Here's a mystifying episode in current events, but it's one that touches on a lot of reading I've done lately -- everything from "A Peace to End All Peace" to the suspense novels of Eric Ambler. Maybe someone here can help me make sense of it?

Turkey recalled (for "consultations") its US ambassador today, in reaction to a House committee resolution condemning the 1915-1917 genocide of Turkish Armenians. The resolution is non-binding, and will, itself, have almost no effect on Turkish-US relations, but the symbolism of the act seems to have strained the relationship between the two countries to the breaking point. Pres. Bush has been urging the House committee to set aside the resolution.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what's at stake here. Turkey has always controlled one of the most important waterways in the Middle East, and America might lose the right to transport in that region. Bush is also calling Turkey "a key ally in Nato and in the global war on terror" (which some critics might interpret along the same lines: oil). But what is Turkey losing here? How does the resolution effect that nation politically? True, while they do recognize that "mass killings" took place, they refuse to term those killings "genocide". But what's in a word? Particularly a word we're using to describe an event that almost no one living remembers?

(Check out these two articles at BBC.com for more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7040366.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7039506.stm)

At Rose's behest, I'm posting this summation, written in Dude, of the current turn in Turkish-American relations:

MadArchitect wrote:We're all like, "you know those millions of Armenians you killed about a century ago, we've decided to say that's bad." And they're like, "Yeah, it was." And we're like, "No, really bad." And they're like, "We know." And we're like, "No, dude, not good." And they're like, "We're recalling our diplomat for consultation and may not continue to extend right of transport through our waterways." And we're like, "Harsh."

I hope that helps to clarify.

There's national pride at stake Mad! The Turks tend to take offense on the basis that their boys weren't exactly treated well during the period either.

And let me assure you, the Armenians remember the genocide. In some European countries it is a crime to deny the Armenian genocide and at one stage it was a key issue in Turkey's EU accession talks. Eventually the issue was taken off the table, but the Turks would have rather turned down EU membership (and the potentially limitless funds that would have offered them) rather than admit that genocide is the correct term to use. It is very much a live issue.

But is national pride really the issue? And if it is, why is an event that happened 90 years ago such a threat to Turkish pride?

Well partly because it is an issue that never went away. It has been a constant feature of Turkish politics in every decade. Consider that an Armenian terrorist group took to assassinating Turkish diplomats over the issue during the 70s and 80s. They still don't have any real diplomatic relations with Armenia over the issue.

Earlier this year, a Turkish-Armenian who had been prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" because of his writings on the Armenian genocide was murdered by a teenage Turkish nationalist. The teenager was later photographed with beaming policemen on front of a Turkish flag. In the eyes of some Turks, he was a hero.

It is hardly a unique case. Consider the fact that the relationship between China and Japan is less than it could be because of issue relating to WW2. When a Japanese prime minister visits a shrine to his nation's soldiers who died during the period, Chinese public opinion is outraged.

In the US, there would have been considerable anger if Japan, France or Spain were to declare that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were crimes against humanity. And that would certainly be the case in twenty years time. Even today in Britain, there would be considerable opposition to any proposal to apologies for imperialist atrocities. It took the Catholic church centuries to apologise for some of its past wrongs. When people identify with any group, they tend to be reluctant to recognise the full extent of any wrongs that group might have committed in the past.

An interesting development, bet Bush wishes he hadn't been arguing that nations were entitled to attack other nations that act as safe havens for terrorists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7043170.stm

Two senior US officials have flown to Turkey hoping to stem a deterioration in the two Nato allies' relationship.

Eric Edelman, an ex-US ambassador to Ankara, and Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried are to hold talks with top Turkish foreign ministry officials.

The US has criticised Turkish threats to stage cross-border raids on Kurdish rebel positions in northern Iraq.

Ties have also been strained by a US congressional vote branding the killing of Armenians in 1915-17 as genocide.

The non-binding vote, approved by a House committee on Wednesday, prompted Turkey to recall its ambassador from Washington for consultations.

US President George W Bush had argued against the resolution, saying its passage would do "great harm" to relations with "a key ally".

Cancelled visit

Mr Edelman and Mr Fried had been accompanying US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Moscow.

Their diversion to Ankara was unscheduled, the AFP agency reported.

The dispute over the vote comes amid rising anger in Turkey about attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist group.

Last Sunday 13 Turkish soldiers were killed in an ambush in Sirnak province, close to the Iraqi border.

Turkey - which says thousands of PKK fighters are based in Kurdish-run northern Iraq - has announced preparations for a cross-border attack. It says it will seek parliamentary approval for a major operation next week.

The US administration has warned Turkey against launching an incursion into Iraq, and urged the two neighbours to discuss the problem.

Analysts say the resolution on the Armenian issue may make Turkey less receptive to US calls for restraint.

Turkish Minister of State Kursad Tuzmen on Saturday cancelled a visit to Washington.

Meanwhile, Armenian Prime Minister Serge Sarkisian is due to travel to the US on Wednesday.

Correspondents say the timing of his visit could cause further tensions with Turkey.

Ankara accepts there were mass killings of Armenians during World War I but denies genocide.

Turkey is a regional hub for the US military, and some suggest access to Incirlik airbase or other supply lines crucial to US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could be affected by the row.

The latest news is that the U.S. is putting its military on alert that it may have to transition all personelle out of air bases situated on Turkish land. This non-binding resolution is resulting in some serious reprecussions -- so many, I think it entirely likely that Congress might ultimately overturn it.

Someone is always trying to stir up shit. Almost 100 years have passed and now we're going to condemn the killings. What about all the genocide happening today?

Does anyone know who or what is fueling this? House Democrats?

MadArchitect wrote:At Rose's behest, I'm posting this summation, written in Dude...

Still funny the second time around.

But, I guess that was all a lot of brouhaha for naught.

Chris OConnor wrote:Does anyone know who or what is fueling this? House Democrats?

Yes, I'm sure it's as simple as all that. Fucking Democrats.

Personally, I blame the Turks. If they hadn't killed all those Armenians, we wouldn't be in this situation. Awfully inconsiderate of them.