[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9679-9680]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   WHY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MATTERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tonight I plan to speak on the anniversary 
of the Armenian genocide; but before I do, I want to join my colleagues 
in expressing my sincere condolence at the passing of Juanita 
Millender-McDonald, someone who in my very first days of Congress 
impressed me as a courageous, intelligent, dedicated public servant 
who, every time I went to her for help on an issue in her committee or 
outside her committee, was generous with her time and her energy, 
always ready to help, always of good cheer, and someone that I think 
enjoyed the unanimous and bipartisan respect of everyone in this body. 
Her memory will be cherished; her presence will be deeply missed.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 92nd anniversary of the start of the 
Armenian genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House, 
along with my colleagues, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. 
Radanovich, that would recognize the Armenian genocide. This resolution 
should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian is one reason why.
  Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced 
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people. 
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes, and the rest of his family 
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold 
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
  Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but is not remarkable. Over a 
million and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the 
last century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a 
people it considered alien or disloyal. This mammoth crime was well 
known at the time. Newspapers of the day were filled with stories about 
the murder of the Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to Stop Massacres'' 
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing 
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000 
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December 
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
  Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our 
own National Archives. Prominent citizens of the day, including 
America's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and 
Britain's Lord Bryce, reported on the massacres in great detail. 
Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call sadistic orgies of 
rape, torture, and murder. ``When the Turkish authorities gave the 
orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death 
warrant to a whole race. They understood this well and made no 
particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
  Even those who most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a 
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that 
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian genocide as 
historic fact. And how could they not? For it was the Government of 
Turkey that in early 1919 held a number of well-publicized trials of 
some of the young Turk leaders and executed the Keimal Bey, governor of 
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's 
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials were as 
widely covered in the American press as was the genocide itself.
  So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit 
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny the genocide ever took 
place? First, opponents argue that recognizing the unpleasant facts of 
the genocide and of the mass murder risk alienating an important 
alliance with Turkey. There is no question that Turkey is bitterly 
opposed to recognition and is threatening our military and commercial 
relationship, including access to the Incirlik air base, but Turkey has 
made similar threats to other nations in the past only to retreat from 
them and the European Union's insistence that Ankara recognize the 
crimes of its Ottoman's forebears before Turkey is admitted to the EU 
has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm for joining the EU.
  If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely 
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext. The Bush 
administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with 
Turkey over the last 6 years that we have already seen the limits of 
the U.S.-Turkish alliance tested and found lacking.
  During the run-up to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to 
bring in ground forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to 
melt away and form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly 
enough, critics of recognition decry it as pandering to the victims, 
but are only too happy to pander to the sensibilities of an 
inconsistent ally, and one that has shown no qualms about accusing the 
U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
  Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and 
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters 
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk, 
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author, was brought up on charges of 
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish 
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in 
Istanbul earlier this year.
  Tomorrow marks the 92nd Anniversary of start of the Armenian 
Genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House that would 
recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian 
is one reason why.
  Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced 
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people. 
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes and the rest of the family 
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold 
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
  Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but not remarkable. Over a million 
and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the last 
century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a 
people it considered alien and disloyal. This mammoth crime was well 
known at the time; newspapers of the day were filled with stories about 
the murder of Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to stop massacres'' 
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing 
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000 
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December 
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile. 
Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our 
own National Archives.
  Prominent citizens of the day, including America's Ambassador to the 
Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and Britain's Lord Bryce reported on 
the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would 
later call the sadistic orgies of rape, torture, and murder. ``When the 
Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were 
merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this 
well, and . . . made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.''

[[Page 9680]]

  Even those who have most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a 
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that 
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian Genocide as 
historical fact. And how could they not--for it was the Government of 
Turkey that, in early 1919, held a number of well-publicized trials of 
some of the Young Turk leaders and executed Keimal Bey, the governor of 
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's 
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials, by the way, 
were as widely covered in the American press as was the genocide 
itself.
  So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit 
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny the genocide ever took 
place? First, opponents argue that recognizing the unpleasant fact of 
mass murder risks alienating our important alliance with Turkey. There 
is no question that Turkey is bitterly opposed to recognition, and is 
threatening our military and commercial relationship, including access 
to the Incirlik air base. But Turkey has made similar threats to other 
nations in the past only to retreat from them and the European Union's 
insistence that Ankara recognize the crimes of its Ottoman forebears 
before Turkey is admitted to the EU has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm 
for joining the EU.
  If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely 
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext; the Bush 
Administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with 
Turkey over the last six years that we have already seen the limits of 
the U.S. Turkish alliance tested and found lacking. During the run-up 
to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to bring in ground 
forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to melt away and 
form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly enough, critics of 
recognition decry it as pandering to the victims, but are only too 
happy to pander to the sensibilities of an inconstant ally, and one 
that has shown no qualms about accusing the U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
  Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and 
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters 
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk, 
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author was brought up on charges for 
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish 
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in 
Istanbul earlier this year. Yet some opponents go even further, such as 
a former Ambassador to Turkey who argued that the time may never be 
right for America to comment ``on another's history or morality.'' Such 
a ludicrous policy would condemn Congress to silence on a host of human 
rights abuses around the world. After more than ninety years and with 
only a few survivors left, if the time is not right now to recognize 
the Armenian Genocide, when will it be?
  But the most pernicious argument against recognition is the claim 
that speaking the truth would harm relations with Turkey ``for no good 
reason.'' How can we claim the moral authority to decry the genocide in 
Darfur, as we must, if we are unwilling to deplore other genocides when 
it would inconvenience an ally? Elie Wiesel has described the denial of 
genocide as the final stage of genocide--a double killing. If you don't 
think he's right, talk to Ghazaros Kademian. But you had better hurry.

                          ____________________