Telling the truth about The Armenian Genocide is the best way to serve America's interests

In the hundred years that Armenians have mourned the Genocide’s martyrs and marched for justice, Turkey has exerted extraordinary effort to fabricate an alternate reality.

In the hallucinatory history taught in Turkish schools and peddled to the world by Turkey’s academic toadies, the Ottoman government evacuated Armenians from the path of war in 1915 for their own safety.

The resulting deaths are described as unfortunate—tragic, even—but unintended.

"As President, I will recognize
the Armenian Genocide" -- Obama 2008

There are two problems with this denialist fantasy. That it isn’t true is actually the lesser problem. The greater problem for Turkey is that even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter.

As Geoffrey Robertson points out in An Inconvenient Genocide, the very facts admitted by denialist scholars and Turkish officials would provide sufficient basis for prosecution of genocide under international law.

I cite Robertson’s book because he makes the case exceptionally well, focusing on facts rather than on the outcome. He avoids sensational but questionable assertions and sticks to clearly admissible evidence, which is fitting for one of the world’s most prominent and vocal human rights attorneys. 

The evidence he presents makes clear that the word “relocation” used in Ottoman directives was a euphemism for extermination. The brutal circumstances of the relocation of Armenians from their homes in Eastern Turkey is well documented in accounts by non-Armenian sources, including Germans working with the Turks.

Hundreds of thousands of people were marched without sufficient food, water or shelter into the uninhabitable Syrian desert. These haggard marchers were repeatedly attacked by thieves, rapists and murderers. Those who survived the journey were left to die in the sun, or burned alive in caves.

None of this is compatible with the fable that the evacuations were temporary. Even before these poor people were reduced to bones, their homes were seized and turned over to Turks or Kurds.

One of the most egregious fallacies repeated by denialists is that genocide cannot be proven without evidence that the government ordered the extermination of all Armenians. But as Robertson explains, forcing even part of a population into circumstances where most could be expected to die is genocide, and it cannot be legally (or morally) excused by the exigencies of war.

With that alone, the prosecution could rest its case except that there is no prosecution and there won’t be.

Armenia’s suffering gave birth to the very term genocide as well as to the international convention aimed at eradicating this most inhuman of human crimes, but it all happened too late to bring justice to Armenians.

Why is that?

In the wake of the First World War, Britain took the lead among the victorious powers in urging prosecution of war criminals. The worst offenders took off running. Turkish thugs sought refuge in Germany, while Germany’s Kaiser fled to the Netherlands.

As disappearing acts go, this hardly rivaled Houdini but it didn’t have to. Post-war politics and the nascent state of international law made extradition difficult even in the case of Turks who were convicted in absentia of involvement in the Genocide. Delay after delay ensured that all such efforts petered out within a few years of the armistice.

What makes this not only relevant but important so many years later is that America helped the bad guys get away with murder.

President Woodrow Wilson opposed creation of an international justice tribunal because it would violate the “sovereignty principle” that governments were responsible for punishing crimes against the people they ruled.

As related by Robertson, Wilson reasoned that Armenians “were Ottoman subjects, and their suffering at the hands of their own government would have to be punished by their own government – present or future – if they were to be punished at all.”

We know how that’s worked out—at least, so far.

Despite a century of disappointment and insults, Armenians are making real gains in achieving international recognition of the Genocide. Response to this year’s centennial commemoration has been overwhelming.

Turkey’s churlish attempts to draw attention away from the Genocide memorial in April fell flat while Armenia’s pleas for recognition generated a wave of support from around the world.

The European Union adopted a resolution recognizing the Genocide while urging Turkey to do the same. Pope Francis also called on Turkey to tell the truth, and he celebrated a mass in memory of the Genocide’s victims. The president of Germany, Turkey’s war-time ally, called the Genocide by its rightful name and admitted German complicity.

It is very nearly possible now to declare that no civilized nation tolerates Turkey’s lies and evasions. Unfortunately, there are two notable exceptions: The United Kingdom and the United States.

Both continue to avoid using the words genocide and Armenian in the same sentence. Contrast the courage of Germany’s president with our own President Obama, who broke his pledge to recognize the Genocide and turned down an invitation to attend this year’s Genocide commemoration at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.

Vice President Biden did attend. Like Obama, he was once a vigorous advocate for Armenians and for truth about the Genocide. But he sat in silence throughout the memorial ceremony and left immediately after. He declined to speak to the gathering or to exchange more than polite greetings with the president of Armenia.

This is very much in line with the Administration’s insistence on not offending a vital ally. American presidents have followed this crooked path to disappointment for  decades. Not long ago, for example, Obama thought he’d persuaded Turkey to join the fight against ISIS. Instead, it attacked the Kurds who were fighting ISIS.

Obama’s abandonment has been so disappointing that some Armenians have suggested there’s little point pressing this year’s presidential candidates for their position on the Genocide. I think it’s more important than ever given the momentum at work.

As an American, I certainly don’t want my country to become an outlier as the world evolves toward zero-tolerance for genocide. What’s at stake is much more than embarrassment.

If President Wilson had shown more gumption, the Armenian Genocide could have been a powerful and far-reaching force for international justice and human rights in the wake of World War One. Instead, Hitler was encouraged by the world’s passivity. Robertson reminds us of this with the cover quote: “Who now remembers the Armenians?”

He also reminds us that the truth of this quote is so powerful that Turkey and its denialist clients insist Hitler never said it. He did. You could look it up.

Unless, of course, you’re in Turkey.

Here's a radical idea for fighting terrorism: Stand up for freedom of speech. Or is that just too much to expect from our government?

Why did he apologize for telling the truth?

Vice President Joe Biden has apologized to Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for suggesting that Turkey helped encourage formation of the Islamic State terrorist network.

Biden created a fuss during a speech at Harvard University when he noted that the ranks of ISIS swelled as thousands of fighters crossed the border from Turkey to Syria. 

He said Erdogan conceded to him that this was a mistake and was now prepared to help America combat the ISIS offensive.

Biden's remarks drew swift condemnation from Erdogan, who not only denied conceding any such error but also denied the underlying facts.

As The Times put it, "Erdogan, despite widespread evidence to the contrary, denied that Turkey's long, porous border had enabled thousands of militants to cross onto the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields since the Syrian civil war began in 2011."

No one familiar with Erdogan's practice of inventing history and suppressing dissent would expect him to be deterred by the small matter of evidence to the contrary.

And no one familiar with America's mealy-mouthed policy toward Turkey would be surprised that Biden quickly backed down.

The Obama administration is trying very hard to persuade Erdogan to join the assault on ISIS (or ISIL or whatever they're calling themselves this week).

Instead, even as ISIS closes in on towns along the Turkish border, Turkey has ramped up attacks on journalists.

When the Times reported last month that Turkey continues to be fertile ground for ISIS recruitment, Erdogan's supporters took aim at the reporter. 

The Times noted that Ceylan Yeginsu, who is Turkish, received threats by email and social media. Two pro-government newspapers published front-page photographs of Yeginsu "and suggested she was a traitor and a foreign agent."

Erdogan's thugs showed disdain for America as well as for free speech when he met with Biden in New York on Sept. 25. Reporters from two Turkish newspapers that have been critical of Erdogan's government were evicted from the hotel and "manhandled" by Erdogan's bodyguards, according to Reporters Without Borders.

"Your existence is a crime," an Erdogan adviser told one of the reporters. 

Reporters Without Borders monitors media bullying around the world. It ranks Turkey a dismal 154th of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index.

Why would the vice president of the United States apologize for telling the truth about a regime with that sort of record?

Maybe we're just not the champions of freedom we used to be. Have we really become that scared, or that cynical?

I hate to think so, but I'm not so sure after looking at that index.

After all, we're only number 46.