http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8549117.stm
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia by the Ottoman Empire. They were killed by troops or died from starvation and disease. Armenia wants Turkey to recognize this as an act of genocide, but Turkey counters that these atrocities were simply part of the World War I. Currently, a US Congressional committee is debating a resolution to label as genocide the killing of Armenians by Turkish forces during the war. Turkey, a major US ally, is putting enormous pressure on the United States to not go through with the resolution. Hilary Clinton claims that if the vote goes through it could seriously damage talks between Turkey and Armenia. In addition, Turkey has promised repercussions for the US if the vote is passed.
The situation the United States is in clearly relates to the theories of constructivism and realism. For instance, if the US were to vote for this resolution then they lose a major ally in the Middle East/Asia, which is bad taken from a realist perspective. However, if the United States were to go ahead and pass the resolution thereby agreeing with the international community condemning genocide, they earn points on a larger scale, but lose a crucial ally. Either way, it's a tough call to make. Which direction do you think the United States should head in? Is there a middle ground to this problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess several things here don't make sense to me. First of all, what is the point in putting retroactive labels on events. It seems so contrived and pointless. The fact that a genocide occurred or not won't change anything and because it's already happened, there's no legal ramifications like there would be if a current issue were declared a genocide. Secondly, why is the United States taking up this task. We felt compelled during the Rwandan genocide to do the same thing, and like in Rwanda we're doing it after the fact (only in this case, well after the fact). I mean, at the very least we could be voting on legislation that calls the treatment of the Native Americans a genocide. But, I strongly suspect that it's easier to do something that really doesn't have any relavence to the world today and never involved us in the first place. Finally, it seems that even if it were decided that it was a genocide (which is what it was in any case, regardless of a meaningless legal distinction made by the United States) then I don't see why something like this should influence the relationship between two countries almost a century after the fact. Europeans are on good terms with Germany, and countries that have had genocidal histories that aren't on good terms with other countries are usually that way for other reasons (ie: instability, non-related human rights issues, ect). Although I can sympathize with the Armeanians and their feelings of uneasiness with Turkey and its genocidal history, I guess I don't understand how and why that should affect current diplomatic relations. I feel the same thing about the animosity that South Korea, China and Japan have for each other. It's counterproductive and quite irrational. In my opinion, this is the dark side of constructivism, normative constructions taken to a logical extreme.
ReplyDelete