• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!

To be or not to be...a genocide

Should US congress pass a non-binding resolution on the Armenian genocide?


  • Total voters
    58

Che Guava

The Juicy Revolutionary
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,955
Location
Hali-town,
Should the US congress pass a motion naming the Armenian, uh, 'incident' of 1915 a genocide? Is it right? Is it in thier interests?

US to debate Turkey genocide bill

A key US congressional committee is to debate whether to classify as genocide the deaths of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians between 1915 and 1917

Turkey - which strongly denies Armenian claims that the killings amounted to genocide - has warned of "serious consequences" if the bill is passed.

Ankara has threatened to restrict US access to a key military base used for its operations in Iraq.


Arms deals between the two countries could also be cancelled.

The bill must pass in the foreign affairs committee before it can be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Even if it passes and is then adopted by the House, the bill would not be binding.

Mood hardening

But the BBC's Sarah Rainsford, in Istanbul, says such a nuance will have little impact on the reaction in Turkey.

Ankara has pulled out all the stops to prevent the genocide resolution reaching Congress for a vote, she adds.

Politicians have travelled to Washington to lobby lawmakers, while the country's prime minister and president have both contacted US President George W Bush.

In his letter, Turkish President Abdullah Gul "drew attention to the serious problems that will emerge in bilateral relations if the bill is adopted," his office said in a statement.

An official government statement warned of the possibility of demonstrations and "other manifestations of anti-Americanism throughout Turkey" if the bill is passed.

Turkish political analyst Iltier Turan said the government in Ankara could feel obliged to act if the bill is approved.

"Any Turkish government will be compelled to demonstrate very concretely to the Turkish public that the Americans' unfriendly gestures are countered by equally unfriendly and punitive gestures on the part of Turkey," he said.

All this comes on top of mounting anger that the US is not doing enough to counter the Kurdish separatist PKK, which mounts deadly attacks on Turkey from inside Iraq, our correspondent says.

Long campaign

Ankara rejects Armenian claims that the deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians from 1915-17 amounted to genocide.

Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed, but says the deaths were a result of widespread wartime fighting in Turkey during World War I.


Armenians have long campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide. Some countries have done so.

Last year Turkey cut military co-operation with France after the French parliament passed a bill to make denial of the Armenian genocide an offence - even though it never became law.

If the US bill is approved, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi may allow a vote on the floor.

However, it would have no binding effect on US foreign policy, and similar bills in 2000 and 2005 were blocked by senior US politicians.


link

And breaking news from our favourite ivory-tickler:

Rice warns against Armenia bill

The Bush administration has urged the US Congress not to pass a resolution declaring the massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire to be genocide.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates made a joint appeal hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ms Rice said the passing of the resolution would be "very problematic" for US policy in the Middle east.

link

So, should the US pass a bill like this? Even if you do consider what happened to be genocide?

Poll coming, pay close attention to the options!
 
Eh. I heard Bush saying he was opposed to such a bill because it's not up to governments to decide that kind of thing.

This issue made for a very heated debate in France too, where there are quite a few Armenians.
 
I'd rather congress focus on binding laws and resolutions that are directed at ... I don't know.....maybe America. The congress is not the UN.
 
Yeah, live and let live seems like a good approach, unless a genocide is actually happening. I think every nation has to come to terms with its darker past on its own...
 
Yeah, live and let live seems like a good approach, unless a genocide is actually happening. I think every nation has to come to terms with its darker past on its own...


So it wouldnt bother you if, say Saudi Arabia, declared WW2 not to have ciontained a holocaust?
 
There is a difference between being bothered by such a statement from Saudi Arabia, and have the US congress legislate about it.


Fair point, but the US govt is engaged in foreign business as well as domestic. Every govt is entitled to engage in world issues, and to me a genocide is practically the biggest issue going. One of the few times I've recently said hats off to any branch of the US govt was when I heard this was in the works. hope Congress dosetn allow themselves to be swayed
 
If this gets passed, you better believe Turkey will invade Kurdish Iraq soon. they wont give a . .. .. .. . if the US dosent like it
 
So it wouldnt bother you if, say Saudi Arabia, declared WW2 not to have ciontained a holocaust?

No, that would bother me a bit, but the situation is hardly the same. I wouldn't appreciate Saudi Arabia 'legislating against' the holocaust anymore than America or France legislating against Turkey. As an international community, we have to stop genocides from happening and try to bring to justice those that perpetrated them, but in a case like the Armenian genocide, the only thing to do is for Turkey to come to terms with that chapter in history, and I don't think that the rest of the world making resolutions is going to help with that.
 
No, that would bother me a bit, but the situation is hardly the same. I wouldn't appreciate Saudi Arabia 'legislating against' the holocaust anymore than America or France legislating against Turkey. As an international community, we have to stop genocides from happening and try to bring to justice those that perpetrated them, but in a case like the Armenian genocide, the only thing to do is for Turkey to come to terms with that chapter in history, and I don't think that the rest of the world making resolutions is going to help with that.

Well, actually, consequences can be of some detterent. admitedlly, not a huge one. but if Turkey commits genocide, gains entry to the EU, and is percieved to have suffered no consequences, then how will you be able to tell any potential genocide in future?

Say a genocide begins to occur in country A. The EU, US etc, say if you dont desist were going in. Country A says, hold on Turkey did the same thing, got allowed into the EU, NATO, suffered no consequences. why are we being singled out? Detterent is the wrong word. but a lack of consequences is just disgraceful
 
But what consequences are those? From the non-binding nature of the resolutions passed, nothing, really.

I'm not saying that perpetrators of this kind of atrocity should get off scot-free, but you can't force a reconciliation. It seems to me that most turks do consider this event a tragedy, they just dispute whether it was a full scale attempt at wiping these people off the earth. The same arguments that countries like Canada and the US use when talking about native americans.

In the end, no one who is really culpable is still around, and some day down the line Turkey is going to have to come to terms with this chapter. In the meantime, let's leave the the 'deterrence' to present day genocide attempts. THere's certainly no lack of them
 
non-binding resolutions are a waste of time.

Would you support an actual binding one? FOr eg, restrictions on trade until the genocide is recognized as such?
 
Would you support an actual binding one? FOr eg, restrictions on trade until the genocide is recognized as such?

How about a trade embargo until its ended. If its long been done then why bother. It would just be a waist of time better spent on things like tax reform and other important things to Americans. You know Americans the people who the US Congress should be working for. A trade restriction wont help any one.
 
Say a genocide begins to occur in country A. The EU, US etc, say if you dont desist were going in. Country A says, hold on Turkey did the same thing, got allowed into the EU, NATO, suffered no consequences. why are we being singled out? Detterent is the wrong word. but a lack of consequences is just disgraceful

Big difference here. The Armenian genocide happened in the early 20th century, 1915 IIRC. We're not talking about something happening currently that could be prevented.
 
Big difference here. The Armenian genocide happened in the early 20th century, 1915 IIRC. We're not talking about something happening currently that could be prevented.


Yeah but if you dont condemn one from the past, it makes the moral case for intervening in one in future harder
 
Yeah but if you dont condemn one from the past, it makes the moral case for intervening in one in future harder

I'm not so sure. How far should we go back? Every nation on Earth has its own tormented past made of genocide and mass killings.

Ultimately, should homo sapiens apologize for the disappearance of Cro-Magnon?
 
The only good that can come from a bill is a couple of congressmen getting more campaign funding from wealthy Armenian lobbyist groups. The issue of whether it's a genocide is of course, still in question. But a bill stating it as fact would only do more harm than good, especially in a time when the U.S. needs middle eastern "allies" (or, in that sense of the term, not countries who hate us)
 
Back
Top Bottom