Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Bush Denies Armenian Genocide For Political Reasons

You would have thought that the American President would have wanted to keep a low profile on the international scene given his disastrous foray into Iraq.

Unfortunately George W Bush doesn't think logically like the rest of us.

With the US Congress intending to vote on whether the Armenian Genocide was, erm, a genocide, Bush has intervened to call on them to reject the move to recognise the killings as such.

The move by Congress relates to the forcible deportation and massacre of up to around 1.5 million Armenians by Turks from 1915 to 1917. To date 21 countries have officially recognised it as genocide.

However, Bush claims that it would do "great harm" to relations with Turkey if Congress passed the resolution, saying: "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings."

But don't kid yourself that Bush's reaction is due to him having completed some sort of in-depth historical analysis of events, leading him to conclude that it was not in fact a genocide. It's a little more than coincidental that America is currently reliant on Turkey as a key ally in its War of on Terror. Indeed, US Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice said that the legislation could provoke Turkey to withdraw its cooperation with the US on Iraq, and added: "The passage of this resolution at this time would be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East."

No mention of the facts or figures of the events of 1915-17 there. Just talk of another latter-day killing spree.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that 70% of US air cargo destined for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about one-third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq. He added: "Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will."

No mention of the millions of Armenians that died at the hands of the Turks there either, funnily enough. There's a bit of a pattern starting to emerge.

I suppose Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a couple of small fireworks.

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has gotten the USA into so much bother in the past when it comes to international relations. For Bush and many of his predecessors, it has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, but rather a question of what suits the American Presidency best. Morality and justice don't come into it. We saw the same sort of buffoonery during US interventions in Latin America in the 1970s. It seems that some people never learn.

Hopefully, with the Democrats having won control of Congress, they'll ignore the selfish rants of the Bush regime and do the right thing- it would certainly make a change from America's recent track record in relation to international affairs which have been abominable to say the least.


Anonymous said...

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Bush, for the first time, made a wise decision, and you can't appreciate that.
Do you think the US Congress gives a shit about the Armenians who were killed? No way. It's also for political reasons.

Conall McDevitt said...

Well done for highlighting this issue.


The Phantom said...

Bush has not denied the Armenian genocide. He opposes the foolish resolution by the US Congress, a public gesture that can only serve to enrage an ally in a dangerous part of the world.

Tony said...

Can't let a few million dead Armenians get in the way of your countries failed selfish foreign policy eh Phantom?

Genocides have been going on long before the word for it was even invented. It was a form of genocide against Armenians, likewise there was also a form of genocide carried out against the Irish in the 1840's. The Turks also quite rightly point out the massive slaughter of their people following successive defeats in the Balkan wars at the end of the 19thC and early 20thC.

The Phantom said...


Do you ever try to think before you say something?


This resolution was attempted years ago during the Clinton Administration. President Clinton talked sense into the House leaders, and it was tabled.

Resolutions like this would be counterproductive at any time in history. Publicly shaming a proud Turkish people would never be a good idea, not under any geopolitical set of circumstances.

I quite agree that what happened in Black 47 was a convenient genocide. But if some clown in the US Congress decided to introduce a bill stating that it was a genocide or to condemn Britain for that genocide, I'd come down on him like a ton of bricks.

What the hell would such a Resolution accomplish?


By the way, a check of history shows that the Kurds were very enthusiastic participants in the genocide against the Armenians. It allowed them an opportunity to try to curry favor with the Turks (see where that got them) but it did allow them to steal the homes and lands of their Christian neighbors.

Since learning this, my enthusiasm for the Kurdish cause has gone down a bit. Forgive me.