As you may have heard, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the bill by a 27-21 vote which describes the killing of Armenians in the beginning of 20th century as "genocide".

Story here

White House lobbied intensely to prevent voting on this bill; they don't deny that the killing took place per se, but they don't want to anger a trusted ally which is so important to our military efforts in Iraq (every day thousands of US military supply trucks cross the border between Iraq and Turkey; American planes are stationed on Turkish Air bases; etc.)

Wiki has a very good article describing these historical events, listing the Turkish view as well. However, it is worth noting that outside of Turkey it is generally accepted view that genocide indeed has taken place.

Questions for debate:

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?

I am not that big of a fan of Congressional actions such as these. While this is a matter of extreme importance, it is not a matter of governing the United States.

This should have been recognized at the time and appropriate actions could have been taken then. Now we are labeling the events nearly 100 years after the fact.

But if the vote is held, I think clearly the vote should be to call the events a genocide.

I think the timing is very very bad for this. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a stupider time to make the decision to accuse Turkey of genocide that happened nearly one hundred years ago. I don't disagree that it qualifies as genocide, I simply think that at this moment it isn't relevant, and counterproductive.

The PKK has been launching attacks on Turkey from Kurdistan. Obviously we would like to prevent an escalation that would occur should Turkey launch and attack against the only truly functioning area of Iraq. Should Turkey choose to do so, IMO, it certainly has absolute moral and legal justification....but we should try to dissuade them diplomatically as this is the very last thing Iraq needs.



Oh, yes, now would be the time to bring up charges of 1915 genocide.

Would anybody ever even consider to not call the Holocaust a genocide because of some short-term political goals or ramifications?

This is an event which, despite the fact that it took place 25 years earlier, is similar in magnitude and horror to Holocaust. It appears that it is never "a good time", since the similar legislation was introduced in the House several times before.
We don't have a problem with recognizing Holocaust for what it is, and we still have Ramstein base in Germany and Germans themselves know their history and are ready to face it. It is not the problem with us; it is a problem with Turkey for refusing to admit its own past.

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?

What possible difference would it make? How does this affect the governing of our Republic in the Year 2007?

Yes, what occured in 1915 through 1917 was genocide. It also happened 90 years ago.

What can be gained by using the "g" word? Politics means getting along with people and making compromises. Diplomacy in this case dictates that we let the past go. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost.

I'll preface this by saying I live in what I think is the largest Armenian community in the US, Glendale, CA. I have no doubt that my congressman, Adam Schiff, probably had a hand in this resolution. He better have because he's one of the few elected officials around here that doesn't have an "ian" at the end of his name. In any case this is an issue that is extremely important to American Armenians. Every year in Glendale they mark the genocide with events that rival Memorial Day in other communities. So to some, it's a really big deal and it is indeed a spade.

Now as far as the timing of this is concerned and this talk of Turkey being such a "trusted ally" I would remind people here that it was Turkey who refused to allow the US to move the 4th Infantry Division across their border into Northern Iraq in the early stages of the Iraq War which might have changed things considerably. So if this so-called "trusted ally" gets their noses bent out of joint with this resolution, so what? It's about damn time we called a spade a spade.


Aquilla

Let's try from a different angle. What difference does it make what happened to African-Americans more than a century ago?
By recognizing the past, we look into the future. Recognizing slavery means a lot to the descendants of slaves, but it should mean a lot to the rest of the nation as well, despite the fact that it happened such a long time ago.

I've written about this very question on my blog here and here.

From EH's article: "Fueling tensions, Turkey's government will formally ask parliament next week to approve an incursion into northern Iraq to crack down on Kurdish rebels taking refuge there, according to a ruling party official."

What sentimental allies we have. Turkey may deal with its past however it likes; Turkish secularists can join the reality-based community as soon as they're ready, but while we feel entitled to condemn acts around the world, Turkey is fair game. Internationally speaking, this is a matter of prestige for Turkey. It's not about relative and/or absolute gains. Domestically speaking, this resolution may, may lead to questioning state legitimacy, but Turkish authorities decided to lie with dogs since tacitly supporting the military's right to "protect" democracy every time Muslims parties beat them at the polls. That's a hell of their own making.

The actions of Tom Lantos (D-CA), the only Holocaust survivor in the House, anger me. He's gotten himself arrested for protesting the Darfur crisis, calling it a genocide, but has voted against this resolution before we ever set foot in Iraq. Blogging on ThinkProgress, he wrote:


Some states estimate twice as many Armenians died.

There are Turkish groups inside the U.S. pressuring Congress and influencing neoconservative think tanks. Bernard Lewis was awarded the Irving Kristol Award in this year's AIPAC policy conference.


Muslims started a generational war of aggression as far as Lewis is concerned, but he denies the Armenian holocaust, downgrading the massacre to an unfortunate byproduct of war.

Turkey's state of denial is their own business. Turkey can block U.S. flights if it wants to, but I don't understand why anyone wants the support of a virtual junta trying to tie our hands over a resolution. Turkey, if it wishes to remain a secular state, will fight terrorism with or without engaging us. If we can invade Iraq and occupy a country based on faulty intelligence, why shouldn't Turkey defend itself against PKK incursions and return the favor?

We're not goading Turkey. We're not baiting Turkey. Congress is broaching the same subject it has tried to address for years, and every year the resolution is shot down in committee or in either chamber. The truth is it will never be a good time for Turkey as long as the state feels justified in promoting secular fanaticism, and the U.S. doesn't need Turkey's leave to draft resolutions that don't interfere with Turkey's sovereignty.

For starters, our government is the same one today. We legitimately have some splainin' to do. The government that did this in Turkey was destroyed long ago, its leaders executed. It was not a democratically elected government.

What can be gained by bringing up an almost 100 year old crime? It’s victims are long dead. Do the offspring/relatives remaining of those victims benefit enough to justify any risk (to our soldiers, strategic realignments to the UAE, ect, will cost us an arm and a leg) for the sake of a completely toothless, symbolic Resolution? Congress does not seem to fully internalize the real costs of its foreign policy decisions. This is why it endorses imprudent arms sales, and why it backs this resolution.

I agree, the timing is poor. The US and the world should have recognized the Armenian Genocide decades ago. I disagree about such recognition lacking any meaning. Only by constantly raising such unspeakable events can we hope to prevent there recurrence. After all, Hitler used the lack of world reaction to the Armenian massacre and US elimination of much of its Native American population as justification and arguments for why he could get away with his own massive criminality.

The point Mrs. P raised about the genocide taking place under the Ottoman government and not the government of modern Turkey is well taken. However, in light of current events it is worth noting that Kurds as one of the subject populations were used to do much of the killing of Armenians. One would think that these historical circumstances would make the current Turkish government and population less sensitive to the recognition of this historical horror.

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?

Yes. Because why? Because it was a genocide and if you turn your back on genocide, no matter that it was a hundred odd years ago or happening today as in Darfur, then your turning your back on the truth.

If this hurts Turkey, then so be it. Who are the Turks that deserve to be treated differently from the Germans? We must all face up to the truth of who we are and where we came from, and even if we refuse to repent or apologise for what happened in the past, that doesn't mean any one else is obliged to cater to our feelings.


Turkey still has victims. Its xenophobia is alive and well and killing people today.

More than anything else, this move tells the Turks that they cannot pretend or hide behind denial. Like all the other former colonial powers they too must bear the consequences and moral responsibility for what their nation did to innocent people. The Turks should look to their old allies the Germans for guidance, thank the United States for raising this matter, apologise and pay some form of token compensation to the Armenian people.

Moif, can you honestly relate to me any recent mass killings in turkey that were directly caused by xenophobia? You make some very pertinent points, but please don't overextend.

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?

History has always shifted to fit the political realities of those who keep it. Had Germany won its war, the Holocaust would be a mere blip in modern records, perhaps even a source of national pride. However, notice that because they lost, and the resulting power and PR void was filled by the group that they had oppressed; the Jews, the Holocaust is now one of the best-known genocides of the modern world.

So, why hasn't the armenian incident been treated the same way? Simple; we stand absolutely nothing to gain from armenia by telling its story. Can armenia support our actions in the middle east? Can armenia offer political, or economic aid? Is armenia possessed with the backing of several wealthy individuals and lobbies on capitol hill? Careful analysis suggests not...

Frankly, i do not see a vast moral choice here. I see the difference between pandering to a potential ally of no worth, and pandering to a potential ally who may contribute its own convenient uses in the future. The veracity of history, after all, is a rather insignificant thing compared to the survival and interactions of countries.

Someone please Nancy that the Ottoman Empire no longer exits and that there is no "official history", any and all claims to the contrary. Someone please tell her that and also that we have never passed any resolution re the American genocide of various and sundry portions of the indigenous population of a portion of "North America" and so if it's a matter of "denial" being the last stage of the genocide, well, then who are we to complain? And speaking of genocide, well, we're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz, because, because, because of all the genocide that he does:

"The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in later ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroism."

Pity that Goebbels couldn't have lived the life of L. Frank Baum and so after his advocacy of extirpation and genocide he writes a children's story and gets loved by many...and is that what some mean when they say that the winner writes the history?

Lastly, for one more small part of the acknowledgment and the history, someone please further tell Nancy for me that I'd like her to introduce for passage a resolution reading...WHEREAS, the Democratic Party and its armed insurgent wing, the KKK, engaged in terrrorist operations against United States citizens of African descent within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America for eighty (80) years...and tell Nancy lastly that until she does that, she ought to have the doubtful grace and remain silent...

On the 20th July, 1974, Turkey invaded and then deliberatly and sytematically ethnically cleansed Northern Cyprus.

The full story can be read at Wikipedia, but here are some interesting quotes for your reading pleasure:
Link.

And whilst were at it, lets not forget the Instanbul Pogrom of 1955 either...



...or for that matter the mass murder of the Pontic Greeks

Link.

Well, well, well, if it isn't a resident human rights advocate, KHT.


We acknowledged the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy with an apology resolution. In regards to Native Americans, there's a resolution in the pipelines but I'm not sure it's been passed:

Such a gesture falls in the tradition of acknowledgement of past behavior by the U.S. government such as the apology in 1988 to Japanese Americans put in detention camps during World War II and the apology to Native Hawaiians in 1993 for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1998, Canada apologized to its native peoples. Nothing in the pending resolution provides monetary compensation or reparations to tribes. The resolution is a formal apology, but the joint resolution notes that it does not authorize any claim against the United States or serve as a settlement of any claim against the U.S.


I'm afraid of saying you couldn't fail harder at sarcasm if you tried, cuz when you respond, you may surprise me. Though I guess I should thank you for keeping your post short.

Two years ago the Senate apologized for failing to pass any federal anti-lynching laws because of filibusters. Some states have introduced resolutions apologizing for slavery. It would be nice if Congress follows up.

I know you don't have a problem with resolutions commemorating the Jewish Holocaust 60 years after the fact.


It's not that simple. There are competing PR interests in the U.S. Bernard Lewis is an honorary fellow at the Institute of Turkish Studies. ITS' purpose is to counter Armenian activity on an academic level.

Could Israel offer political or economic aid without us subsidizing their economy and military?

This won't be the first time we tick off allies with a resolution. Section 907 of 1992's Freedom Support Act granted economic assistance to former Soviet states to bolster democratic movements, except for Azerbaijan. The Armenian-American lobby convinced Congress to keep aid from Azerbaijan because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict shortly after the Soviet Union's dissolution.

In 2002 Bush waived Section 907 so we could use Azerbaijan's airspace. If it annoys Turkey that much, we can find a way to accommodate their ego whenever we need the help of this "ally".

While being generally supportive of recognizing genocide as genocide, I stated without elaboration that the timing of this resolution was bad. Juan Cole, in Friday's Informent Comment does a much better job of putting the resolution into the context of our recent blunders than I could hope to.

I agree with him except the part about Congress passing the resolution at an inopportune time (it always is) and provoking Turkey to recall its ambassador.

We're not forcing Turkey's hand over a toothless resolution that will not affect U.S. military and monetary support for Turkey in any way. The military buildup along the border is months in the making. It's true we've largely ignored PKK incursions and helped strengthened sectarian figures around Turkey post-invasion. Political consequences affecting Turkey and other regional states were not enough to keep the administration from pursuing regime change. Turkey is all too happy to blame the decision to invade Iraq on this resolution. Cui bono?

The resolution as a last straw pretext is as flimsy as Bush's pre-invasion intelligence. We opened a can of worms by invading, but I will not add the resolution to the list because it upsets Turkey.

It's ironic that the military was prepared to stage another coup when Erdogan's AKP handedly won a majority in parliament—twice. Secularists were afraid he'd Islamify the country. Those same secularists probably think very highly of him at this moment.

The Secularists are afraid justifiably. Lesly, consider that 50 percent of the world's Kurds live in the relatively secular Turkey. Why do you think that is? Hint: They didn't originate there. In the caste society that is the ME, Turkey, for all its warts, is about the best system they could hope for. The Kurds are very low in the Islamic pecking order. Instill an Islamic society and what do you think would happen?

BTW, for what it's worth, the US government hasn't sat by and permitted (or as you phrased it 'ignored') PKK incursions into Turkey. Turkey has been working with both US and Kurdistan intelligence and launching strategic attacks on the PKK within Kurdistan already.

I've said before that Turkey's fears of an irredentist Kurdish movement are a real concern. Also, Turkey is not alone in that concern. I was just noting how a presumed non-secular prime minister is acting exactly as a secular prime minister would. Erdogan has warned Bush over the resolution. The Turks are certainly upset, but I don't believe they're really going to invade Kurdish Iraq over this for a moment. I give the political elites more credit than to believe in the tools they use to hold sway over a population.


Well, there goes their best premise. In the beginning we seemed to be doing little about the PKK.

Of course we should have recognized this genocide long ago, and should probably recognize it at some point. However, I have to question the intelligence of the Congress who thinks it is a good idea to pass this toothless, symbolic resolution at a time when more than 100,000 troops are fighting in Iraq using weapons and supplies that pass through Turkey. Then again, we shouldn't forget that it was Turkey denying our troops passage into Northern Iraq that allowed many of the Iraqi army to escape due to the lack of pincer movement during our invasion of 2003. The entire 4th Infantry wasn't able to deploy at invasion time, waiting as our dear leaders opened the checkbook promising aid, etc.

At best, it's our Congress being symbolic rather than doing real work.
At worst, it's our Congress attempting to subvert the war effort while painting themselves as human rights advocates.

Either way, we should do it some other time.

Wow, terrific discussion. This is what political forums look like at their best.

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?

I have mixed feelings on the matter. The negatives are obvious. We are sticking our finger in the eye of an ally whose cooperation we need and we are dredging up old history when our own history of genocide and slavery should be given more attention as should present(Darfur) and other more recent genocides. Is there a little bit of psychologically shifting the blame here?

On the other hand the Turkish government still refuses to acknowledge the holocaust its predecessors committed and maybe at long last they need a shot across the bow. I also notice that the president of Iran has been raked over the coals politically for holocaust denial. Should we take his comments out of the political process? Is our official criticism of him also an unnecessary distraction? Is one holocaust politically important and another not? How about our funding a certain country involved in ethnic cleansing. I smell a little hypocrisy here.

Finally our local SF Chronicle printed an editorial by two Californians Assemblymen, one a democrat and another a republican, of Armenian extraction supporting the resolution. Interesting that most of the following commentary opposes the resolution with some strong arguments. See what you think.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...6/ED0LSPCAQ.DTL

There was a good article in the NY Times a day or two ago, explaining how the denial of this is important to Turkish nationalism. After WWI, Ataturk and his allies managed to steer Turkey into independence, and avoid having it cut up by the British and the French -- as they were doing with the rest of the Middle East -- by forging a trans-ethnic national identity. One critical part of this was suppressing the Armenians, who had their own national aspirations.

The reality is a little more complicated than a 1944-style holocaust; there was killing on both sides. But it principle, the Turks did effectively commit murder on a mass scale. They are hardly alone in this, of course. Over a large span of U.S. history, for example, what was U.S. policy toward native Americans but genocide?

Ultimately, it never serves human welfare to deny what is true. Nevertheless, I am not sure why the United States Congress has decided that it should arbitrate this particular question. I was not aware that the truth became any more true, or that lies became less false (which is more often what is attempted), by being affirmed in an offical resolution of this institution. The resolution that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization was an even greater absurdity, for example. Another was the idiotic censure of MoveOn.org for its criticism of General Petraeus.

I would prefer that our representatives in Congress do more legitimate business and concern themselves less with pose-striking.



Oh yes, of course. The question is, what a declaration by Congress adds to any of this. Is the Congress required to affirm that the sun rises in the east, for example? Or, is there some anti-Turkish policy that will ameliorate the effects of this historical horror, embarkation upon which requires this declaration?

Lesly:

The fact of the attempted Nazi extirpartion of the Jews of Europe speaks for itself and so no resolutions are necessary. I would not otherwise rely on the resolution of any nation to establish any "historical fact" other than the fact of the resolution itself, as "politics" makes for exceedingly bad history. History is otherwise not decided by democratic voting procedures.

And if you want a dissenting voice, then please read:

http://www.meforum.org/article/748

And read also:

www.turkishcoalition.org/media/NormanStoneADL.pdf

I don't otherwise have an opinion on the matter, and I otherwise distrust the statements of all of those from the West, as we are Christians and the Turks Muslims and the one thing that I do know is just what the Western propaganda against the Turks has been been for hundreds of years. I also have a hard time with central planned genocide when we have a substantial Armenian population living and surviving in Istanbul, Izmir, and Aleppo. And, Lesly, if truth is the concern, then why the firebombing of the late Stanford Shaw's house? Is that how we want our history to be made? I otherwise rather doubt that Nancy and most of the rest voting in favor are even aware of any of this. And to leave you with the danger here:

"Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America in a videotaped interview for a documentary on the Armenian Revolt clucked: 'We don't need to prove the genocide historically, because it has already been accepted politically.'"

KHT,

The Middle East Forum is a neoconservative think tank, founded by Daniel Pipes, who likes to post the names of anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli academics online in his pastime. Norman Stone refers to Bernard Lewis, whose neutrality on the subject is a bygone conclusion as far as I can see, and Guenther Lewy, who seems to think the word genocide only works in the Jewish case. I traced your Ardouny quote back to a Pajamas Media blog post written by someone named TurkishDigest, where I was surprised to learn the Holocaust was "proven" in the Nuremberg trials. TurkishDigest is quoting Bruce Fein who, surprise, is a member of the Turkish Coalition of America.

Your best evidence is Norman Stone's bullet points. He raises questions that, frankly, I don't know enough about to counter. That said I don't understand why neoconservatives and Jews act as if they have a dog in this fight. Israel enjoys commerce with Turkey and Turkey is a transit point for Russian oil and other energy. Is it because Israel is being pressured?

The Jewish lobby in the United States has traditionally allied itself with Turkey, but Ankara was disappointed when an influential US Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), revised its long-held stance in August and said the World War I events amounted to a genocide of Armenians. Since then, Turkish officials have warned that passage of the Armenian resolution in the US Congress would harm Turkish-Israeli relations as well.

In an interview published in The Jerusalem Post yesterday, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said the widespread perception in Turkey is that US Jewish organizations have linked up with Armenian groups to "defame" and "condemn" Turkey and warned passage of the resolution would damage Turkish-Israeli ties. "All of a sudden, the perception in Turkey right now is that the Jewish people, or the Jewish organizations, let's say, and the Armenian diaspora, the Armenian lobbies, are now hand-in-hand trying to defame Turkey and trying to condemn Turkey and the Turkish people," Babacan said. "This is the unfortunate perception right now in Turkey. So if something goes wrong in Washington, it inevitably will have some influence on relations between Turkey and the US, plus the relations between Turkey and Israel as well."

He did not spell out what specifically he expected from Israel, other than to say, "What we have done is told them the problems, and it is up to them to decide what to do and how to help the situation."

Should we call spade a spade and officially recognize the events that took place in Ottoman Empire between 1915-1917 as genocide? If not, why?
[/quote]

This is an historical event. It will not go away. We can condemn it now, or 25 years from now. It will still be there. The reason we are addressing this NOW is what is interesting.

This is an attempt by Dame Pelosi to pizz off the Turks so they will close of our bases and kill our overflights to hinder our war effort in Iraq, in short to do indirectly what she has not been able to do directly with legislation introduced to cut off war funding or bring the troops home.

Lesly:

We can each call Daniel Pipes, and whoever, whatever we want, but unless we assume that Daniel Pipes and whoever must always be wrong, then we can't say that this perceived bias and/or that perceived bias makes Daniel Pipes and whoever wrong on this or that other particular point. I am otherwise certain that the flip side to this single is the argument from authority. I certainly wasn't relying on their authority, but merely offering a dissenting voice. The point of my response wasn't otherwise even about the merit of the matter, but instead about how bankrupt the exercise is. We had a vote. Do you know whether anyone's vote was what it was because UCLA professor Stanford Shaw had his house firebombed when he dared suggest another history? And, Lesly, who are the historians in favor? Or how many have the family name ending in -ian? So I'll be waiting for your word on the bias from the other side.

And do you prefer Robert Fisk?

"On 15 September 1915, for example (and a carbon of this document exists), Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Interior minister, cabled an instruction to his prefect in Aleppo about what he should do with the tens of thousands of Armenians in his city. "You have already been informed that the government... has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons living in Turkey... Their existence must be terminated, however tragic the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to any scruples of conscience."

These words are almost identical to those used by Himmler to his SS killers in 1941."

Now from someone else who thinks the Turks wrong as well:

"Of even that, I have some doubt. The congressional resolution repeatedly employs the word genocide, a term used by many scholars. But Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish emigre who coined the term in 1943, clearly had what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in mind. If that is the standard –– and it need not be –– then what happened in the collapsing Ottoman Empire in 1915 was something short of genocide. It was plenty bad –– maybe as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished, many of them outright murdered –– but not all Armenians everywhere in what was then Turkey were as calamitously affected. The substantial Armenian communities in Constantinople, Smyrna and Aleppo were largely spared. No German city could make that statement about its Jews."

Is Robert Fisk right? He certainly needs to explain why the "substantial Armenian communit[y] in...Aleppo [was] largely spared" if the order was extirpation without compassion, mercy or pity. I don't suppose that he has thought of that though. But we do have a community in Aleppo that is largely spared. Did the prefect in Aleppo refuse to comply with the directive from his superior, and if so, what does that say about the claim of some broad-sweeping "genocide" throughout the Ottoman Empire? In short, we must explain the Armenians of Aleppo in the context of claimed genocide.

Here's the links to the two excerpts above:

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article3052373.ece
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-...0,3218245.story

Now as concerns pressure that you mentioned, maybe it runs the other way:

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3308/1/J...e%92-resolution

And I am otherwise fairly certain that I know where the lie that Fisk repeats originates. With the Armenian Ambassador to the UK [ http://www.newstatesman.com/200710120004 ]:

"An entire nation and its Christian culture were eliminated to secure a homogenous Turkish state on territories where Armenians had lived for many centuries."

And so the Ambassador's statement of elimination explains the substantial Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmer, and Aleppo.

And can you see that he gave himself away? What "Armenian" nation is he talking about? Of course, his attitude re "nation" explains the armed revolt of certain Armenians who wanted their own nation and the subsequent efforts of the Ottoman Empire to eliminate that threat.

Now going back to documents, the reason why Fisk has to say that a "carbon" exists is that more than a few documents claimed to be authored by the Turk in question have rightly been recognized as forgeries. And so Robert Fisk must worry about forgery and so must make reference to a "carbon".

Now please note item (15) of the Resolution:

"(15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' and thus set the stage for the Holocaust."

The Nuremberg tribunal did not receive into evidence any such statement. And that's because Hitler didn't say any such thing. Look at what you are being asked to believe. 1939. Invasion of Poland. Was Hitler planning on exterminating the Poles, was that the plan? The Final Solution did not otherwise become "policy" until three years later at the Wannsee Conference. Item (15) of the Resolution seals the deal for me, as not only is there was no such statement received into evidence at Nuremberg, even worse, the attempted linkage is preposterous on its face.

All that I will otherwise say is that the Turks have an open archive and an offer on the table for a neutral committee of inquiry along with a promise to "take responsibility" for the resultant findings. The Armenians have a closed archive and reject a committee of inquiry as they claim to know the truth. What does that say? I'll let you decide for yourself what that says, but as for me, I am possessed of the very real suspicion that the Armenians are not afraid of being exposed as complete frauds [as mass killing of Armenians by Turks did occur], but are instead afraid of all that archival evidence that will show that in areas under their control, they did to the Turks as they claim the Turks did to them. There aren't otherwise many Turks still living in "Armenia" and I know that such isn't because they all went on holiday to the Bahamas and decided to stay there. So call some afraid that they won't have a moral leg to stand on once it comes out that their fathers were just as murderous as the fathers of some others. And, Lesly, just whose bones are these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acsn-De8vCQ

And from the Stanford Daily, a Turk's story of genocide:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2003/4/28/letters

And note this man's family pedigree, which includes Leonard Ramsden Hartill, who wrote, "Men Are Like That", which work details the systemic destruction of the Muslim population of Russian Armenia [Leonard is last on the list]:

http://www.russhartill.com/hartill_weblinks.htm

Now returning to the inquiry that Turkey is willing to accept but Armenia rejects, well, there otherwise ought to be plenty of evidence remaining, and not only in archives but in the ground as well. I mean, the Armenian claim of 1.5 million dead means 5,000 mass graves at 300 persons per mass grave. Do you have a shovel handy?

And, Lesly, speaking of pressure:

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2007092.../109250019/1013

And see also:

http://www.turquieeuropeenne.eu/article2155.html

Oh, and Lesly, the Turks don't get their history from their government, but from their grandmothers. And that's one reason why this resolution is misguided at best:

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=86170

Lastly, what do you make of this:

"28 March, 1921
Dr. James L. Barton.
14 Beacon Street,
Boston, Mass.

Dear Doctor Barton:
***
I see that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good. I feel that we should discourage the Armenians in this kind of work, not only because it is wrong, but because they are injuring themselves. In addition to the reports from our own American Relief workers that were in Kars and Alexandrople, and reports from such men as Yarrow, I have reports from my own Intelligence Officer and know that the Armenian reports are not true. Is there not something that you and the Near East Relief Committee can do to stop the circulation of such false reports? I was surprised to see Dr. McCallum send through a report along this line from Constantinople. When I called attention to the report, it was stated that it came from the Armenians, but the telegram did not state this, nor did it state that the Armenian reports were not confirmed by our own reports. I may be all wrong; but I can't help feeling that I am not, because so many people out here who know the conditions agree with me that the Armenians and ourselves who lend ourselves to such exaggerated reports are doing the worst thing we possibly can for the Armenians. Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way? Let us come out and tell just what the Armenians are and then show our sympathy and do everything we can to make the future of these people what it should be for human beings. I am sure that the mass of people at home believe the Armenians are Christians in action and morals, and that they are able to govern themselves. You and I, and others that know them, know that this is not the case. We believe that they have been made what they are by the conditions they have been compelled to live under, and we want to get them out from under these conditions so they can become Christians and able to govern themselves. But I cannot believe that right is ever produced by wrong-doing. As I have stated to Dr. Peet and many others, I believe that so long as we don't refute these false reports made by the Armenians, or don't come out and state the true facts in regard to the Armenian question, we run the risk of being accused of being party to this information. Dr. Peet and I had a long talk about a year ago along this same line, and I think as a result of it he wrote to you. I don't want to appear as being critical at all and you know that. But I do realize that we are human beings and when we realize the suffering of the Armenians our sentiments make us respond to our human instinct, and especially our American ideas of fair play, so that we forget, and even desire to conceal, the failings of the Armenians in order to obtain their release from the oppression of the Turkish rule. It may be that I am wrong in my idea that the best way to obtain this is by stating fully just what the Armenians are and what they are capable of and then tackling the whole job of cleaning up this Near Eastern mess.

I certainly was surprised to hear, from your letter, that there was a movement on foot to loan money to Armenia. I don't think that the question of money, or the amount of money, should enter into the question of assistance to the Armenians, but I do think that any money loaned to the Armenians under the present conditions is wrong. I do not believe in the loan to Armenia to be used under an American Commission unless the United States is prepared to furnish the troops and the means to maintain Armenia as a country and protect it against all aggression from outside. We have already loaned Armenia over 50 million and that money is lost. I recommend against this loan at the time. Another loan would be simply putting good money after bad.

As long ago as last July I reported officially to the Department that there [were] strong Bolshevik feelings amongst the Armenians and that many of the Army officers were Bolshevik in sentiment. I stated then it was only a question of time when Armenia would go Bolshevik. Armenia did turn Bolshevik and was not compelled to do so by the Russians, although they may have been influenced by Russian propaganda. The Bolshevik leaders represent one party, the Dashnaks represent another, and the National Democratic Party of Armenia represents another party. As far as I am concerned I can find very little difference between the party leaders of these different parties. While the Dashnaks were in power they did everything in the world to keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; by committing outrages against the Moslems; by giving no representation whatever to the Molokans which are a large factor in the population of the Caucasus Armenia; by massacring the Moslems; and robbing and destroying their homes; and finally by starting an attack against the Turks which resulted in a counter attack by the Turks, and then the Armenians deserted and ran away and even would not stand and defend their women and children. The acts of the Armenian army at Kars absolutely disgusted our Americans, including Yarrow. During the last two years the Armenians in Russian Caucasus have shown no ability to govern themselves and especially no ability to govern or handle other races under their power.

During over two years that I have been here in Constantinople I have had occasion to see nearly everyone of our Americans that have gone to, or returned from, the Caucasus, and I think I am safe in stating that I have never had one of them that believed the Armenians had any ability to govern themselves, and most of these Americans that have been working with the Armenians have come away disgusted.

I am not disgusted with the Armenians, and I pity them; but I cannot believe in the idea of the establishment of an independent Armenia in a country where not 25% of the people are Armenians. I do not believe the Armenians are able to govern themselves, and especially should not be allowed to govern other people; and certainly, if any of the other races here in this part of the country are under the Armenians, they are going to be submitted to oppression and outrage. I believe in helping the Armenians, but not in this way. I believe that if we come out and state all the facts regarding the Armenian question, and all combine, we can get the United States to help them. However, so long as we proceed along the present line I do not believe we will succeed because I don't believe it is right.

In regard to loaning the Armenians money without Armenia being under a mandate I believe this is an unjustifiable waste of money. For two years we have expended money in relief work for the Armenians and we supplied them flour on a loan covering over 50 million dollars. What is there to show for all this vast expenditure? There is nothing to show except ingratitude, and when an emergency arose, one of the greatest friends Armenia ever had and the one that had been working and giving his best efforts for relief work amongst them, had to depend upon the Turks for his own personal protection. It is a well known fact that in the beginning of our relief work flour and provisions turned over to the Armenian Government for the starving were taken by the high officials of the Government and sold for their own benefit. Then finally Armenia turned Bolshevik and repudiated all her debts; and one of these debts was for the flour we had furnished on their word of honor to repay, because they certainly had no security to offer. It was a sentimental loan based on faith in a people, and they have gone back on us.

You write that if the United States loaned Armenia money for her rehabilitation and for her protection of the boundary fixed by President Wilson the countries of Europe would be requested to protect Armenia from attacks from without. I am afraid you have more faith in European countries than I have. Thus far the European countries have protected none of the races in this part of the world. The fact is, in my opinion, the plans that they have been carrying out have resulted in greater harm to the so-called Christian races than if nothing at all had been done. I cannot imagine anyone believing that the European countries would do anything to protect the boundary of Armenia fixed by Mr. Wilson unless it was to their selfish interests to do so, and I do not see what selfish interests would be involved by our loaning money to Armenia. As regards the United Staes guaranteeing the protection of that boundary from within, I cannot imagine the United States ever consenting doing this. Such an undertaking would certainly be the best possible way of involving America in European entanglements; and still more, in my opinion such entanglements would not be justified. The boundary laid down by Mr. Wilson was certainly an arbitrary boundary and it was so stated in the report defining this boundary.

I note that you state Armenia at that time was an established fact so far as political recognition was concerned. I cannot understand this point of view because the Sevres treaty was ratified by no one and there was no possible hope of anybody ratifying this treaty. The determination of the boundary of Armenia was based upon a ratification of the treaty and in my opinion should not have been made until after the treaty was ratified. Probably there is no doubt that the fixing of this boundary brought about the attack upon Armenia by the Turkish Nationalists. Thus again Armenia was injured by the best intentions in the world. You will note that at the present conference in London the Armenians are being given practically no consideration. Another example of this is the withdrawal of French troops from Cilicia. You will see that in the end European Powers are going to do little or nothing for the Armenians. Therefore, I believe that we should not try to dicker with the European Powers, but come out in America with a fixed policy for the good of all races in the Near East. If we had adopted such a policy two years ago and worked steadily for it I feel certain we could have accomplished something. I haven't yet given up hope because I think it is too late. It is never too late.

I believe in starting a campaign and placing the Armenian and Greek situation before our people in the United States squarely and fairly, telling both sides of the story. The Greek propaganda in the United States has given our people a wrong idea entirely in regard to the Greek question. The European countries lend themselves to this misleading propaganda. The difficult situation that the European Powers have got into the Near East is due in my opinion to basing their action upon wrong-doing. There was no justification for putting the Greeks in Smyrna and this was borne out by a report of investigation which was as fair and square an investigation as was ever made. This report is in the State Department. The Greeks keep contending they have got a majority of population in the parts of Asia Minor that they occupy. You know, and we all know this is not true. Those who know the Greeks out here know that they are not in any war representative of the ancient Greeks that we all admire. In fact, they are just the opposite. I don't believe there is a single representative of a European Country in Constantinople that does not deprecate the occupation of Asia Minor by the Greeks. There is no doubt in the world that the support of this is simply upon the old principle of maintaining a balance of power in the Near East. I don't think there is any doubt in the world that if our people at home were made to realize this that they would rise up against any support of Greece by money or moral influence.

There is another fact that should be brought out and that is that the administration of Turkish law by the old Turkish Government and the Turkish Government that has existed for many centuries is a vile administration. This administration should never be allowed to continue, and yet European countries are proposing to reestablish a part of this country under Turkish rule with practically no guarantees for the minorities. The mass of the Turks are ruled by a few intriguing Turks that represent in Turkey, more nearly than anything else, the Manchus that were overthrown in China. These few Turks have a spattering of education and a moral character developed by intriguing and deceit. They have unlimited power which has debilitated their moral character so that they are not fit to administer any law. It is my opinion that America should come out against this horrible outrage of placing these people in power to administer the Turkish law over anybody.

The Near East is a cesspool that should be drained and cleaned out without any halfway measures. The idea of establishing an independent Armenia and placing the Greeks over a part of the territory is only creating what, with the new Turkey that would be established, three cesspools, instead of one. Therefore I beg you to use your influence and that of all those with you that I know have much influence in America to have our people in the United States fully informed regarding the Near Eastern question. Let us adopt a big policy and stand for it and do our best to get this policy carried out. I know that sometimes it is a good thing to take less than the ideal when that is all you can get. But I do believe in placing our ideal in full light of the day so that when you accept less than the ideal it is done with a full knowledge. I am not certain that America if she fully realized the big task in the Near East and at the same time could be made to see what a big opportunity there was for America to do, probably the biggest thing in the world for true peace, would not tackle the job. Our people like to do big things. Then too, I believe if they would take a mandate for the whole of the old Ottoman Empire it would not involve us in the European affairs as much as we are bound to be involved in the future if this Near Eastern question is not properly settled at this time. Still further, I am absolutely certain that any assumption of responsibility for a part of the old Ottoman Empire, like an independent Armenia, is bound to get us involved in European affairs and involved in a way that we could not justify our action because such a procedure is not based upon what is right and just. I agree with you that it would be more difficult for America to take hold now than it was before because we have been contaminated by this advocacy of Greek and Armenian claims and, in a measure, our reputation has been destroyed by the belief that we are working with the Allies of Europe, or at least supporting them in the schemes that they have been carrying out in the Near East.
***
With best regards,

Sincerely yours,

Mark L. Bristol
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER"

The timing of this resolution was just absolutely awful. We are engaged in a region where relations are tenuous at best, with Turkey. Why is that the case? Large segments of their population don't like us and the only thing resolutions like this accomplish, is to make secular leaders who support us, have that much more of a difficult job. This was poor leadership on the part of the democrats. I'm glad that some of them came to their senses on this and saw the White House's view. Nancy Pelosi only showed that she doesn't fully understand foreign policy matters in allowing this thing to even see the light of day. I also agree entirely with Charles Krauthammer, who wrote an interesting column regarding the resolution and it's ensuing debacle. If Turkey intervenes against the Kurds in northern Iraq, the lone, sole, area of peace, will no longer be at peace. Krauthammer also points out that no one under the age of 102 is in any way, guilty or responsible for what happened. Realist policy should dictate if and when a resolution likes this comes out, given the problems that we now have in foreign policy matters, resolutions and moralizing can wait.

This is a massive mis-step by Pelosi. She has a large contigent of Armenians in her District she was looking to appease. It's likely they made a fairly good case to her. She's so politically inept and so far removed from world poltics that she probably didn't understand the ramifications of her latest, pointless, pet project. While its much sexier for this to be a Liberal ploy to ensure defeat in Iraq so they can win in 2008 - it isn't. It's just a poor politician with far too little international poltics experience - frankly she shouldn't comment on anything outside her District.