European Politics

Next Friday, it will be exactly 100 years since the start of the deportation and murder of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

On this day, also Germany will call the 1915 Armenian masscare 'genocide', for the first time.
 
It feels like the designation 'genocide' is being turned into a badge of honour, with a jury of world leaders and governments deciding over who deserves it and who doesn't. It's quite disturbing.
 
I assume the "badging" is not necessary if a country (its government) in question admits it.

For Turkey, 100 (!) years was not enough to be open and honest about it. I have no pity with people who are in such extreme denial.
On the contrary, I find these developments most satisfying, because there will be more recognition. That's good moral support for family/descendants (of friends) of victims.
 
Last edited:
The problem as I see it, is that this mincing of words has no effect whatsoever. The deed will not be undone. The people will remain dead. To them it makes no difference if they were killed in a mass deportation, a genocide or whatever else you choose to call it. And as it seems, the lesson we draw from it is to build a catalogue of criteria by which we determine how to call a certain act of mass murder, and what we expect from a country we identify as being responsible. The lesson learned was certainly not to prevent genocides: That happened again in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in former Yugoslavia and is still happening now. Under this pretext, I find the current discussion cynical, disgusting, worthless and immoral. It's a political mincing of words, aimed purely at the question of reparation payment, and nothing else. And the idea that some people seem to foster, that if a mass of people died in a genocide it is worse than in any other circumstance, makes me physically sick.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to understand your point of view guys, but I have trouble with agreeing.

I guess I am more focussed on the issue itself. I feel empathy towards people to whom this great unjustice has been done. Empathy for a nation and their people is not a strange thing, at least not to me. Dead people leave living people behind. The more recognition they get, the better. E.g. WWII victims had it (to a certain extent), natives in North America and Australia had it, and now, another event is addressed more widely, than it ever was before.

In my opinion:
When certain people in location A have not learned from event B, that doesn't mean that event C should be kept under the carpet by country (or Union) D.

EDIT:
Perun said:
The problem as I see it, is that this mincing of words has no effect whatsoever. The deed will not be undone. The people will remain dead. To them it makes no difference if they were killed in a mass deportation, a genocide or whatever else you choose to call it. And as it seems, the lesson we draw from it is to build a catalogue of criteria by which we determine how to call a certain act of mass murder, and what we expect from a country we identify as being responsible.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have missed this whole aspect. But I will certainly keep an eye on it.
Perun said:
The lesson learned was certainly not to prevent genocides: That happened again in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in former Yugoslavia and is still happening now.
Click to expand...
Who are you exactly addressing? The EU, the world (mankind)? Turkey? Can't we (re-)label anything that happened a while back in history?

Do you mean to say that when a country (or the whole EU) condemns a genocide (or however we'd call it), it should also do its best to prevent one. As you know, that isn't so easy. I only need to refer to all your arguments brought in the IS thread. About the examples you mention, yes the world failed, to a large extent. Still I don't think that when people fail in event A, that they (or other people) should not be allowed to have strong opinions about other events, , especially if these are corresponding with facts. I wish they had strong opinions on A as well. But apparently it can take 100 years.
Perun said:
It's a political mincing of words, aimed purely at the question of reparation payment, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Even if that is so, what is exactly wrong about this aim?
Perun said:
And the idea that some people seem to foster, that if a mass of people died in a genocide it is worse than in any other circumstance, makes me physically sick.
Click to expand...
It is a better recognition. Of the scale. It's not just labelling for fun. Turkey also maintains of the opinion that they have massacred a lesser number of people.
 
Last edited:
I'll reply to this in detail when I have the time, but I feel a bit offended by the suggestion that I don't feel empathy. It's completely off what I was talking about, and gives me the feeling that what I said wasn't understood to the slightest.
 
I'll try; what we feel on personal basis and what human morality stands for is often in direct collision with concepts of realpolitik, and that also includes macroeconomics. If Turkish government officials admit Armenian genocide, they'll be liable for reparations and even land cession or some sort of territorial autonomy is not out of the question. Simply put and in written desensitized manner, that kind of move would be political suicide because it would alienate nationalist voting corps, plus it would introduce a long-running burden on the economy. So, they don't want to admit it not because they think it didn't happen, or that it wasn't a genocide, but it would be bad for the career of a professional politician.

Foro, there's nothing wrong about this aim, it's correct and just and it should happen. Perun and myself were referring to reasons on why it doesn't happen. It's not a simple thing of presenting facts and convincing somebody that genocide happened (doh!). People have empathy, even politicians in power may have empathy but they mostly act on their selfish reasons.

It's the root of all problems. That's why I call hypocrisy on democracy-and-human-rights-waving-flag-nations like some EU members and USA and certain others, because they'll tackle some human rights issue only when they have secondary interest (economic/power) out of it. But anyway...

Turkey also maintains of the opinion that they have massacred a lesser number of people.
Click to expand...

There were also death marches, several "legs" of them, through Syria. They can "maintain" any fucking opinion, they did genocide. And while I tried to explain my understanding of reasoning behind such statements, those are dangerous words. Erdogan might privately know the truth but act selfishly, however it's really adding to ultra nationalist flame. Example would be Croatian gov't in final year of SFRY spitting out NDH (ww2 unrecognized nazi puppet croatia) propaganda in order to draw support from that part of voting corps too, establishing "national unity" between leftists and rightists and whatever. It resulted in those extreme elements doing war crimes against Serbs. The consequences of political games may and will be grave on ordinary people.
 
It certainly possible that I haven't understood everything you said, or not that well, yet. But I need to address this aspect better, because offending you like this, that was not my aim, and I am sorry if I did. :/
I wanted to show that we are looking at different sides of this matter.
Forostar said:
I feel empathy towards people to whom this great unjustice has been done. Empathy for a nation and their people is not a strange thing, at least not to me. Dead people leave living people behind. The more recognition they get, the better.
Click to expand...
I know you are empathic (I have experience that myself, several times, personally!), but your reasoning led me believe (which can me a misinterpretation from my side) you feel less empathy for a nation (and their people) than being annoyed (or sick about certain aspects). Or at least, it looks as if the empathy is overshadowed by annoyance about political matters. What I wanted to emphasize is that I put one thing (recognition) above the other (the way to do this: politics). So I keep looking at the recognition, and I thought you especially focus on how nations are doing this.
And I even had the impression that the EU (or individual countries) should not do anything at all, but perhaps you could elaborate a bit further on that.

I remember that you don't like matters that have to do with nationalism. The "Armenian question", is a national one, and all these nations (with their own purposes which can also be criticized) having opinions on the matter, I thought that you would not approve it, by principle.
This led me to thinking that you rather not politicize events. I for one, think that politics are needed to achieve things. At least, I can't (easily) think of other ways to recognize this specific matter.
 
@Zare,
so fear for consequences is more important than a (human rights) principle?

But if Turkey doesn't want to do anything, other nations are still allowed to say something about that attitude.
Or: go around Turkey's attitude, and have an own opinion on it. Of course, it is not exactly going around Turkey (because they are offended, and feel attacked) but hey, I think it is fantastic that countries take risks when they want to stand for something. I rather sympathize with Armenians than with Erdogan and his angry voters.
 
Last edited:
That's something I have already addressed in my first post on this matter. You can't separate this deed from people who are alive today.

People who made war in the past have better relations with each other if their governments have admitted what was done in the past. The Armenian question went further than war. It resulted in a systematic destruction of their people.
 
I can separate them. You have victims and descendants of victims. It would be good if Turkey and the Armenians (add in the Greeks for that matter) could or would have better relations. No doubt, but the World has a long habit of giving more recognition to the victims of some atrocities moreso than others. Generally to avoid issues, embarrass allies, or avoid future conflict.

In this case all probably apply to some degree.
 
FWIW

President Barack Obama will not use the word “genocide” to describe the massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians in his annual statement commemorating the historic atrocity later this month.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes informed Armenian-American activists of the decision in a meeting at the White House on Tuesday.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama issued a statement promising to describe the plight of the Armenians as a genocide, but in his previous five statements he has not done so — mainly to avoid a rupture in diplomatic relations with Turkey, a NATO ally and key partner in addressing the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...sacre-shun-genocide-117202.html#ixzz3XznbY5ED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top