April 24 marks the 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, an atrocity widely known to have been the systematic murder of approximately 1 million to 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.
During President Barack Obama’s visit to Turkey last week following the G-20 summit, the topic of the genocide has undoubtedly become an increasingly sensitive issue. Former President George W. Bush refused to call the event “genocide,” rather phrasing it as “mass killings and forced exile.”
Obama, however, used the term “genocide” on the campaign trail, and despite not saying it while in Turkey this week, he maintained that his views had not changed. As a world leader on an international stage, Obama must maintain his stance and use of the term “genocide” if true recognition is to follow.
With Obama’s unapologetic message of change, what can we expect with Armenian Genocide recognition? Is he going to pull a Bill Clinton, falsely promising genocide recognition on the campaign trail? With myriad broken promises by politicians, whether Obama will be the national figure Armenians have waited for remains to be seen.
When I initially began this column, as much as I wanted to believe it, I simply could not bring myself to accept that Obama would be different. When I read last week that he failed to use the word “genocide” while in Turkey, my beliefs were confirmed. In a strained economic atmosphere, Obama just was not going to alienate the Turks at this first visit to a Muslim nation.
The same thing happened in 2007 with Senate Resolution 106, aimed at genocide recognition. Then-President Bush saw Turkey as too important an ally, politically and strategically, in terms of the Iraq War. The resolution did not pass. Similar resolutions have sprung up in the past few decades, but time and time again they have been shot down, whether by Turkish lobbies or U.S. unwillingness to alienate Turkey. It’s always “next year” that would be more appropriate. Well, “next year” has lasted for decades, and it’s not hard to see why I’ve become a cynic.
When Obama emphasized increasingly cordial ties between Turkey and Armenia last week, rather than speaking of genocide, I accepted the inevitable. However, I couldn’t help but reconsider after attending a panel of prominent Armenian politicians held by the Armenian Student Association on Wednesday night.
The panel, which included former Glendale Mayor Larry Zarian, discussed the Armenian Genocide issue in detail. Though the panel stressed that the recession should be Obama’s primary concern, I couldn’t help but feel that some optimism surrounded recognition.
Call it youthful idealism or just plain naivete, but I do feel something different coming of this. As a dignitary to a foreign nation, Obama could not outrightly contest the claims of the Turkish government. I wouldn’t expect him to, and neither should other critics.
Iren Tatevosyan, president of the UCLA Armenian Student Association, said, “In my personal opinion, (Obama) took a big step speaking of (the genocide) as truth and recognizing it as genocide. … In the context of being in the Turkish parliament, I can see why he would not say the word.”
What Obama should be recognized for is what he said during a joint press conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Ankara, Turkey. When asked about whether he had changed his campaign stance, Obama said, “My views are on the record, and I have not changed views.”
On a world stage in the presence of the leader of Turkey, Obama was able to stand his ground. This is more than can be said of past American leaders.
Undeniable as well is the fact that Gul was the first modern Turkish leader to visit Armenia, stating that he was willing to open up the archives for investigation. The extent to which this will occur is questionable but nonetheless promising.
Vice President Joe Biden has also played a role in Armenian Genocide recognition. He has consistently backed bills that call for recognition, and was the first to introduce such a resolution. In a 2007 Los Angeles Times interview, he said, “I have found in my experience that you cannot have a solid relationship with a country based on fiction. It occurred. It occurred.”
Tatevosyan put its significance best when she referred to a speech Adolf Hitler gave before the 1939 invasion of Poland: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
The Armenian Student Association is holding two events for genocide remembrance ““ one on Wednesday, which will be an exhibition of genocide images and speakers at Meyerhoff Park, and the other on April 22, which will include a play, speakers and displays in Ackerman Grand Ballroom at 6:30 p.m.
On April 24, all eyes will be on Obama to see whether he explicitly uses the word “genocide.” As sensitive as the “g word” has become, it is the only word that has the power to bring about recognition.
Its implications for regions like Darfur are widespread, and the organized, systematic aspects of the killings are truly able to emerge through its use. Frankly, I’m not sure if Obama will use the word “genocide” on April 24, but the message it will send to not just Turkey but to the international community from a superpower such as the U.S. is undeniable.
If you are unashamed of using the “g word,” e-mail Gharibian at cgharibian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.