Fred Hiatt Gets Weird
I’m leaning towards thinking the Aremenian Genocide resolution is a bad idea, but Fred Hiatt’s column today is exceptionally odd. Hiatt took some heat from Armenians for calling the resolution “more than useless” and has thus responded by attacking them for not doing enough to…well it’s not clear what they’re doing. Hiatt points out that the country of Armenia is hardly a bastion of liberal democracy and implies that this is the Armenian diaspora’s fault. What are they supposed to lobby for? US sanctions against Armenia, armed support for Azerbaijan to fight another war? I’m seriously confused what the point of this column is other than for Hiatt to disingenuously say that he has the moral high ground, even though the authoritarian nature of Armenia’s government is totally irrelevant to whether Congress should recognize the genocide.
And on top of that, Hyatt pretends like Turkey is some grand democracy in comparison to Armenia.
Armenia was oppressed under the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union for 70 years and is newly independent. That it doesn’t have a perfect democracy at this point, while unfortunate, should not be looked at with surprise.
80 years after it’s own republic’s independence, what’s Turkey’s excuse?
Paul
October 15, 2007 at 9:04 am
I think Fred Hiatt is 100% right. It is like the Jews endlessly harping on the supposed “Holocaust” (the US just put forward a resolution “commemorating” to the UN.)
Hiatt very logical. I am sure he would also say: Why don’t the Jews in America stop harming US interests and stop their own parochial lobbying over and over for this supposed Holocaust, and instead support democratization in Israel where so much suppression of human rights is going on?
there is a Holocaust learning module at my kids school next week. I am going to go down there and ask the Jewish professors why the Jews don’t just shut up about that genocide stuff and start getting Israel in line. After all they are all one big group!
/sarcasm off
Dov
October 15, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I’m personally leaning against the idea of the resolution. My reasoning is as follows: let’s imagine — hypothetically — that some future US Congress dominated by very evil people wanted to pass a resolution that the Holocaust never occurred. Or that the Armenian genocide never happened. Or that Africans were never forced at gunpoint into slavery. The point is, the authenticity of historical events exists entirely outside of what a bunch of politicians think or do, and is utterly non-dependent on their votes. I’m just not crazy about the idea of getting our elected officials into the role of being arbiters of history — not unless there’s a really good reason for it. And there’s none here. Absolutely no reasonable person doubts the veracity of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians. Turkish officials who deny this particular holocaust are obviously not reasonable. A vote by American politicians is not going to change this.
Jasper
October 15, 2007 at 7:18 pm
The point is, the authenticity of historical events exists entirely outside of what a bunch of politicians think or do, and is utterly non-dependent on their votes.
This is a good point, but the resolution can actually serve a purpose — to send a signal to those Turkish politicians that their denialism on this issue is unacceptable to the US.
That’s why nobody is talking about passing a resolution affirming that the Nazi Holocaust was genocide — because the German government and all serious German political figures acknowledge that fact, and have done so for decades. If the same were true in Turkey, I don’t think the Armenian resolution would ever have been proposed.
Infidel753
October 16, 2007 at 6:54 am