Friday, October 13, 2006
<...>
Meantime, though, it's worth reflecting for a moment on the official stance of the United States government with respect to the Armenian genocide. If the statute being considered in France has debatable value, what are we to make of the official American position, which continues to resist using the actual term "genocide" to describe the liquidation of 1.5 million lives between 1915 and 1917. In a letter sent on 19 February 2000 to Edgar Hagopian and Vasken Setrakian of the Armenian National Committee of America, candidate George W. Bush offered the following uncontroversial observations, which he topped off with a simple pledge:
The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.
After his ascent to office, however, Bush carried on in the tradition of his predecessor, who had also -- after campaigning in 1992 on a similar pledge -- resorted to post-election vague phrases intended not to dismay the Turkish government. It has been 25 years now since an American president used the word "genocide" to describe the 1.5 million Armenian deaths that occurred between 1915-1917. Ronald Reagan was the last -- and in fact the only one ever -- to do so, which he did quite clearly on 22 April 1981. Every April 24, the date on which Armenians mark the commencement of the genocide, Bush has spoken of the "tragedy," the "calamity" of these "mass killings"; he has mourned the "bitter fate" and celebrated the "indomitable will" of the Armenian people. But he has carefully refused to use the proper words -- that is, the proper word -- on those days or any others.
I used to think this cowardice was merely strategic, a style of discourse calculated not to offend an important military and economic ally. I'm now convinced, though, that the vague annual rituals surrounding the Armenian "tragedy" are more than that. Genocide is in fact a legal category, with unmistakable implications for states who choose to invoke the term; by virtue of the 1948 Convention on Genocide (not ratified by the US until the mid-1980s), signatories are obliged to act to "prevent and suppress" acts of genocide. Clearly, to call the slaughter of Armenians "genocide" does nothing to alter the history of that period. The use of the term, however, does serve perhaps as a reminder that the United States knew about the events in eastern Anatolia as they were occurring -- they were widely and graphically discussed in the pages of the New York Times, for example -- and chose to remain silent. Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing even expressed his view at the time that the Ottoman policies were "more or less justifiable" given the "disloyalty" of Armenians within the realm. He did note, almost off-handedly, that the harsh treatment of the Armenian people might jeopardize the "good feeling" that existed between the Ottoman rulers and the United States.
linkOpinion Daily
An interview with former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Evans, who lost his job after referring to the Armenian genocide as “genocide.”By Matt Welch
April 24, 2007
John Marshall Evans, a career U.S. diplomat with extensive experience in Central and Eastern Europe, was sworn in as ambassador to Armenia in August 2004. In February 2005, Evans made a trip to California, the capital state of the Armenian diaspora. At three different meetings with Armenian-American groups, when asked about Washington's lack of official recognition of the 1915-23 Armenian genocide as a "genocide," Evans said some variation of the following: "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide."
Since this deviated from State Department guidelines, Evans was eventually asked to resign. Now the mild-mannered foreign service veteran is preparing a book about his "intellectual journey" that led him "rock the boat" of U.S. policy.
I caught up with Evans this March, a few days after he gave the keynote speech explaining his dissent to the second annual banquet for USC's Institute of Armenian Studies. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.
more06/07/2006
Today Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, requesting an explanation for the early dismissal of John Evans, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia.
Ambassador Evans reportedly used the term “genocide” early last year, in describing the atrocities inflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. Several American officials have used the same terminology in the past; however the Turkish government was sharply critical of the remarks.
“If history has taught us anything, it’s that when we see it we must call genocide by its name. There is no doubt about the genocide of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children, and the United States government should be straight about this piece of world history. It’s an outrage that a respected lifelong diplomat would be fired simply for speaking the truth. In 1990 I fought alongside Senator Dole to designate April 24 as a national day of remembrance so we could learn from this dark period and honor the memories of those Armenians who suffered,” said John Kerry. “The Ambassador and his career should not be made a scapegoat for this administration’s refusal to face the facts and strengthen the ties between our countries.”
Senator Kennedy said, “What happened in Armenia was genocide. No one should lose their job for stating the plain truth.”
Below is a copy of the letter:
June 5, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice,
We are writing to convey our disappointment over the apparent dismissal of the United States Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans. It is our understanding that Ambassador Evans will be leaving his post early, reportedly as a result of comments he made early last year.
In an exchange with Armenian American groups in February 2005 Ambassador Evans used the word “genocide” to describe the horrific atrocities that were committed against the Armenian people in 1915. We believe, and the reports from our diplomats at that time, make clear that genocide accurately described these events. Henry Morgenthau, then our Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, described these actions as a “campaign of race extermination.” Several U.S. officials, including President Reagan, have used the term “genocide” to describe what happened to the Armenian people.
Allegedly the Government of Turkey was dismayed by Ambassador Evans’ remarks and expressed this to the U.S. government. We would like clarification as soon as possible about Ambassador Evans’ premature dismissal after 35 years of exemplary service to the United States Government. We look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
John F. Kerry
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
