Jackson Diehl has a column in today's Washington Post that poses the question, What's a non-binding resolution worth?
We've all heard the ruckus over non-binding resolutions on the war with Iraq. At times considered almost traitorous and at other times considered inconsequential, those resolutions are treated as simply the pontifications of politicians trying to ensure they get on the "right" side of the war.
But what about a non-binding resolution declaring that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against its Armenian population beginning in 1915? That, according to Diehl, is a more explosive topic.
The Armenian genocide which happened almost 100 years ago, is still very sensitive for both the Armenian communities in the United States and for the Turkish government. The one side wants a declaration of the atrocity, while the other side wishes to bury the past.
My thought is, Does having a non-binding resolution on a historical event from 100 years ago make sense? Does it have any positive results?
The Democratic Congressman bringing up the resolution, Adam Schiff, represents about 70,000 to 80,000 ethnic Armenians in his district. Certainly, the resolution is meaningful to them, and bringing up the resolution could be considered part of Schiff's responsibilities as their representative.
But what are the arguments against the resolution?
According to Diehl,
Imagine the 435 members of the House, many of whom still don't know the difference between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, solemnly weighing whether Schiff's version of events 92 years ago in northeastern Turkey deserves congressional endorsement. But the consequences of passage could be deadly serious: To begin with, Turkey's powerful military has been hinting that U.S. access to the Incirlik air base, which plays a key role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be restricted. Gul warned that a nationalist tidal wave could sweep Turkey and force the government to downgrade its cooperation with the United States, which needs Turkey's help this year to stabilize Iraq and contain Iran. Candidates in upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections could compete in their anti-American reactions.
No wonder the Bush administration as well as even Democratic-leaning foreign policy experts, such as Clinton-era ambassador Mark Parris, are trying to stop the resolution. Yet theirs, too, is a contorted campaign. After all, historians outside of Turkey are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that atrocities against Armenians worthy of the term genocide did occur. Though Congress may look silly with its "findings," the continuing inability of the Turkish political class to come to terms with history, and temper its nationalism, may be the country's single most serious political problem. Prominent Turkish intellectuals, including a Nobel Prize winner, have been prosecuted in recent years under laws criminalizing "insults" to Turkey -- such as accurate accounts of the genocide. In January a prominent ethnic Armenian journalist was murdered by an ultranationalist teenager.
This is certainly a serious international situation, one that could hamper our efforts in the Middle East. Is a non-binding resolution worth that?
|