Bush warns against Armenia bill

[FireGarden]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm

Quote:

President George W Bush has urged US legislators not to pass a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to be genocide.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," he said hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

[...] Turkey admits many Armenians died in WWI but denies any genocidal campaign.

So which historians say what?
I was under the impression that most historians had decided it was genocide. I realise that passes a judgement on the motives of the Turkish government at the time, rather than just the consequences of their actions.

If the majority of expert opinion calls it a genocide, then why shouldn't the US government follow their lead?

Or am I just wrong on what the majority says? Here's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogni...enian_Genocide

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm



So which historians say what?
I was under the impression that most historians had decided it was genocide. I realise that passes a judgement on the motives of the Turkish government at the time, rather than just the consequences of their actions.

If the majority of expert opinion calls it a genocide, then why shouldn't the US government follow their lead?

Or am I just wrong on what the majority says? Here's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogni...enian_Genocide

Because the US doesn't need to step on any more toes right now without some good reason. Telling the truth isn't always the best choice in politics.

[FireGarden]

Quote:

Because the US doesn't need to step on any more toes right now without some good reason. Telling the truth isn't always the best choice in politics.

Well, that's certainly a point worth consideration.

40 US states regard the killings as genocide, according to the wiki article above.

The UK does not.

[TragicMonkey]

Global warming isn't science, the Armenian Genocide was just a bar brawl, waterboarding isn't torture, black is white, and Bush is a moral leader. Apparently if you agree with the correct political party, all these things become true.

[Beerina]

This talks about something that happened 90 years ago. It serves no purpose but to make Turks feel bad about themselves and/or make them angry.

I have to wonder about the motives of those driving this at this particular time. Turkey has enough problems at this time with:

1. Trying to get into the EU

2. Kurdish areas in their eastern territory and over the border


I think we are all experienced enough to realize the timing probably isn't just coincidental. Remember that in science, you address the argument rather than the person. In politics, its exactly the opposite, with almost nothing being truly driven by the surface arguments.

[Thunder]

Bush needs Turkey to use as bases or for fly over rights for his upcoming attack on Iran. If he loses Turkey, it will all be a southern based attack.

[madurobob]

OK, I am reasonably convinced that this was a genocidal action. But, why is this something being debated by the US congress 90 years after the fact? Whats the point? Does congress have nothing better to do?

[Darth Rotor]

From the post title, I figured "Armenia Bill" was one of his cute nicknames, bestowed on one of his personal staff whose ancestors came from Armenia.

I don't need an act of Congress to tell me what the occurrences in Armenia in the first two decades of the twentieth century were. All I need is a library, or perhaps a good internet site.

What is the point of Congress doing crap like this?

DR

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This talks about something that happened 90 years ago. It serves no purpose but to make Turks feel bad about themselves and/or make them angry.

I have to wonder about the motives of those driving this at this particular time. Turkey has enough problems at this time with:

1. Trying to get into the EU

2. Kurdish areas in their eastern territory and over the border

Just as an experiment...change 90 to 62, Turks to Germans, and problems to (1) Unemployment and Neo-Nazis in the East and (2) Rising Turkish/Muslim population...seems to work just as well...

Quote:

I think we are all experienced enough to realize the timing probably isn't just coincidental.

Now here you make good sense. Listening to NPR on the way home today they talked about this, and pointed out that the folks pushing it have lots of Armenian-Americans living in their districts and with elections a year away, it never hurts to have a talking point. And NPR also noted this type of resolution has been opposed in the past by both Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past (IIRC, Reagan was the last one to use the word genocide and he quickly stopped that soon enough), who tend to value today's (anb hopefully tomorrow's) alliance with the secular Turkish government over the Ottomans' and the nascent Turkish government of 1919-20.

Press on.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This talks about something that happened 90 years ago. It serves no purpose but to make Turks feel bad about themselves and/or make them angry.

That is merely being ignorant. Acknowledging the genocide actually would have legal consequences -- compensation and the like.

[corplinx]

It certainly was genocide. Im wondering why the democrats feel the need to slap turkey in the face about it since it happened almost a century ago.

Foreign policy brilliance.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by corplinx

It certainly was genocide. Im wondering why the democrats feel the need to slap turkey in the face about it since it happened almost a century ago.

Foreign policy brilliance.

Israel never tires of reminding people of the holocaust. Given the inhumanity of that event, I can't say I blame them. I just think other similar events need publicising as well, like this genocide.

[NeoRicen]

Why does the government even need to worry about this issue.

[a_unique_person]

Why does it need to worry about the Holocaust?

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Why does it need to worry about the Holocaust?

Are you suggesting the US Congress spends large amounts of time worrying about holocaust?

[JoeEllison]

So, in about 40 years or so, we should start telling Jewish people to STFU about the Holocaust? Or is there something fundamentally less worthy about the Armenian people that someone can enlighten me about?

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's not Congress's job to dictate history?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by corplinx

Are you suggesting the US Congress spends large amounts of time worrying about holocaust?

No, but passing one motion about Armenia is not spending a lot of time worrying about this act of genocide either.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

That is merely being ignorant. Acknowledging the genocide actually would have legal consequences -- compensation and the like.

I for one admit to being ignorant.

How does the US Congress passing a resolution drive legal consequences? Who is going to sue whom in what court and how is that more likely to succeed in light of the resolution?

The article linked in the OP made this suggestion as well and I didn't understand it. Please enlighten me.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

So, in about 40 years or so, we should start telling Jewish people to STFU about the Holocaust? Or is there something fundamentally less worthy about the Armenian people that someone can enlighten me about?

What other events has Congress had a vote on as to whether they amounted to genocide or not?

I can find stories about Darfur and Cambodia. Any others?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

So, in about 40 years or so, we should start telling Jewish people to STFU about the Holocaust? Or is there something fundamentally less worthy about the Armenian people that someone can enlighten me about?

Not passing a bill on something is hardly the equivalent of telling people to STFU about it.

If Gurdur hadn't beaten me to it, I would point out that there may conceivably be legal ramifications of this bill, but whatever they are, I think they are outweighed by the political ramifications of it. And I do not know what the legal ramifications would be given that we haven't the authority to order Turkey to pay any type of reparation.

You want a perfect world in which all bad things are officially condemned? Go for it. Push your representatives to officially condemn France for its Southeast Asian colonialism, Spain for it's treatment of the Aztec and Inca, Britain for all its activities in India and Africa, and the United States simply for existing.

Or admit the fact that official labeling of a historical act can only have meaning in a political context and as such will have more political consequences than a fatuous moral self-elevation.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I for one admit to being ignorant.

How does the US Congress passing a resolution drive legal consequences? Who is going to sue whom in what court and how is that more likely to succeed in light of the resolution?

The article linked in the OP made this suggestion as well and I didn't understand it. Please enlighten me.

The consequences are real because the Turks are very, very sensitive about the subject. They arrested their Nobel Prize winner for just mentioning it. Something about "insulting Turkishness".

The Turks are very likely to close their airspace and use of military bases to Americans. Which would have an effect on the ability to support the troops in Northern Iraq.

I would be willing to go along with Bush on this except for the fact that I heard on NPR this morning, some Turkish official stating it never happened. It's one thing to downplay it, but to outright deny it happened is just too much.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I for one admit to being ignorant.

How does the US Congress passing a resolution drive legal consequences? Who is going to sue whom in what court and how is that more likely to succeed in light of the resolution?

The article linked in the OP made this suggestion as well and I didn't understand it. Please enlighten me.

At the risk of being flamed by others:

the USA has an interesting legal enviroment. Were the Congress to pass a resolution describing the 1915 Turkish genocide of the Armenians as a genocide, it could very easily encourage further steps of litigation driven by Armenian descendents (living in the USA) of those driven out of Turkey in 1915, with the aim of gaining punitive and other compensation for lost land and for the acts of gross violence. Since there are a great many official Turkish govt assets floating through the USA banking system, such moves would not be without potential effects.

There is also the big potential effect on USA financial, trade and military support of Turkey, also quite possibly affected.

BTW, Turkey literally spends millions in diplomatic efforts to head off just such resolutions; at this time Turkey is in a long diplomatic row with France, owing to the resolution passed through the French parliament, and it affects where Turkey buys its weapons from.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Garrette

.....I think they are outweighed by the political ramifications of it. And I do not know what the legal ramifications would be given that we haven't the authority to order Turkey to pay any type of reparation......

If you want my very quiet opinion on this (stop throwing bricks!), were the US Congress to pass this resolution, it would have a much bigger affect on the whole Middle East in the long-term than did the USA invasion of Iraq. That is just how big this whole thing is. I can well understand Bush and his pleas to Congress not to pass the resolution; I have zero sympathy for the Turks on this matter, but I can well see the point of view of those like Bush on this matter too. This is extremely big hot potatos, with many hidden side-effects just waiting to slowly explode.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

If you want my very quiet opinion on this (stop throwing bricks!), were the US Congress to pass this resolution, it would have a much bigger affect on the whole Middle East in the long-term than did the USA invasion of Iraq. That is just how big this whole thing is. I can well understand Bush and his pleas to Congress not to pass the resolution; I have zero sympathy for the Turks on this matter, but I can well see the point of view of those like Bush on this matter too. This is extremely big hot potatos, with many hidden side-effects just waiting to slowly explode.

There is no reason to stick our fingers in the eyes of the Turks.

(Full disclosure: I worked for a Turk for three years in a NATO job.)

Turkey as a mostly secular Islamic nation, and ally, is uniquely positioned to be an asset to regional security, and American interests in the Levant, as well as in the Trans Caucasus.

Turkey alienated from the US is strategically dangerous, at least at the regional level.

Turkey at odds with Europe is one thing, but if you add the Islamic party (note I did not say Islamist) gaining more leverage due to foreign nations being sold as poor allies, there is ample risk of Turkey turning Islamist.

That takes us back to 1699, roughly, if an Islamist Turkey can build a regional coalition of Islamist states that include Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.

Jacking the Turks around over special victim status is poor policy.

DR

[Starthinker]

I am just curious if any of you are Armenian? I'm not, but married into an Armenian family about 20 years ago and can tell you it's just another step in getting Turkey to even acknowledge that this even happened. In private, many Turkish officials will admit this happened but in public you can get yourself killed for even bringing the subject up. It's just a matter of being stubborn. Virtually all the Armenians I know have said that if Turkey, actually, just the current Turkish government, just admits it happened then peace would fall on these two countries.

As one of the articles I read stated, and I'm paraphrasing, it's not about condemming the Turkish people or it's current government, it's about condeming an act that happened in another time, by another group of people, so that the world can move on.

For the record, no Armenians I've ever talked to ever considered compensation or legal actions, for them it's just a matter of not being able to let go until it's officially recognized.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

At the risk of being flamed by others:

the USA has an interesting legal enviroment. Were the Congress to pass a resolution describing the 1915 Turkish genocide of the Armenians as a genocide, it could very easily encourage further steps of litigation driven by Armenian descendents (living in the USA) of those driven out of Turkey in 1915, with the aim of gaining punitive and other compensation for lost land and for the acts of gross violence. Since there are a great many official Turkish govt assets floating through the USA banking system, such moves would not be without potential effects.

I have difficulty beleiving that the US courts would be that politically insensitive. If the target was Iran then perhaps, but otherwise I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that any such case has ever been succesfully pursued against a US ally.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I am just curious if any of you are Armenian?

I'm not Armenian in the slightest, but I have had a lot to do with Armenian communities in Australia in the past, and I used to be able to speak and read a tiny bit of Armenian. I can still transliterate the script. Dunno if that answers your question.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

At the risk of being flamed by others:

the USA has an interesting legal enviroment. Were the Congress to pass a resolution describing the 1915 Turkish genocide of the Armenians as a genocide, it could very easily encourage further steps of litigation driven by Armenian descendents (living in the USA) of those driven out of Turkey in 1915, with the aim of gaining punitive and other compensation for lost land and for the acts of gross violence. Since there are a great many official Turkish govt assets floating through the USA banking system, such moves would not be without potential effects.

There is also the big potential effect on USA financial, trade and military support of Turkey, also quite possibly affected.

BTW, Turkey literally spends millions in diplomatic efforts to head off just such resolutions; at this time Turkey is in a long diplomatic row with France, owing to the resolution passed through the French parliament, and it affects where Turkey buys its weapons from.

Could there be any reparations? The genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire an entirely different entity than the Republic of Turkey.

I'm not up on international law and the responsibilities of successor states for the transgressions of their predecessors.

Could you sue Turkey for what the Ottoman Empire did?

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

I have difficulty beleiving that the US courts would be that politically insensitive. ......

*shrug*
Very little that could ever possibly happen in the USA would surprise me personally. Viewpoints like tastes differ.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Could there be any reparations? The genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire an entirely different entity than the Republic of Turkey.

The Bundesrepublik of Deutschland is a completely different entity to the Nazi regime of Germany 1933-1945. Nevertheless, the Bundesrepublik paid millions upon millions in compensation in various ways to Israel and to individual Jews over the last six decades.

Quote:

Could you sue Turkey for what the Ottoman Empire did?

Can't see why not. After all, they're hanging on to a fair few assets seized from Armenians back in 1915 etc.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

The Bundesrepublik of Deutschland is a completely different entity to the Nazi regime of Germany 1933-1945. Nevertheless, the Bundesrepublik paid millions upon millions in compensation in various ways to Israel and to individual Jews over the last six decades.

Wasn't that a condition of restoration of their own government? I'll have to look that up.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparat...d_West_Germany


Plus I don't think East Germany ever paid anything to Israel or anyone else.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Wasn't that a condition of restoration of their own government? I'll have to look that up.

It does not change my point in the slightest, does it? And fully answers your question. Despite the current govt/state of Germany being a completely different entity from the Nazi regime, they still pay compensation for Nazi acts. That answers your question fully.

Quote:

Plus I don't think East Germany ever paid anything to Israel or anyone else.

Eh, wrong, in principle.
There is a very old German joke on this:
the leader of West Germany and the leader of East Germany get together for talks on reconciliation etc.
The West German leader complains to the East German one,
"But we paid millions to Israel and you didn't!"
The East German leader replies,
"But we have been paying off the Russians all this time and you haven't!"

[Starthinker]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

I'm not Armenian in the slightest, but I have had a lot to do with Armenian communities in Australia in the past, and I used to be able to speak and read a tiny bit of Armenian. I can still transliterate the script. Dunno if that answers your question.

I only asked because I truly wonder if my experience with Armenians and the stuff I'm told by Armenians are typical. I'm not going to debate what congress is doing, it's a very tricky political position, I just wonder if anyone here was actually Armenian and would like to chime in.

Darth Rotor, you mentioned working with a Turk, is what I'm told about Turkish officials true? I've talked with Armenians from Yerevan who still have contacts in Turkey, which is where I've heard this.

In any case, my children will ask questions about this and I like to be just as informed about this as when they ask me about ghosts and bigfoots and Silvia whats-her-name. We moved out of lower Michigan, so they get as much exposure as I did the first 10 or so years when I married into the family. I haven't run across any Armenian farmers out here in Iowa.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

It does not change my point in the slightest, does it? And fully answers your question. Despite the current govt/state of Germany being a completely different entity from the Nazi regime, they still pay compensation for Nazi acts. That answers your question fully.

Eh, wrong, in principle.
There is a very old German joke on this:
the leader of West Germany and the leader of East Germany get together for talks on reconciliation etc.
The West German leader complains to the East German one,
"But we paid millions to Israel and you didn't!"
The East German leader replies,
"But we have been paying off the Russians all this time and you haven't!"

That's a beauty.

First time I heard that was from a German, late 1990's. He was still bitter that Bonn, his home town, was being replaced by Berlin as the capital of the reunited Germany.

DR

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That's a beauty.

First time I heard that was from a German, late 1990's. He was still bitter that Bonn, his home town, was being replaced by Berlin as the capital of the reunited Germany.

DR

Some Bonn people are wankers. Berlin deserves it all, all the hassle, traffic jams etc. Let Berlin suffer as far as I am concerned. Let all the govt * be shoved into Berlin, and long may it be graffitied over**.

* It still isn't; it's still something like a 30/70 % split between Bonn and Berlin.

** Graffiti is of course a strong Berlin tradition.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

If you want my very quiet opinion on this

I am skeptical of your ability to have a quiet opinion...

Quote:

were the US Congress to pass this resolution, it would have a much bigger affect on the whole Middle East in the long-term than did the USA invasion of Iraq. That is just how big this whole thing is.

I don't know how big it is or might get, but I agree with the sentiment that it is far bigger than a simple piece of paper getting enough votes.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Jacking the Turks around over special victim status is poor policy.

Absolutely. If Bush has any political capital left, I sincerely hope he spends it in quashing this.

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I am just curious if any of you are Armenian?

I am not. Nor do I know any. I have briefly met a few Turkish soldiers, but that is the entirety of my affiliation with either side.

Quote:

and can tell you it's just another step in getting Turkey to even acknowledge that this even happened.

As can be seen from the reaction already, it is not having this effect in the slightest. If that is truly the goal, then there are other tacks to take.

Originally Posted by Starthinker

It's just a matter of being stubborn.

How often does shouting "You're wrong! I'm right!" make a stubborn person stop being stubborn?

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Virtually all the Armenians I know have said that if Turkey, actually, just the current Turkish government, just admits it happened then peace would fall on these two countries.

How does this resolution work toward getting the Turkish government to admit it?

Originally Posted by Starthinker

As one of the articles I read stated, and I'm paraphrasing, it's not about condemming the Turkish people or it's current government, it's about condeming an act that happened in another time, by another group of people,

And the condemnation isn't real if the US government doesn't join in?

Originally Posted by Starthinker

so that the world can move on.

I submit that the world has moved on. At risk of sounding cruel and uncaring, it is apparently the Armenians who have not.

[quixotecoyote]

I have a simple plan.

a. The USA should stop doing evil condemnable acts.

while simultaneously

b. Recognize and condemn the evil acts of others.

Then I will be happier.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

It does not change my point in the slightest, does it?

It refutes it.

There is a difference between Germany choosing to pay reparations in exchange for the restoration of its government and (I suspect) out of an acceptance of guilt and the German government being legally obliged to pay such reparations.

[Starthinker]

Originally Posted by Garrette

As can be seen from the reaction already, it is not having this effect in the slightest. If that is truly the goal, then there are other tacks to take.

I agree that there are other tacks to take.

Quote:

How often does shouting "You're wrong! I'm right!" make a stubborn person stop being stubborn?

I don't know, you tell me.

Quote:

How does this resolution work toward getting the Turkish government to admit it?

Just another country to put pressure on. That's all.

Quote:

And the condemnation isn't real if the US government doesn't join in?

No, just makes it official.

Quote:

I submit that the world has moved on. At risk of sounding cruel and uncaring, it is apparently the Armenians who have not.

And, the Turkish government. Admitting the genocide would be the first step in the Turkish government moving on. Maybe you should tell all the peoples of the world that have been wronged that it's time to move on. Many wars and conflicts would end.