatollahs on their borders."
In light of what happened yesterday in Ankara, it's pretty damn clear that the Turks, or at least the General Staff, wanted some sort of provocation by the US in order to take the fight into Iraq.
After all, earlier this summer, (unfortunately for my family, the exact time my Dad was in Istanbul), the Army came very, very close to entering Iraqi Kurdistan in force. I don't see any evidence, four months on, that the generals would like to go after the PKK any less. If anything, every day the Iraqi government gets weaker (and that is every day, for those keeping track at home), the Kurds are one day closer to independence.
My guess is that between diplomatic pressure by us, and the fact that the Army was probably more concerned with the domestic situation, the Kurds got lucky. However, now the government situation there looks far more stable.
And now, we've presented the generals with a gift basket of a resolution. This way, when the General Staff screws with our logistics by closing that base or parliament essentially declares war on Kurdistan, by giving the Army a free hand to "intervene" in Iraq, we come off looking like the insensitive bad guys.
This is a pretty cute bit of manuevering on the part of the Army; hell, Bismarck couldn't have pulled a better coup than this, since this resolution enflames the Turkish public better than anything a monarchist like him could have thought up.
They've been conditioned since Ataturk towards an attitude like this.
At the same time, the generals can go fuck themselves if they think we're going to roll on this. Frankly, after this little coup, one hopes the peshmerga give them a warm reception.
What kind of an ally blackmails us over our most basic human rights values (the murder of 1.5 million people for ethnic and religious reasons)?
The modern day Republic of Turkey bases its ideology on supremacist notions of the importance of "Turkishness". It criminalizes any "Insult to Turkishness" in the penal code. So public mention of the possibility of a genocide against the Armenians, or publishing a book of poetry in Kurdish, or teaching a class in a minority language is not allowed; it is something you could go to prison for.
Is this what we are fighting for in the region, countries where a jihad is covered up and swept under the rug? The Armenians and Greeks of this region were systematically exterminated and ethnically cleansed -- they were the Christian minority. If children were taken in and converted to Islam they survived. Is this the value system we are fighting for in this region?
And what kind of an ally threatens our troops? If you recall, we paid high money the Turks demanded for us to use our base at Incirlik for the Iraq operations... now they want to renege?
Furthermore none of these arguments hold water. We have other options for supplying our troops and making alliances in the region. There is the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq, which not surprisingly if you look at the economic model of what Incirlik is worth in terms of pouring dollars into a country, Turkey is now threatening with invasion. There is also Armenia, on the border with Turkey, which already sends transport drivers as support for our troops in Iraq, the most dangerous job. They would gladly, I'm sure, as a very poor country, welcome the building of a US base on their soil and the money that now goes to Turkey. All of this argument about damaging the troops is smoke and hot air.
Joe,
I completely agree that the PKK is a ruthless terrorist group that has committed some pretty stirring atrocities against not only Turks but Kurds themselves.
However, at the same time, the Turks have been trying since Kemal to destroy the Kurds as a separate ethnic group. The Proddies might have been racist, they might have kept the Catholics as second class citizens, but do you honestly believe any British government would allow the Orangemen to forcibly convert them (in the Kurds' case, destroy Kurdish culture by forbidding the use of Kurdish, etc), raze their homes, lock them up wholesale in the thousands, and slaughter them?
Because that's what the Turkish Army has been doing until very recently.
What I find highly amusing is that we look at Turkey as though it's nice because it's secular. But it's not secular. It's violently nationalistic. And that nationalism, since the Ataturk, has been founded in what amounts to a racialist view of Turkish superiority. Even more amusing is that the Islamists in Turkey are the only guys who really try to live with the Kurds, since their political views are founded more on religious ties than on racial ones.
Although, that hasn't stopped the current mildly Islamist government from letting the Army have its way with the Kurds.
Frankly, if the PKK were all shot tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. But the Kurds of Iraq have been our allies for close to two decades. So while I'm against Kurdish separatism, I wish the peshmerga the best of luck in making northern Iraq into southern Vietnam for the Turkish Army.
Things like the strategic partnership with Israel and membership in NATO (and the base-hosting it entails) stand or fall on their own merits and Turkish-US partnership in Iraq is going to be determined by the ability of Turkish and American officials to forge a compromise position on the Kurds that both sides prefer to no compromise at all.
There isn't one of those.
They would gladly, I'm sure, as a very poor country, welcome the building of a US base on their soil and the money that now goes to Turkey.
We already have one of those. Also one in Georgia. The Russians don't like it, and it doesn't do us much good, because the useful supply lines have to pass through Turkey first.
but do you honestly believe any British government would allow the Orangemen to forcibly convert them (in the Kurds' case, destroy Kurdish culture by forbidding the use of Kurdish, etc), raze their homes, lock them up wholesale in the thousands, and slaughter them?
Boers?
Although, that hasn't stopped the current mildly Islamist government from letting the Army have its way with the Kurds.
"Every so often, the Turkish Army leaves its baracks and hangs the politicians." Which is why Turkey isn't an Islamacist state.
But the Kurds of Iraq have been our allies for close to two decades. So while I'm against Kurdish separatism, I wish the peshmerga the best of luck in making northern Iraq into southern Vietnam for the Turkish Army.
I'm completely fine with Kurdish independence. And Turkey doesn't like that, which there hasn't been a Kurdish state to date, so they're going to fight it out. I'm fine with that, as long as the US isn't involved.
max
['Otherwise, there was no point in freeing the Kurds from Saddam.']
Two Words:
Freedom Fries.
Pelosi and the Congressional Democractic leadership are just plain confused. They have watched their members roll over on Iraq, roll over on FISA, enthusiastically endorse anti-Iran legislation, get nowhere on White House subpoenas. They have proven themselves useless.
All that's left are silly, symbolic votes. Pelosi is robotically walking it forward because Dems have nothing else to offer.
All you naive little kiddies don't realize that the fix is in. Billionaire Mort Zuckerman announced it last Sunday on the McLaughlin Report.
I cracked up when Mort -- a major member of the Israel Lobby -- denounced the genocide resolution and denounced the "Armenian Lobby" for buying off Congress with money.
After all, the Israel Lobby spends a lot more than the "Armenian Lobby" --and the Israel Lobby is only intervening to halt this resolution because the Turks have been twisting the Government of Israel's nuts. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_turkey_1
The next morning, after Mort's statement, the NY Times showed us just how much slack the Israel Lobby gives Members of Congress -- see "Support Wanes in House" at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17cong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Let's check in with Haim Saban's sock puppet -- Jane "All I need to Know I can get from the Saban Center" Harman:
"“I think there was genocide in Turkey in 1915 but I am gravely concerned about the timing,” said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat. She said she would remain a co-sponsor of the resolution but at the moment would oppose it reached the floor."
-------------
heh heh heh
Matt is right. Just because the Turks are freaking out now doesn't mean they will follow through. Indeed, the whole reason to freak out now is because they know that they can't follow through.
The truth is, we could probably tell the truth about lots of issues and still have relations with the rest of the world. We certainly haven't held back about Putin's Russia, for instance, and Putin still talks to us.
The one we should really try to change the rhetoric on is China. We should be willing to tell the truth, both about China's awful internal policies and also about the fact that Taiwan is an independent country and is going to stay that way unless and until China becomes a multiparty democracy that Taiwan will want to reunify with.
Rational people don't start wars over symbolic, rhetorical issues. And if you treat other countries like they are too sensitive and can never be offended, they end up being able to blackmail you over symbolic issues and your condemnations of other countries looks like hollow rhetoric.
Ah, yes --I forgot to point out that the US Air Force can't carry out Haim Saban's Air Tasking Order -- the massive strike on Iran's Infrastructure -- if the Turks go all wobbly when waves of US planes start landing at Incirlik.
In fact, the only reason I can see for the Israel Lobby's Democrats to even be bringing up this 100 year old issue is to try to coerce the Turks into supporting a surprise strike on Iran. Via the threat of a US resolution that would let the Armenians sue the Turks in US courts for massive reparations.
The Democrats' two-faced hypocrisy is rather stomach-turning however. This outrage over events of 100 years ago doesn't match with the way those same Democrats cheerfully ignore genocides that are occurring TODAY -- Darfur, Rwanda, etc.
"It would be funny if the Turks retaliated by given their full scoop on what exactly went on with that Israeli raid on Syria. The planes used Turkish airspace. They know more than they're saying."
The NYTimes reported that Turkish diplomats presented Syria with Israel's evidence in Damascas. Syria, as everyone knows, denied everything. Nothing to see here! Move along!
The Turks and Israel are tighter than most people are aware of.
The Turks have treated the Kurds *really* badly over the years. The US always looked the other way. Clinton helped them catch the PKK's leader in Greece. If you treat people really badly over the years, they tend to produce "terrorists." Just ask the British and Israelis.
I just don't understand why the Turks are so touchy about a genocide everyone in the world agrees happened a century ago under the Ottoman empire.
They're freakin' delusional, just like Larry Craig.
Pelosi has gone way up in book. I hope there is a Hell where that slime Richard Gephardt can roast after he dies. $ > the Truth in his book. He's spitting on the victims and survivors of the Armenian genocide. One wouldn't expect any less of Livingston.
Bush of course is acting as expected, coddling another "partner" in the GWOT, as he does with Israel, the Saudis, Pakistan, Israel, etc ad nauseum.
"I'm completely fine with Kurdish independence. And Turkey doesn't like that, which there hasn't been a Kurdish state to date, so they're going to fight it out. I'm fine with that, as long as the US isn't involved."
My feelings exactly. From everything I've heard about the Peshmerga and the terrain our erstwhile allies from Ankara will be dealing with, I don't even think the US would need to help.
Well, except maybe to keep the Kurds from slaughtering too many Turkish conscripts in the mountains.
"The Democrats' two-faced hypocrisy is rather stomach-turning however. This outrage over events of 100 years ago doesn't match with the way those same Democrats cheerfully ignore genocides that are occurring TODAY -- Darfur, Rwanda, etc."
Don, that's why I doubt I'll ever vote Democrat.
Great argument Matt. The consequences of insulting Turkey would be bad but not as bad as the most pessimistic predictions. Wow, really?
1) The Turks are in an interesting bind, however.
If the Iranians do have a nuclear bomb -- and if Turkey does support a US strike on Iran from Turkey -- then that Iranian bomb might very well end up in downtown Ankara someday. At the very least, Turkey will be facing a 100 year war with Iranian terrorist groups.
Plus Putin has indicated his support for the Iranians. While the whimiscal US Government is on the other side of the world, the Big Russian bear is constantly breathing down the neck of the Turks. For 60 years, Turkey has been the southern keystone of the wall the US and Britain built to contain Russia. Putin would like that particular stone in the wall to go away. So if the Iranians don't have the bomb, then maybe Putin will give them one.
Of course, none of the above considerations are likely to occur to throughly corrupt members of Congress who are only concerned about where their next campaign donation is coming from.
The Turks have treated the Kurds *really* badly over the years. The US always looked the other way. Clinton helped them catch the PKK's leader in Greece. If you treat people really badly over the years, they tend to produce "terrorists." Just ask the British and Israelis.
I just don't understand why the Turks are so touchy about a genocide everyone in the world agrees happened a century ago under the Ottoman empire. - Peter K
I just don't understand why Turkey didn't "create" a Kurdish state from the get-go (speaking of whether nations really do act rationally as MY suggests).
Currently, the Kurds have been treated badly and now there are Kurdish terrorists. And this benefits Turkey how? And there is so much ill will that Turkey has much to fear from any politcally independent Turkish entity.
OTOH, if Turkey would have spun off its poorer, eastern-most regions to establish a Kurdish state, it would have not only helped Turkey in its quest to become a more European oriented nation but it also would have diffused Kurdish nationalism (and made said nationalism work to Turkey's advantage as it would have led to Kurdish minorities in other states angling to be taken over by a Turkish client state).
*
Now that I think about it -- what would have happened if in 1948, the nascient state of Israel would have been able to set up a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (as opposed to those regions being occupied by Arab states and refugees being placed in camps where they grew to hate Israel)?
"If the Iranians do have a nuclear bomb -- and if Turkey does support a US strike on Iran from Turkey -- then that Iranian bomb might very well end up in downtown Ankara someday. At the very least, Turkey will be facing a 100 year war with Iranian terrorist groups."
If I were on the Turkish General Staff, I'd be begging the Israelis or somebody to help build a deterrent so that Turkey wouldn't have to participate in a ridiculous attack on Iran.
Re Peter K's comment "I just don't understand why the Turks are so touchy about a genocide everyone in the world agrees happened a century ago under the Ottoman empire."
-----------
1) Because the Turks have seen how much Germany et al has had to pay out in reparations in the past few decades. That's the REAL threat behind the Congressional Resolution -- a threat that you notice the New York Times and other US Newspapers are carefully not to mention in their usual deceitful coverage.
From a Press Release issued by the Armenian National Committee of America:
---------------
PALLONE AND SCHUMER CALL FOR JUSTICE FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AT TIME SQUARE RALLY
“There must be recognition, there must be restitution, there must be reparations for the Armenian Genocide.” -- Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
NEW YORK, NY – Speaking before a crowd of over eight thousand at an April 24th Times Square rally marking the 90th anniversary of Armenian Genocide, Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NY) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) issued powerful calls for international recognition and justice for the Armenian Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). Moving remarks were also offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), as well as His Eminence Oshagan Choloyan, Prelate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Eastern U.S. and His Eminence Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Eastern U.S.
"Armenian Americans from around the nation welcome the principled remarks of Senator Schumer and Congressman Pallone in support of full U.S. recognition and Turkish acceptance of responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, and - most significantly - a just resolution of this crime that restores to the Armenian nation, to the extent possible, what was so brutally taken during the Genocide and in the years that have followed," said ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian."
Ref: http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=758
-----------
As I noted back in August, it seemed strange that Senator Chuck Schumer -- head sock puppet for the Israel Lobby --should be trying to screw with Turkey.
Nations people are sensitive to national insults directed at them from other nations. American Lefties are so habituated to condemning America and thinking it is good that others condemn America that they forget that other nations take slights with far more animosity.
So did we in our past. Part of the reason why FDR's Lend-Lease passed with only 1 vote was memory of Britains past snootiness and condencension towards us. If the British Left had stupidly passed a resolution denouncing American "imperialism" and 70 year long past "mistreatment of Native Americans" - Britain would have paid a dear price in WWII for spurning the US as an ally.
In the early 60s, India had a major famine and the US rushed to provide wheat. Then India issued a statement from Parliament saying that it looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration given the moral unfitness of Britain, America in meeting the aspirations of the developing world. JFK told Ambassador Galbraith that the Indians would pay a dear price for their insolence, and stopped charity wheat shipments to the consternated Indians in the Communist and Congress parties - telling them to turn to their good friends the Soviets for famine relief. Naturally, the Soviets gave assurances they failed to deliver on, millions went hungry, tens of thousands starved. JFK's "tough love" made India far more judicious in administering casual insults and undermining the West.
Lesson 1: In a hot war or a famine, it is flat-out stupid to spit in the face of others helping you.
2nd lesson: In a hot war, it is exceptionally stupid to try and sabotage supply lines to American troops in battle with the excuse you are only doing it because of the "urgency" of demouncing a 90-year old war crime. You run the high risk of being seen as having a real underlying motive of backstabbing the American servicemen and women in harm's way, to end a war you oppose. John Murtha, in this case, at least, recognizes the political catastrophe liberal Democrats may cause and has been screaming for them to lay off the Turks.
3rd Lesson: The USA should keep in mind, as it has done reasonably well in recent years except with Rwanda, that the time to act or denounce massive slaughter of minorities in a country is when they are happening and in efforts to hold those involved to account shortly, and only shortly afterwards.
4th Lesson: When ancient old, old, or old within living memory acts are considered "bad"...we have a duty to respect new generations having nothing to do with the "bad". No one in Congress is thinking of denouncing Japan for the Ainu "genocide" or the Aussie "aborigine Holocaust" - so why make Turkey an exception?
That while they should in turn, reflect on and accept the verdict of investigators and scholars, it is wallowing in the Cult of Victimhood - using history as a tool - to demand Jews apologize for their Sanhedrin setting Christ's killing in motion, requiring Mongolians to apologize for the Mongol Horde, Christians for the Crusades, Muslims for the hundreds of Jihadi mass slaughters of all infidel men, women and children they encountered. For the Japanese depredations in WWII, in living memory, we show restraint...urging they correct their history books about matters like China and babies on bayonets...but not out to disgrace today's Japanese people or impugne their culture as evil, in the process.
Lesson 1: In a hot war or a famine, it is flat-out stupid to spit in the face of others helping you.
I can't believe I agree with Chris Ford. Such spitting is indeed flat out stupid. This is why the happiness with which some Jews think Israel -- born out of Zionism which holds that Jews should be independent -- should take and become dependent upon the support of the American Christian right is bizzare.
At some point, the interests of Israel and the US will diverge. Certainly the interests of Christian fundies who want Jews to convert and we Jews who want to remain Jews diverges. Israel is often also under siege. If Israel gets aid due to the religious right, will Israel really spit in the faces of the religious right, even when such spitting is necessary?
To Chris Ford's lessons, I would add one more:
5th Lesson: We should NOT give US citizenship to people --or allow them to keep US citizenship -- if they are unwilling to drop their involvment in quarrels involving other nations on the far side of the world. Especially if they deliberately sacrifice the lives of US soldiers in pursuit of those quarrels.
Lesson 1: In a hot war or a famine, it is flat-out stupid to spit in the face of others helping you.
Oh please. They're "helping" us after they held us up for a king's ransom to use that base at the beginning of the war. Don't remember that far back?
Anybody who thinks the Turkish Army would give up the millions of American dollars that give them their power in the first place hasn't a clue about Reality!
So many issues are flying about in these comments that I cannot hope to address them all to my satisfaction -- but let me just say a few points.
1. Kurdish nationalism is in many respects on the wane in Turkey, as the Kurdish regions begin to benefit from Turkey's recent economic expansion, material well-being increases, and the Turkish educational/propaganda system makes inroads in local communities. But most importantly, the AKP successfully co-opted the Anatolian southeast's religious conservatism and popular piety, bringing it into a Turkish-Muslim setting, a kind of national populism, integrating the region into wider civic life. The Kurdish-nationalist parties, in the last election, were soundly defeated by the AKP in the southeast. Abdullah Gul is more popular there than anywhere else.
I also have to add that it is no longer true that Kurds are treated badly by the Turkish government in any sense. Since the 1990s their language is permitted to be broadcasted and spoken in any setting.
2. It's important to note that it was informal Young Turk militia that perpetrated the Armenian genocide, not the modern Turkish republic. An obvious point, but one that is always forgotten. There is no evidence that it was systematic, though this does not exclude the possiblity that it was ordered by Talat Pasha or somebody else "high up". It is true that many of the people involved in anti-Russian resistance in 1915, the same people involved in the genocide, also played a role in the young Turkish Republic. Thus the Republic's hands are not entirely clean.
So, in order to understand the Turks' touchiness about this issue, you have to realize: Turkish republican ideology, as it was formed in the 20s and 30s, emphasizes the decadence of the Ottomans, the victimization of Anatolia's Muslim Turks at the hands of effete Persianized sultans and the rich Greek and Armenian and Jewish merchant class. It's a narrative of victimization. To have the Turks, the victims, suddenly commit *GENOCIDE* destroys this narrative; it is unthinkable and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Republic, on its role as a renewer, or creator, of Turkish identity.
5th Lesson: We should NOT give US citizenship to people --or allow them to keep US citizenship -- if they are unwilling to drop their involvment in quarrels involving other nations on the far side of the world. Especially if they deliberately sacrifice the lives of US soldiers in pursuit of those quarrels.
One could wonder who you're speaking about here... the Israel Lobby, Donald Rumsfeld... the list is endless.
XY, your analysis is false. There is evidence of systematic genocide that has been documented and re-documented, from Turkish Military orders issued at the time. It is you who haven't done your research.
Elie Weisel and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized this fact officially. I suggest you familiarize yourself with more scholarship on this subject.
It will be a pity íf the resolution doesn't pass because it would show that the United States government cares more about self interest than truth.
from the Chronicle of Higher Education - July 7, 2002:
Silenced Minority
In Turkey, Kurds are arrested for trying to study their own language
By BURTON BOLLAG
Diyarbakir, Turkey
The police here in southeastern Turkey will no longer arrest someone simplyfor speaking Kurdish. But when university students across the country circulated petitions, requesting optional courses on the Kurdish language, the authorities clamped down hard.
More than 1,300 students have been detained by police -- often while trying to present the signed petitions to the rectors of the universities they attend. According to human-rights activists, more than 200 students have been accused of violating anti-terrorist laws. Often the formal charge is supporting an illegal organization, in this case the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v48/i45/45a03401.htm
"Oh please. They're "helping" us after they held us up for a king's ransom to use that base at the beginning of the war. Don't remember that far back?"
Nope. The us wanted to base the an army division in turkey to attack iraq from the North and offered the turks money to let them. The turks declined this offer.
In addition the turkish/US base at Incirlik,was not used in the iraq war , as the turks refused (as was their right under the basing treaty) to allow it to be used in the war.
"Anybody who thinks the Turkish Army would give up the millions of American dollars that give them their power in the first place hasn't a clue about Reality".
Yeah the turkish army is really dependent on that 15 million a year which the US offers on easy terms to buy US military equipment.
Perhaps the turks ,apart from suffering from terrorist attacks , feel that a government that takes time to criticize the actions of the turkish predecessor state 90 years ago , whilst at the same launching unprovoked wars of aggression,running a chain of torture camps around the world and conducting a bloody and brutal occupation of iraq (where the iraqi death toll is now is the hundreds of thousands) is indulging in, at best, hypocritical grandstanding and at worst a cynical distraction.
kb:
"Perhaps the turks ,apart from suffering from terrorist attacks , feel that a government that takes time to criticize the actions of the turkish predecessor state 90 years ago , whilst at the same launching unprovoked wars of aggression,running a chain of torture camps around the world and conducting a bloody and brutal occupation of iraq (where the iraqi death toll is now is the hundreds of thousands) is indulging in, at best, hypocritical grandstanding and at worst a cynical distraction."
Well, President Bush agrees with you that our allies in Turkey shouldn't be criticized. Take that as you will...
Don Williams:
"1) Because the Turks have seen how much Germany et al has had to pay out in reparations in the past few decades. "
But the Armenian genocide was 100 years ago. Isn't there a statute of limitations?
My view is it's the same delusional problem that the American rightwing suffers from, i.e. our country can do no wrong! Vietnam, American Indians, etc. Not our fault.
And you have so-called leftites defending them.
It's a largely symbolic non-binding resolution. And yet people are going flying into hysterics.
I wish the peshmerga the best of luck in making northern Iraq into southern Vietnam for the Turkish Army.
Nice to know how well you feel about an actual ally.
The peshmerga like the Americans because we've given them de-facto autonomy. Originally against Saddam. Now, (particularly by bungling so badly) against the current Iraqi government. They aren't our allies and their interests aren't our interests. The peshmerga have been involved in ethnic purges of Turkmen and Arabs from northern Iraq since Saddam fell. They're another faction in Iraq - not the good guys.
As for "why Turkey didn't create a Kurdish state from the get-go", it's pretty much for the same reason we didn't spin off the American Southwest.
"Well, President Bush agrees with you that our allies in Turkey shouldn't be criticized. Take that as you will..."
'our' ? Well i'm not an american, just someone who thinks that at this point in time , then perhaps the US government should be a bit circumspect before it indulges in this sort of moralising.
Personally i think the turks should bite the bullet and acknowledge the events of 90 years ago.
"Turkey is going to formulate its policy vis-à-vis the United States of America in light of Turkey's interests and not actually radically restructure things in the wake of a symbolic resolution. Things like the strategic partnership with Israel and membership in NATO (and the base-hosting it entails) stand or fall on their own merits and Turkish-US partnership in Iraq is going to be determined by the ability of Turkish and American officials to forge a compromise position on the Kurds that both sides prefer to no compromise at all."
That might be the case, Matt -- EXCEPT that Turkey is a democracy (at least mostly), and therefore the extent to which its government has whipped up popular hysteria on the Armenian issue may very well come back to bite them by causing the election of a Turkish government that is irrational on this issue. That's one famous Achilles heel of democracies -- and it should be remembered that (to quote Peter Drucker) "Hitler was put into power by a coalition of militarists and industrialists who were confident of their ability to control the plebian Nazis", which they discovered they couldn't.
To Chris Ford's lessons, I would add one more:
5th Lesson: We should NOT give US citizenship to people --or allow them to keep US citizenship -- if they are unwilling to drop their involvment in quarrels involving other nations on the far side of the world. Especially if they deliberately sacrifice the lives of US soldiers in pursuit of those quarrels.
Posted by Don Williams
Excellent 5th lesson, Don. We all know the trouble and detriment to overall interests of the American people ethnic lobbies are.
I would add, though "loyalty oaths" instantly set up people gritting teeth at the thought, the damage caused by lobbies that harm America and the general public to favor a foreign nation or foreign cause has been severe enough and obvious enough that we should require an oath of every elected official and government worker....
"I understand and am committed to making the general welfare, interests, and rights of the American people my highest cause, my first, and overiding priority. Where my personal beliefs conflict, from foreign attachments, loyalty to an ethnic, globalist or corporate special interest group, I shall recuse myself from decisions that harm the polity of the People the Constitution established. If I cannot recuse myself, or reconcile my personal conflict of interest, I shall resign, understanding my resignation will not be used against me in future government employment or elective office. On this I swear."
Turkey isn't France with Talleyrand making foreign policy based purely on national interest, it's kind of a democracy, which means it's subject to emotions.
Don Williams:
If the Iranians do have a nuclear bomb -- and if Turkey does support a US strike on Iran from Turkey -- then that Iranian bomb might very well end up in downtown Ankara someday. At the very least, Turkey will be facing a 100 year war with Iranian terrorist groups.
Actually, Iran would never attack Turkey. It has no reason to. Even if the US hits Iran, Iran would probably get revenge by paying Kurdish rebels to step up their actions in Turkey. But there's no way in hell Turkey would ever let the US use their airspace to attack Iran. I mean, they didn't do it for Iraq, and Iran is far more popular among Turks than Iraq ever was. Short of Iran declaring a war on Turkey, or a coup, there's nothing that would make it politically feasible for the PM of Turkey to help the US attack Iran.
I also have no idea what you mean by Iranian terrorist groups, as there are none (that act outside of Iran anyway), aside from the IRGC. Iran and Turkey have a love-hate relationship, and both have minorities within the other that they support with arms, but at the end of the day, they have to live together.
"The peshmerga like the Americans because we've given them de-facto autonomy. Originally against Saddam. Now, (particularly by bungling so badly) against the current Iraqi government. They aren't our allies and their interests aren't our interests. The peshmerga have been involved in ethnic purges of Turkmen and Arabs from northern Iraq since Saddam fell. They're another faction in Iraq - not the good guys."
You're joking, right?
They were one of the two groups we told to rise up against Saddam in '91. They did, and we left them hanging. Our response was to design the No-Fly zone, which was essentially a protected zone for the Kurds. Otherwise Saddam would have slaughtered even more of them.
Oh, and we supplied Saddam with the gas he used to massacre them during the Eighties. And we had no problem when the Turkish Army slaughtered them in the thousands during the Cold War.
So yea, I'd say we owe them at least our goodwill, if not active support.
kb:
Who are you kidding? The Turks object to military prisons? With over 200,000 political prisoners of their own, who are routinely tortured as part of incarceration? (Ever read Amnesty International's reports on Turkey? Try it.)
What a great ally. Racist, supremacist... covering up history still because of this ideology.
And yeah, it's called bakshish... they wanted more, and they got it. Then we got the OK. Time to revisit our options. Who needs blackmailers like these?
The United States - that is, the PEOPLE of the United States, not the criminals who run the state - do NOT "owe" ANYBODY over there - in Turkey, in Iraq, in Kurdistan - ANY fucking support of ANY kind.
The United States PEOPLE - not just the Armenians - do not give a rat's ass what happened to Armenians a hundred years ago.
They do not give a rat's ass about the Kurds and their problems with Turkey, Iran and Syria.
Therefore, the United States GOVERNMENT has no fucking business either passing resolutions on 100-year-old genocides OR in supporting OR even being concerned about what Turkey and Iran and Syria do to the Kurds or vice versa.
Read my lips: that is NONE of our fucking business.
The fact that Bush I left the Shia to die in southern Iraq after the first Gulf War is irrelevant. The fact that Reagan and Rumsfeld sent the gas to Saddam to kill Kurds with - and there's still an argument over that one anyway - is irrelevant.
You want to blame somebody - dig up Reagan;s corpse and spit on it. Arrest Rumsfeld - he deserves it. Arrest Bush I - he deserves it.
But do not spend one thin dime of the US taxpayer's money on ANYTHING to do with the Turks, the Armenians, the Kurds - and especially not the Iraqis.
As for Iran, Iran and Turkey have reasonably good relations and every reason to continue them. Iran would never pay Kurds to attack Turkey because the Kurds are attacking Iran as well as Turkey - with US permission, I might add, unlike the Kurds attacking Turkey who do not have US permission.
In any event, neither the Iraqi government, nor the US military, nor the Turkish military, nor the Iranian military, are in any position to suppress the Kurds entirely. Kurdistan is another "lawless state", similar to the FATA in Pakistan. Nobody controls it and nobody ever will.
The problem for the US in Iraq if Turkey conducts cross-border operations against the Kurds is that the US put itself AGAIN in the position of being between two different factions. First, the US put itself between the Sunni and Shia. And the Shia need the Kurds to maintain a parliamentary majority. But ultimately the Kurds couldn't care less about Iraqi sovereignty - they want their own independent state in Iraq with oil from Kirkuk. And the purpose of that is to free the Kurds in Turkey and Iran and Syria.
So naturally Iran, Syria, and Turkey are down on that. Maybe that's not smart of them, but that's how it is. So the US then - because it wants a puppet regime in Iraq and wants to control Iraq - finds itself between Syria, Iran and Turkey and the Kurds. Well, for Syria and Iran, the US doesn't care because the US is going to attack them anyway. But it can't attack Turkey.
So there you are. Another no-win situation created by the morons in the US state.
And as is usual with chimpanzees, everybody wants to complicate an already hopeless issue with pointless resolutions, grandstanding, and threats.
The American people need to tell the Congress: we don't give a shit. Stop all this crap, and get us out of Iraq.
But, of course, that won't happen because Congress does not give a shit what the American people want.
Evidence has it that Representative Dennis Hastert took a fifty thousand dollar bribe from Turkish lobbyists to pull this resolution from consideration before. See here:
Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/10/1346254
You think some money isn't changing hands here from one side or the other - or both - now?
What's the statute of limitations on murder? How about genocide? Is International Law any of our business? Why not?
It's nonsense to say it's not. Every nation must recognize genocide as a crime against humanity and uphold the values of laws against it. As bad as the world is, we owe ourselves the rule of law, at least an attempt at it.
Otherwise tyranny wins the day... just look at the deniers and their respective effects in the world.
The recognition of genocide is important to everyone for obvious reasons. Unless your view of life is so brutal you think that anyone who can get away with mass murder should be free to do so.
The Democrats' two-faced hypocrisy is rather stomach-turning however. This outrage over events of 100 years ago doesn't match with the way those same Democrats cheerfully ignore genocides that are occurring TODAY -- Darfur, Rwanda, etc.
Don, I'm charmed by your ability to completely ignore facts - like the fact that the Democrats in the House unanimously supported a resolution declaring Darfur a genocide. (House Roll Call 508, 2004, on HR 5061, Section 4b).
The Democrats are supporting a resolution declaring the Armenian Genocide a genocide because...it's true. Truth is a pretty foreign concept to most Republicans in Congress and certainly the entire Republican leadership but truth has a lot of clout with Democrats. Really, paying attention to truth can really improve your life and I invite you to join us - starting with honest descriptions of Democratic positions on modern genocides.
" Really, paying attention to truth can really improve your life and I invite you to join us - starting with honest descriptions of Democratic positions on modern genocides."
Yes, Don is often full of it. If fact the highlighting of the issue of genocide, does help the situation in Darfur. It keeps a spotlight on the issue of genocide.
Fact is Republicans controlled the House for years and the Turks favored the Republicans while the Armenians favored the Democrats, so when the Democrats took power, of course they're going to take this up.
But Dennis Hastert was going to bring it to a vote at one time but spineless, triangulating Bill Clinton talked him out of it. And this was before Iraq.
All of this (I actually read all of it to this point) is interesting enough. All of it is an interesting debate. Some who have weighd in are not even American Citizens, good on them for it.
I am in an interesting position here, American Citizen Resident Alien in Turkey. I get to see the issue at hand from both sides. I happen to agree with the Turkish Republic on this issue and the reasons have already been documented in the comment chain.
What happened to the Armenian Ottoman Subjects was in fact sad and wrong. The active perpetration of the wrongs were not associated with the Ottoman monarchy, rather an organization working within the loose confines of that monarchy "the Young Turks."
The fact that the Ottoman Monarchy actually condemned the perpetrators to death says something, then the fact that most of the sentances were not carried out was actually normal for that monarchy who tried to pull them "back into line" with the monarchy. They did the same thing for centuries prior to this incident.
Personally, I believe theis resolution came up for no other reason than "party politics." There are some comments about the resolution is about truth and supporting the truth, BULL. All you really need to do is look at the comittee vote. I did and found it to be Yes (dem) 27 - No (rep) 21.
The dems in Congress are trying to embarrass the rep Administration one more time. The dems, I think, believe they are going to win the next election (they are probably correct) and want to make the win even bigger. I can only hope that the average American Citizen can open their eyes and see it, then open their mouths and find out if the government cares at all what they think.
Congress needs to worry about the citizens of their country and stop worrying about things that happend almost completely out of living memory. If congress wants to carry on with this, then they should condemn the US Government for the attrocities committed against the Native American Indian and the concentration encampment of the Japanese American Citizens. I mean if it really is about TRUTH.....
LeePsycho
Comments closed October 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt, it is very sweet of you to believe this: "Turkey is going to formulate its policy vis-à-vis the United States of America in light of Turkey's interests and not actually radically restructure things in the wake of a symbolic resolution." That's because you are symbolically bound to thinking interests are over in this corner, and all very rational, and then there are the symbols over here, which are all very shallow.
The problem is, of course, nothing in recent history would seem to confirm this idea. In fact, everything seems to point to the fact that nations are often moved by symbolism much more than by a rational overview of their interests. There recently was a war the U.S. engaged in... where is that place? Oh, somewhere in the Middle East, which had nothing to do with U.S. interests at the time of its commencement, and has been defended by making huge, windy, and, and symbolic claims about democracy and the 'winds of freedom'. This particular war I'm thinking about is supported ardently by a small group of Americans who seriously think that we are at war with Islam.
So rolling out the diktat about what is "going to be determined" by what is a reversion to the Bad Matt, the Matt who thought we should "determine" Saddam Hussein's WMD hiding hash and invade Iraq - that's the name of the place! - four years ago.
You have to fight the Bad Matt. He might have helped, long ago, in some high school debate class or something, but he sucks as a political analyst.
Posted by roger | October 17, 2007 12:49 PM