Two resolutions, one introduced in the House in January and in the Senate in March, seek to recognise the events of 1915 as genocide, but the passage of either could jeopardise the US’s political relationship with Turkey. The resolutions are pending approval from committees in both houses.
Turkey, as an American ally, has allowed the US to use its military bases and has played a significant role in American efforts in Iraq. Both the Bush administration and the Turkish government have condemned the move, and though the resolutions are non-binding, if passed, they could be interpreted by Turkey as acts of hostility.
Turkey, in its quest for EU membership, has denied that what happened between 1915 and 1923 to the country’s Armenian population is genocide. Some things, however, are undisputed: in 1915, during the rule of the Ottoman Empire, authorities forced the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Turkey’s 1.75 million Armenians. The estimated number of Armenians that died ranges between 300,000 and 1.5 million.
The Armenian National Committee of America is one of the most outspoken campaign groups in support of the resolution. ANCA spokeswoman Elizabeth Chouldjian said the issue at hand is a moral one. ‘America needs to be on the right side of the issue,’ she said. ‘Not characterizing genocide as genocide is dangerous. We have to take every precaution to end the cycle of genocide.’
The hope, she said, is that if the US recognises the killings as genocide, Turkey would be forced to take a more open and honest approach in re-examining its history.
‘Recognition is not going to change the facts of what happened, but it can certainly relieve the emotional burden on Armenians and other victims of genocide,’ said Ronald Suny, a professor and historian at the University of Michigan. ‘We think of recognition as the first step of clearing the air and letting historians and politicians deal with the issue.’
But Andrew Finkel, an Istanbul-based journalist, said that the issue of addressing Armenians’ sense of injury and grievance won’t eradicate problems that hinder a discussion from taking place within Turkey. ‘It would provoke a tit-for-tat counter reaction,’ he said.
In fact, he said, a US resolution would make the struggle for human rights and free expression in Turkey more difficult. Within this overtly political debate lies the question of historical accuracy and historians’ and scholars’ ability to have open discourse about contentious issues within the country. Free expression in Turkey is curbed by draconian articles in the country’s penal code, but pressure from the US won’t effect the sort of change that the country needs. ‘The more important resolution is that Turks themselves face up to their history,’ Finkel said.
The Bush administration takes a similar stance. The state department has said the administration doesn’t want to politicise an issue that should be resolved through discussion within Turkey. On 11 April, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said: ‘The United States doesn’t deny any of the killings. They’re an established historical fact, but historians need to discuss the details of what happened, why it happened, who did what. This needs to happen, and it needs to happen as a process of genuine national reconciliation.’
To date, 38 states in the US and 19 countries worldwide have officially recognised the genocide. The resolution in the House of Representatives is pending a decision from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the resolution in the Senate is pending in the Committee on Foreign Relations.
