(1) "killing members of the group"; (2) "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group"; (3) "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"; (4) "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"; and (5) "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So, the key is the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part," or in other words, the intent to "annihilate, or put out of existence." Therefore, the committing of any or all of these acts constitutes genocide only if done with such intent. By this definition, the Holocaust obviously constitutes genocide because the very definition of the word "genocide" seems to almost perfectly describe the Nazis' horrendous treatment of the Jews during World War II. However, describing what befell a portion of the Ottoman Armenians as genocide is tantamount to either refuting the credibility of the Holocaust, or paving the way to describing every kind of war casualty as genocide because "causing casualties within a group while internally displacing a portion of that group in the time of war, or causing unintentional civilian casualties within that group" is not a part of the "genocide" definition. Similarly, the exploitation of the UN convention on genocide to prosecute crimes retrospectively is contradictory to the very logic of law, if such a law had not been enacted with such a purpose in the first place, which, if it was, would jeopardize the credibility of all other international laws. Another matter of curiosity is the fact that then-Ottoman Minister of Interior Talat Pasha's controversial telegrams, which allegedly approved the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians, are the only evidence to certify such intention and that the very authenticity of those telegrams is still questionable and has yet to be verified.
One wonders if Reps. George Radanovich (R-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) paid attention to these nuances, or if they were even aware of these nuances, before they introduced the so-called Armenian genocide resolution, HR 106, in the House of Representatives. It would not be a surprise if they had not or were not because of what some would call the so-called Armenian genocide industry seems to have long been yielding lucrative profits for the resolution sponsors, the Armenian diaspora organizations and for Washington's lobbying establishment. Next month, the whole "Armenian genocide resolution" play is likely to be staged once again and to strain US-Turkish relations, thereby yielding lucrative profits for some while harming others.
Armenian diaspora and the so-called Jewish lobby
Within the Armenian diaspora, the proponents of the so-called genocide resolution think they simply have nothing to lose no matter how long they prolong their campaign against Turkey. After all, there are two likely outcomes. If the resolution does not pass Congress, and/or the US president does not mention the "g"-word in his annual speech commemorating the 1915 tragedies, then business continues as usual: The Armenian diaspora reaffirms its allegedly "underdog" status, portrays Turkey as an anti-democratic state incapable of facing its history and embarks on yet another year of intensive political campaigning, which in turn strengthens the diaspora's solidarity and creates lucrative lobbying opportunities.
If the resolution passes Congress and the US recognizes the so-called genocide, then the whole so-called genocide enterprise becomes an international business. Relying on the fact that the US government recognizes the so-called genocide, a US state or federal court or an international authority such as an International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor could take the issue to The Hague to prosecute the late Ottoman government for the alleged genocide and war crimes. Similarly, the proponents of the so-called genocide would try to convince one or more of the UN member states to take the issue to the International Court of Justice against Turkey. The ICC cannot rule for any reparations to be given to the Armenians because the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Turkey, as Turkey is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which founded the ICC. However, the mere existence of the ICC prosecution would bring, the Armenian diaspora thinks, satisfactory damage to Turkey's image. No need to mention that such an outcome would materialize, if ever, only after several decades throughout which lucrative lobbying opportunities would emerge, and Turkey would be forced to a series of concessions to the Armenians -- and not necessarily only to the Armenians. The Armenian diaspora organizations' unrelenting defamation campaign against the Turks and Turkey is somewhat understandable given the fact that the hatred of the Ottoman Empire -- if not of the Turks and contemporary Turkey -- seems to be the only factor binding the different factions and generations within the Armenian diasporas, and that the so-called genocide resolutions seem to be the most effective means for the political mobilization of the Armenian diasporas. However, some Jewish-American organizations' pattern of shifting loyalties vis-a-vis the so-called Armenian genocide allegations is confusing at best.
In his "Backstabbing for Beginners," Michael Soussan observes what used to be probably the most distinguishing characteristic of Jack Abramoff, Washington's legendary lobbyist who is currently serving a prison term for federal felony charges. Soussan suggests that potential clients would walk into Abramoff's office thinking that they had a tiny problem, and then walk out thinking that they were in huge trouble and that Abramoff was the only person who could help them out. From one perspective, what Abramoff used to do was just "business as usual," doing what any other Washington lobbyist would do. It also reflected general characteristics of the broader entity that Abramoff belonged to: what the two American scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt termed as the "Israel Lobby." From another perspective, what Abramoff used to do was not any different from what certain Jewish organizations do whenever a so-called Armenian genocide resolution is introduced in the House of Representatives. Simply stated, certain Jewish organizations in the US have taken advantage of these infamous resolutions to manipulate Ankara and make the Turks agree to what they might not otherwise vis-a-vis Turkish-Israeli relations. Although it would be unfair to assume that these Jewish-American organizations have simply been manipulating US-Turkish relations for the sake of Israel's interests, the continuous shift of these organizations' attitude toward Turkey that almost always occurs in parallel to the changes in the Turkish-Israeli relations makes one rethink the situation.
It seems like certain Jewish-American organizations -- and Israel indirectly through them -- have vastly benefited from the recurring waves of the so-called Armenian genocide resolutions popping up on the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs agenda every year around April. However, with the changing political and economic dynamics both in the US and Turkey, not only are such resolutions no longer profitable, but also what some may term "Jewish opportunism" may grow increasingly detrimental to the wellbeing of Jews in general.
One should be reminded of the fact that -- no matter how hypothetical a situation it is -- if the Americans turn cold on the Jews and Israel at some point in the future, the Turks are pretty much the likeliest, if not the only, people whose help the Jews can seek and possibly get. At least, that is what history teaches. With that thought in mind, the Jewish organizations in the West in particular and the world Jewry and Israel in general would be better off avoiding the shortsighted practices and policies that would alienate the Turks in the long run. Although seemingly a hypothetical situation at the moment, it has already been forecasted by many Jewish intellectuals in the US. Thankfully, despite the oscillating attitude of certain Jewish-American organizations, there have always been Jewish-Americans who have never wavered in their support for Turkey and for the improvement of the US-Turkish and Turkish-Israeli relations.
The US and the American people
Although the United States and the American people have always been victimized by the manipulation of the US Congress by certain interest groups, there have not been many -- if any -- scholarly studies that scrutinize the impact of the so-called Armenian genocide resolution on US interests. Some tend to make comparisons between the Ottoman Empire in its last century and the United States today. As the argument goes, in the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire introduced a comprehensive series of democratic reforms that intended to improve the political environment so that the non-Muslim minorities, a prominent component of which was the Ottoman Armenians, could become more politically active and take a role in the Ottoman administration. However, it continues, that certain militant Armenian groups such as the Tashnaks exploited this window of opportunity to pursue their own narrow interests, thereby contributing to the collapse of the empire. Similarly, as the argument goes, in the last several decades certain Armenian-American organizations such as the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which itself originates in the Tashnak movement, have been exploiting American democracy to pursue their narrow group interests, even though it gravely damages the US's image and interests.
Whether such a similarity exists is certainly something that their fellow Americans are to decide. However, one difference is certain: While within the Ottoman Empire numerous militant Armenian groups engaged in armed conflict against the empire, massacred some 800,000 Muslims and defected to the invading Russian army, such is not the case today in the United States. The only similarity is that Armenian terrorists such as Murad Topalian and his accomplices in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) inflicted terror on American soil long before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 by assassinating Turkish diplomats and attacking the American scholars who called for an objective investigation of the genocide allegations. While these terrorist acts deserve condemnation, they should not overshadow the fact that today there seems to be a sizeable peace-loving Armenian-American community that is as disturbed by ANCA as many Americans and Turks are.
What should Turkey do?
Turkish Ambassador to the US Nabi Sensoy recently commented that "the Turkish nation is ready to struggle altogether against [a possible passage of the so-called genocide resolution in the Congress]," and hoped that the US administration would understand the importance of Turkey, the meaning of this issue to the Turkish people and the harm it would bring to Turkish-American relations. More important than the US administration's comprehension of this is the American people's understanding of how such resolution and its concomitant political intrigues harm their country.
In this regard, by reaching out to the American people via ads in the major newspapers, Ankara should express Turkey's respect for the rights of Americans and for their representatives in the Congress to do what is right and rational, and what they believe serves the US's national interests. The ad should point out that Turkey believes that passing a controversial resolution in Congress recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide is neither right nor rational, nor does it serve US national interests. Nevertheless, it should assert that Turkey would respect it no matter how wrong, irrational and detrimental to the US interests that resolution would be. Moreover, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government should say what it can guarantee is that it would do its best in the aftermath of such a resolution to counter the Turks' rising discontent with the US and everything related to it, because Turkey is committed to the US-Turkish partnership. However, the AK Party government should clarify that it cannot guarantee that Turkey will be able to maintain its responsiveness to cooperation with the United States. The American people would appreciate the fact that, just like any other democratic nation's government, the Turkish government is bound by the preferences of its citizens.
Finally, the Turks should remain calm and enjoy the blessings of the Armenian diaspora's defamation of Turkey, because there could literally be no better justification and reason for mobilization than this continuous defamation effort for the Turks to reach out to the US Congress and the American people, introducing Turkey and all it stands for.
The author of the article Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst and author of the book "A Civilian Response to Ethno-Religious Conflict: The Gulen Movement in Southeast Turkey."
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
