U.S. should call the genocide by its name

April 24, 2007
Burbank Leader

It is time for the United States government to put aside its apparent hesitance to offend Turkey and, for the sake of humanity, acknowledge what U.S. Ambassador to Ottoman Turkish Empire Henry Morgenthau Sr. was convinced of when he wrote his superiors in Washington back in 1915. Morgenthau wrote that Armenians were slaughtered by the thousands, beginning on April 24, 1915, when the Young Turk government arrested and began executing Armenian intellectuals.
[...]
Unfortunately, it's sometimes the most heinous voices that still echo.

It was Adolf Hitler who in 1939 asked, "Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?"

It should be us.

It's been more than 90 years, and the United States has not come to terms with what Argentina, France, Canada, Italy, Greece, Lebanon, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, the European Parliament, Uruguay and Armenia recognize: that the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks were more than the collateral damage of war.

The time is long overdue for the federal government to officially recognize that these deaths constitute genocide.

A "Week of Remembrance" culminates on Tuesday with the 92nd anniversary of this grim episode.

Locally, that means rallies and solemn remembrances, which local school clubs, city officials and organizations have so diligently put together.

Throughout the state and nation, it has meant marches for humanity and hopes that the first genocide of the 20th century will never be forgotten, and that lawmakers will acknowledge it. Many states, including California, have acknowledged it.

It is time for the United States government to put aside its apparent hesitance to offend Turkey and, for the sake of humanity, acknowledge what U.S. Ambassador to Ottoman Turkish Empire Henry Morgenthau Sr. was convinced of when he wrote his superiors in Washington back in 1915. Morgenthau wrote that Armenians were slaughtered by the thousands, beginning on April 24, 1915, when the Young Turk government arrested and began executing Armenian intellectuals.

Back then, the U.S. turned away from Morgenthau's pleas to intervene in what he said seemed to be a "systematic plan to crush the Armenian race." Neutrality was the U.S. mantra.

When the United States entered World War I in 1917, we refused to break ties with the Ottoman Empire, which had ordered wholesale deportation of thousands of Armenians, which led to more death.

That massacre has been documented by official records, Ottoman tribunal records, eyewitness accounts, missionaries, diplomats, oral histories of survivors and scholars' research.

Yet, three years ago, a day after the House of Representatives approved an amendment sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff that prohibited Turkey from using U.S. foreign aid funds to lobby against genocide recognition, Schiff was already feeling heat from Republican leaders to drop the issue.

"Turkey has been a reliable ally of the United States for decades, and the deep foundation upon which our mutual economic and security relationship rests should not be disrupted by this amendment," Reps. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement at the time.

To Schiff, the passage was a boon, effectively putting the House on record as saying that the genocide took place.

But the Bush administration opposed the measure, leaving Schiff and recognition supporters to write their annual letter to the administration seeking recognition.

Schiff's efforts continue. He has introduced the bill for the third time this year.

But recognition is elusive and stymied.

Only last year John Marshall Evans lost his job as U.S. ambassador to Armenia after calling the events of 1915 genocide. The State Department ordered a retraction of his statements and he was dismissed in September.

And in March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent a letter to chairs of Congressional committees opposing recognition of the Armenian genocide.

"I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms about this," Rice said in response to Schiff's questioning on recognition during a recent congressional hearing.

It's a hands-off approach — not unlike the U.S. neutrality of the early 20th century — that undercuts the call for recognition so many have struggled for. And it erodes this government's own credibility as it seeks the moral high ground in foreign affairs.

Two years ago, on the 90th anniversary of the genocide, Schiff wasn't all that optimistic about the chances of recognition, citing a fierce Turkish lobby against it and the U.S. government's own desire not to offend an ally of the United States.

But there's cause for hope.

The strong Turkish lobby remains, having the ear of both sides of the political aisle, but with new leadership in Congress, pro-recognition leaders hope this year may be the one in which recognition comes.

If not?

"It would be a great setback," Schiff said. "If not now, when?"

Modern-day Turkey should not be punished for the sins of its forefathers.

But too many have died, and too much time has passed, for the United States not to recognize those sins.

We've come close. President Bush in 2001 recognized the "forced annihilation of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the closing years of the Ottoman Empire" — a statement that met with disappointment for its ambiguity.

Recognition should not be political.

If it comes, it will only make us stronger and more credible in speaking out against atrocities, wherever they are, regardless of its political expediency or benefit. And in a world in which violence and division seem more rampant than ever — right down to our own communities — a strong, moral voice against them was never more needed.

Unfortunately, it's sometimes the most heinous voices that still echo.

It was Adolf Hitler who in 1939 asked, "Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?"

It should be us.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.