« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Armenian Genocide, the President, and the truth.

On April 22nd, 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation in which he asked the American people to commemorate the “solemn anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.” In doing so, he noted the other horrifying acts of 20th-century barbarism that preceded and succeed the Holocaust, including “the genocide of the Armenians before it.”

No American President since Reagan has had the simple courage to do the same. The Armenian Genocide that began 95 years ago today in 1915 — a historical fact uncontested by the mass of serious historians — is now a forbidden topic to the leader of the free world. It’s a risible state of affairs made possible by the intersection of three factors: Turkish determination to promulgate its national mythos in our own country, a misunderstanding of the American national interest, and a failure of American political courage.

In this as in so many things, President Barack Obama is not showing himself the courageous leader Ronald Reagan was.

In mid-March, the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee attempted to stiffen the President’s spine on the public mention of the Armenian Genocide, with the narrow passage of House Resolution 252. The resolution “calls upon the President … to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.” It’s what candidate Obama proclaimed he would do in a speech exactly one year before his Inauguration, when he explicitly said, “[A]s President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

Add this to the lengthening list of Barack Obama’s broken promises. The day of the House Committee’s vote, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a plea for the resolution’s defeat; and since its referral to the full House, she has said that the Administration will “work very hard to make sure it does not go to the House floor” for a full vote. Barack Obama himself is ignoring the pleas of those Americans who believed in him, and today, as the New York Times puts it, he “marks the [Armenian] genocide without saying a word.

In just over two years, the President has gone from electioneering champion of historical truth, to its adamant opponent. Why?

The proximate cause is Turkish outrage, which has taken an all too familiar course: following the House Committee’s passage of the resolution, the Turkish Ambassador to the United States was recalled, and Ankara issued dark hints of consequences to come. Turkish nationalism is a thorny and multilayered thing, born in the humiliations of the Ottoman Empire’s long decline, and solidified in the deliberate, decades-long eradication of non-Turks from modern Turkey. It’s a process that began with the Armenian Genocide, and finds its modern expression in the repression of the dwindling Greek community of Istanbul, and specifically the Ecumenical Patriarchate — and in the intractable Kurdish problem of Turkey’s southeast.

The unfortunate reality is that Turkey objects to naming the Armenian Genocide because the social and political paranoia that birthed it are current now. This is by no means true of Turkey’s increasingly modern, informed, and Western-oriented middle class. Intellectuals like Orhan Pamuk and Taner Akçam have led the way in honest engagement with their national past. These baleful impulses nonetheless inform and override Turkish policy.

The next cause of the President’s flagging moral courage is a profound misapprehension of American national interests as they pertain to Turkey. (This is surely not the only example, nor even the most damaging, of the President’s misconceptions of our national interest: but it is among the most morally appalling.) The conventional wisdom is that the United States needs Turkey far more than Turkey needs the United States. In this narrative, assiduously promoted by Turkey’s lobbyists in Washington, D.C., Turkish influence in the Islamic world plus the NATO airbases at Adana and İncirlik are indispensable assets to American foreign policy. These are indeed tremendously valuable, and not to be dismissed. Yet realization of their worth must be tempered with realism.

The truth is that the U.S.-Turkey relationship is more valuable to Turkey than it is to the United States. Turkey’s perennial aspiration to European Union membership is abetted by two major factors: its membership in NATO, and the persistent friendly advocacy of the United States. American loans, aid, and financial assistance have been useful to Turkey at various points in the recent past. Not least relevant is the immense benefit that accrues to Turkey’s military with the American strategic alliance. Simply put, though the end of the Turkish-American alliance might make American foreign policy difficult at points, it would outright transform for the worse Turkey’s place in the world.

This is all hypothetical: were the Armenian Genocide resolution to pass, and were the President to abide by it, the Turkish-American relationship would not end. We know because there’s precedent. Twenty-one nations officially recognize the fact of the genocide, and they include countries of major importance to Turkey like NATO allies — and hoped-for fellow E.U. members — France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Turkey maintains full and fruitful relationships with each.

The United States should not be frightened into complicity with genocide-denial over fears of a rupture that isn’t in Turkey’s interest, and has yet to happen with any other nation.

The final reason for the President’s change of heart is a plain failure of political courage. Why fight over this, and why fight now? Why not simply take the path of least resistance? Turkey is large, Armenia is small, and Armenian-Americans are well used to disappointment. Why not sell them out? It’s realpolitik, after all.

I submit that this is a betrayal of the best of the American spirit. We’ve had enough of this President’s realpolitik that leads the America to abandon the United Kingdom over the Falklands, spurn Poland over missile defense, humiliate Israel over nearly everything — and now silently comply with the remaining Big Lie of the last century.

Our nation was founded in an affirmation of fundamental truths about the nature of man. It ill befits us to assent to a lie. The fight over the Armenian Genocide resolution may seem a small thing, but it speaks directly to who we are as a people. Are we, as Thomas Jefferson said, an “empire of liberty” — or just an empire?

Ronald Reagan understood this. That’s why he called the Armenian Genocide what it was. And that’s why the House of Representatives should vote on and pass H.R. 252 — despite the President’s objections, and perhaps even because of them.

—- Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman and a Republican candidate for United States Senate.

COMMENTS

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The Armenian Library and Museum of American is just outside Boston. I’ve stopped by there out of curiosity and researched the Armenian Genocide. They have pretty good stuff and support national exhibits.

    http://www.almainc.org/calendar.html

  • aesthete

    Assemblyman (and I hope, future Senator) DeVore. I do, however, have to disagree with you on this issue: government recognition of the Armenian is pointless, IMO: the Armenian Genocide is taught about in our history books, condemned by public figures, and is in no danger of being unrecognized by general society (besides those who have never heard of it, anyways). A Congressional vote for the same will not raise awareness among Americans, and as such, seems symbolic, at best.

    You mention that Turkey has maintained relations with the 21 countries which have had their legislative bodies recognize this travesty: this is true, but is tempered by one thing: none of those countries have military forces stationed in Turkey, or need of their logistical support. They have all of the cards, and Turkey has none. While it may be true that we have more to offer Turkey than they have to offer us, the truth is, they do have things to offer, including logistical and political support for our military (particularly our USAF) presence there. Anything that imperils our servicemen’s access to air support should be closely scrutinized, and pure symbolism isn’t worth the potential cost, IMO.

    • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

      Obviously I work for Chuck DeVore, but I’ll speak purely for myself here.

      It is unfortunately untrue that the Armenian Genocide “is in no danger of being unrecognized by general society.” To the contrary, there is a longstanding and active — and somewhat successful — Turkish-government effort to cultivate genocide-denial in American academia and policy circles. It’s something we’d never tolerate from, say, Germans, the Khmer Rouge or Rwandan Hutus: but Turkey gets away with some rather extraordinary (and, from the POV of Turkish national interest, frankly unnecessary) things.

      In this light, an American Congressional resolution would affirm a historical truth that is very much under direct assault, at the direction of a foreign government, in America.

      On your second point, that recognizing the Armenian Genocide would “imperils our servicemen

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • aesthete

        It’s true that the closing of Incirlik would not directly affect air support (as a logistics and airlift base, there’s not much fear of that), but it is critical to logistics for all of the branches. I would also point out that Incirlik was never completely closed down (non-NATO operations were shut down, though). It seems to me that our use of the base for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars makes damage to Turkish-US relations due to symbolism a noble impulse best left as an impulse. That said, I was not aware that the Turkish government funded a whitewashing of its history in the US: that, and the other points that you eruditely make, temper my stridency in opposing a measure condemning the Armenian genocide. Also, I didn’t know that DeVore is a Lt Col in the Army Reserve: his stock’s just gone up in my book, and I might just have to make another donation on account of that knowledge. Thanks for the enlightening post.

        • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

          I don’t fault anyone for putting the needs of our warfighters front and center. This is, to my mind, the only good reason for thinking long and hard before spiting Turkey on anything.

          If it helps, the example of the 2005 K2 airbase closure in Uzbekistan is instructive. We could have avoided that, of course. But we didn’t. And our war in Afghanistan continues despite the predicted difficulties.

          We didn’t avoid losing K2 because, if I may say so, we’re America — not just great, but good.

        • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

          This SPLC article is inaccurate on several points involving political contributions, but is otherwise a good introduction — if not the last word — on Turkish-funded genocide-denial efforts within the United States.

  • JadedByPolitics

    and once again he LIED, yeah he sure is a different kind of politician, he is the kind that LIED about everything he said.

    “As a senator, and then as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama often talked about how bold he was to call the slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire just what it was: a genocide.

  • spainishirish

    This cowardice also emboldens the Islamists who periodically threaten to destabilize Turkey. Good luck with your Senate run; we need politicians with a good grasp of history and policy.

  • conscious

    “No American President since Reagan has had the simple courage to do the same.”

    So George W. Bush and Obama are in the same boat. Wonder why this post ignores that?

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    “No American President since Reagan,” is another way of saying, “Neither George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, nor Barack Obama.”

    See how that works?

    Of course you do.

  • conscious

    This post was meant to put all the blame on Obama.

    “In this as in so many things, President Barack Obama is not showing himself the courageous leader Ronald Reagan was.”

    George Bush apparently was not like the courageous leader Ronald Reagan. You don’t hear that here though.

  • spainishirish

    “Add this to the lengthening list of Barack Obama

  • janis

    Because you are bound and determined to make sure that we all get your point, that you are quite peeved at us for attempting to dent your little tin messiah. I won’t disappoint:

    He’s a bum and a coward and a thug and liar.

    Satisfied? Yeah, it was good for me, too.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    If you’ve mastered it, we can start talking about changing past Presidents’ actions.

    If.

  • cringinghere

    Now, if the US had done this, CommieObamie would have declared it the worst genocide evah and would have been apologizing for the evil USA with every breath.