If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Condolezza Rice calls for denial of Armenian Genocide
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
from the Beeb;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm
Condolezza Rice is calling on the House Foreign Affairs Comittee to reject a resolution confirming and condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-17.
Her reason? Perhaps lacking evidence? Perhaps new evidence to absolve the Ottoman Caliphate of responsibility? No, she is arguing that it would make US Foreign policy decisions in the Middle East 'very problematic'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm
Condolezza Rice is calling on the House Foreign Affairs Comittee to reject a resolution confirming and condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-17.
Her reason? Perhaps lacking evidence? Perhaps new evidence to absolve the Ottoman Caliphate of responsibility? No, she is arguing that it would make US Foreign policy decisions in the Middle East 'very problematic'.
0
Comments
Only to a pedant.
Not officially recognising something as genocide is to suggest that genocide didn't happen. If it did, then what is the problem with officially saying so...?
Just don't say anything to upset them?
It's bollocks.
We have very little to lose by (rightly) condemning Mugabe. Strong relations with Zimbabwe's government aren't important. Whereas with Turkey it's a different story. That's how it is, it's hypocritical but foreign policy usually is.
Ok, so you have stated that this accusation is false; meaning it is disprovalble and therefore untrue. I would argue not, heres why.
The conditions of a Genocide to have, or have not occured in this case are taken to mean the UN defintions of Genocide stemming form the post-WW2 trial of former Nazis. If we use this definition, and compare it to the evidence for and against this criteria being met, we find that there is far more rigourous evidence in greater abundance to affirm that it is indeed, true according to the UN definition. So up to this point we can state that whether or not something of this nature took place is fairly uncontroversial.
Now if we look at what denying such an event would mean; it could of course be something like coming out and saying "it did not happen", which of course she has not done literally. It also means that when formal recognition of a truth is put forward, if it is opposed then by implication this would seem to be an attempt to state that this is false.
What you raise here is an important question (more so if I may be blunt than if I have read the article, which I hope to have demonstrated that I have).
You raise the notion of 'Realpolitik', or a situation in which conventional notions of truth and the legitimacy of affirming truth are less important that particular concerns, interests and immediate circumstances. This raises a third possibility; Unacceptable Truth. Where do you stand on this?
Incidentally, this was the reaction of the Washington Post to the story;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001110.html
Similarly the quote from Bush was;
So the question is; what is 'right' now? If we abandon the rule elementary logic, as we seem to have done concerning evidence and the right to speak in light of evidence of a particular event, what are we left with?
Truth as Power, in my opinion. I understand (and actually do take seriously) the concern that you raised over whether or not in the long run this will be a good thing for people; my point is that I think it will not be, because while in the short term it may appease Turkey, the damage done to the International Relations and Governance, which must be based on shared doctrines of rights and responsibilities to exist, will be massive.
Do you want to live in that world?
Personally I do not, and i think that statements backed by evidence have a right to be affirmed, not just when convenient, when they pertain to violence and subjugation of human beings. Therefore, by denying the Genocide the right to legitimacy they are denying its seriousness and sacraficing it to pragmatism; by denying its fundamental seriousness they are denying its truth.
Keeping good relations with Turkey to discourage them launching cross border raids in iraq to go after Kurdish rebels is probably more important than mouthing meaningless platitudes.
The strategic significance of Turkey is an interesting point though; i would argue however that this condemnation of the Genocide would not have directly resulted in attacks against the Kurds (they still want to join the Eu after all). Anyway, in purely strategic terms the Americans could still isolate the Kurds and turn them into an enemy, thereby co-opting the more valuable Turkish.
The Turkish have little reason to piss off the Americans either; the secular Turkish state is one of the prize Turkeys of the Islamist movement, and site of the last Caliphate, so American support is essential to their security anyway.
Well one of the ideas that's usually claimed in foreign policy (US as well as UK) is best interests of the country. Though quite what condeming a genocide in 1915 actually does is beyond my ken. Perhaps a better start would be to condem those who claim current genocides aren't genocides rather than quibble over historical actions.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.html
I don't think it directly will result in attacks either. But indirectly it sets a tone of hostlity within Turkey to the West and makes attacks more likely.
But there's very limited support for radical Islam. even the current Government isn't radical - its islamic in the same way as the German Christian Democrats are Christian. They might want the right for women to wear Islamic garb in Government buildings, but they're not even suggesting that they have too or that it's wrong if they don't.
If the US and Turkey fall out, its unlikely that Turkey is going to fall to radical Islam anytime soon. But there is a greater chance of Turkey deciding to launch attacks into iraq if they and the US are no longer friends
Yes, unequilocally yes. But that doesn't mean we shouldnt think about this as well; never suggested a question of priority - nor for that matter that I wasn't interested in Darfur. But no, the main point, yes, Darfur is definately priority (although it clearly isn't, if you know what I mean).
Partially this is has been because the security forces have been very good at stamping on radicals, and partly because one of the root causes of Radicalism historically, i.e: Colonialism and the Post-Colonial era (look to Egypt, Iran, Iraq for examples of this).
At the moment there is a major nationalist ferment in the country; this is a ferment that could easily be turned toward a pan-Islamism if provoked. Either that or the repression wrought by the state could counter this but end up setting itself up as target number one for sporadic Jihadi attacks.
partially, but also partially because Turkey (despite it's faults) is relatively wealthy and Westernised. But also the security forces operate in an atmosphere which is pretty anti-radical Islam - there's no real evidence that the security forces are sitting on a powder keg of radical violence and more evidence that they have to sometimes deal with individuals (or small groups)
I'm not sure there is a particular nationalist ferment. there's certainly anger towards the Kurd (and specifically against the militants that have killed some soldiers recently), but I see no evidence that's going to turn to radical Islam. In fact the nationalist fervour of the Moslem Kurds (who were repressed by the state) tended to be directed towards the Marxist PKK, rather than radical Islamism