By Weekly Staff on October 8, 2014
San Francisco, Calif. (A.W.)—Pulitzer Prize winning New York
Times columnist Nicholas Kristof told Michael Krasny, host of KQED radio’s
Forum program, that Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told him in no
uncertain terms that he did not believe what happened to the Armenians was
genocide, during the show’s Oct. 7 broadcast. Answering a question from a caller about the Armenian
genocide, Krasny said, “It’s worse than denial—I had the Turkish ambassador on
and he said there was no genocide, literally. Not only there was no genocide,
it was trumped up, it was conspiratorial.” Kristof, in turn, said, “President Erdogan has told me that
to my face, invited me to look through Ottoman archives. The sense of denial is
extraordinary.”
Kristof, who is also the co-author of A Path Appears:
Transforming Lives, Creating Opportunities, is partly of Armenian descent (his
father was an Armenian from Romania), and has written on the topic of the
Armenian Genocide in the past.
In 2010, in a column titled “Speaking Not as an Armenian,”
Kristof wrote: “…I do think the evidence is clear that genocide is the right
word for what happened, and that’s why I always refer to it as the Armenian
genocide. It’s also true that Turkey has a problem acknowledging its brutality
toward both Armenians and Kurds, although it has also gotten much better about
this in the last decade. I’ve discussed the issue with Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan a couple of times, and he is light years ahead of his predecessors (and
still a few light years behind what is needed).”
Kristof’s aforementioned column argued against Congress
passing resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, suggesting that instead, “We
should be trying to nurture Turkey further along its path of conciliation
toward Armenians and the Kurds. Smacking them—even for real historical
sins—isn’t a great way to do that. Anybody who thinks that diplomacy is about
telling the truth doesn’t know diplomacy.”
In his columns, Kristof focuses on human rights abuses and
ongoing atrocities around the world, hoping to mobilize international, and
particularly U.S. efforts to stop them. His advocacy surrounding the Darfur
Genocide is especially noteworthy. He has cited the Armenian case, and the
world’s inaction in the face of those atrocities, in his calls for action.
________________________________________
Speaking Not as an Armenian…
By Nicholas Kristof
March 5, 2010 4:11 pmMarch 5, 2010 4:11 pm
Congress has invariably refused to take any serious measure
against genocide while it is underway. So is it progress that the House Foreign
Affairs Committee voted yesterday to condemn the 1915 genocide of Armenians? Is
it worthwhile for Congress to deal with genocide at some level, even if it’s 95
years late?
First, a few requisite disclosures. I am partly Armenian (my
father created Kristof out of Krzysztofowicz, which was a Polonized version of
Hachikian, a good Armenian name). My ancestors were in Poland and Romania, not
in the Ottoman empire, so there are no
family stories about the genocide. But I do think the evidence is clear that
genocide is the right word for what happened, and that’s why I always refer to
it as the Armenian genocide. It’s also true that Turkey has a problem
acknowledging its brutality toward both Armenians and Kurds, although it has
also gotten much better about this in the last decade. I’ve discussed the issue with Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan a couple of times, and he is light years ahead of his
predecessors (and still a few light years behind what is needed).
The problem is that I don’t really see what business the
1915 genocide is of Congress, especially at a time when it can’t address so
many urgent problems of today. If Congress starts getting derailed by looking
at past iniquities, it’ll never get to present business. And it’s not as if the
resolution will help Armenians anywhere. On the contrary, the backlash will
probably harm the recent thaw in Turkey-Armenian relations, which really was an
important development for the region. That Armenian-Turkish reconciliation is
something that Congress could have passed a resolution to support.
Politicians, Barack Obama included, often talk when in
campaign mode about the Armenian genocide, because they want Armenian-American
votes. But in office, they try to kill these resolutions rather than
gratuitously offend an ally. That’s why Secretary Clinton passed word at the
last minute that the resolution was a bad idea.
Is it silly for Turkey to be offended by the resolution?
Yes, but we’d probably be offended if all of Europe started passing resolutions
denouncing our 19th century genocidal policy toward Native Americans, or our
early 20th century quasi-genocide in Philippines. We should be trying to nurture Turkey further
along its path of conciliation toward Armenians and the Kurds. Smacking them —
even for real historical sins — isn’t a great way to do that. Anybody who
thinks that diplomacy is about telling the truth doesn’t know diplomacy.
Already today, I’ve had a couple of emails saying that the
real story here is that Israel is trying to punish Turkey for its harsh
criticisms since the Gaza invasion of late 2008. (According to Ha’aretz, Israel went from
opposing the resolution to neutral.) That narrative is likely to take hold in
the Islamic world and encourage the fundamentalists and nationalists in
Turkey. Bolstering Turkish nationalism
doesn’t sound like the best way to honor victims of the Armenian genocide.
So if Congress wants to pass resolutions, why doesn’t it
pass one condemning United States passivity in 1915 as the genocide was
happening? Our embassy in the Ottoman Empire was sending back cables making
clear the scale of the slaughter and pleading for action, but President Woodrow
Wilson didn’t want to get involved. So before we go and muddy waters abroad,
some self-criticism might be useful
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.