4) Is this the most pointless measure that Congress has ever considered?

What's next, condemning the excesses of the Thirty Years War? Denouncing Rome's treatment of Carthage?

Surely the Dems realize this is a bad thing for U.S.-Turkey relations. So they must have some other reason for doing this beyond simply recognizing an atrocity from a century ago. My question is, how does this action help the Democrats? What are we missing here?

Ok, first off let’s admit that Turkey needs to get over this nonsense. They desperately need to do some soul-searching and have a 90s Germany-style Vergangenheitsbewaetligung rather than hiring Dick Gephardt to run blocking formations for them.

That said, this is seriously repugnant. What a shameful waste of congressional manhours and taxpayer dollars (almost makes me want to vote ron paul… almost). Does Pelosi seriously have so little to do in a day that this kind of show-boating and finger-waving and campaign IOU-cashing takes precedence over, you know, governing? House resolutions are going to somehow prevent future genocides? Gimme a break. It’s such a tacky pander its disgusting.

And then you have the broader issue, that we are spitting in the eye of a country who is, by some lights, about the most important nation in the world at this historical moment. A democratic muslim state which juggles both an open channel of communication with Iran and Israeli military training camps (bonus points for bullying Syria), all while standing steadfastly at the US’s side ever since Korea. They are an industrial hub of Europe and half the population is under 30. They have the second biggest military in NATO; wouldn’t it be nice, for once, to have an ally who can hold their own if some stuff hit a fan (not that I don’t appreciate Estonia’s 62 boots on the ground). And despite all this, we’ve been jerking them around for years, since long before Bush just assumed they’d let us invade from Turkish soil, and since long before Clinton played Turkey off the EU and build up a nice shiny proto-state for the Kurds. I mean, can you blame the Turks for being peeved? We invited them over for dinner and just left them standing on the doorstep.

For shame.

Ok, first off let’s admit that Turkey needs to get over this nonsense. They desperately need to do some soul-searching and have a 90s Germany-style Vergangenheitsbewaetligung rather than hiring Dick Gephardt to run blocking formations for them.

That said, this is seriously repugnant. What a shameful waste of congressional manhours and taxpayer dollars (almost makes me want to vote ron paul… almost). Does Pelosi seriously have so little to do in a day that this kind of show-boating and finger-waving and campaign IOU-cashing takes precedence over, you know, governing? House resolutions are going to somehow prevent future genocides? Gimme a break. It’s such a tacky pander its disgusting.

And then you have the broader issue, that we are spitting in the eye of a country who is, by some lights, about the most important nation in the world at this historical moment. A democratic muslim state which juggles both an open channel of communication with Iran and Israeli military training camps (bonus points for bullying Syria), all while standing steadfastly at the US’s side ever since Korea. They are an industrial hub of Europe and half the population is under 30. They have the second biggest military in NATO; wouldn’t it be nice, for once, to have an ally who can hold their own if some stuff hit a fan (not that I don’t appreciate Estonia’s 62 boots on the ground). And despite all this, we’ve been jerking them around for years, since long before Bush just assumed they’d let us invade from Turkish soil, and since long before Clinton played Turkey off the EU and build up a nice shiny proto-state for the Kurds. I mean, can you blame the Turks for being peeved? We invited them over for dinner and left them shivering on the doorstep.

For shame.

Not necessarily smart view but still want to postulate - Dems are doing this because they want to stymies Iraq operation. James Webb's measure failed to restrict the Iraq war. Annoying Turkey is the next trick in that genre.

I support Dems, but still can see the possibility of horribly 'cynical' ways Dems in Congress may be playing the game.

When would they have the guts either to move on with the Iraq war opposition or show the guts to keep on 'chipping' the money supply?

I wish and hope that I am wrong in my guess of accusing Congressional Dems with this bad motive of stalling Iraq war by back door.

If the majority of the world thinks it's genocide, then our agreeing is restoring our cred. I am amazed at Lantos's manner, 'cause we're pretty burnt out as a nation. We can be picked on. But principles should trump strategic concerns, when it isn't life and death. And it's not.

On point number 3 -- This is an example of a generalization of M&W's thesis. Strong ethnic lobbies can influence foreign policy in a way that damages overall US interests. However, there are still differences in degree and type between the Armenian case and the Israeli case. In degree, we can just look the amounts of foreign aid given to Israel vs. Armenia (Armenia gets effectively 0) [ http://qesdb.usaid.gov/gbk/about.html] , a struggling democracy in the ex-Soviet space. In type, we can note the relatively balanced position (and quiet) position of the US in the conflict between the Armenians and Azeris over Nagorno Karabakh.

In short, you could probably get a good paper out of the machinations of the Armenians and their hyphenated counterparts that live in this country in influencing foreign policy. ... Oh, wait, one Heather S. Gregg, formerly of RAND, member of CFR, has presented one

Divided They Conquer: The Success of Armenian Lobbies in the US, Rosemarie Rogers Working Paper Series, May 2002. Portion published in Precis (MIT Center for International Studies, Vol. XI, Number 1, Fall 2001), pp. 17-20.

Ah yes, I remember now, the furore that erupted, the attacks on MIT for publishing such hateful work., the WSJ editorials, &tc.

1) Hey, what happened to the Democrats' claim that they would restore America's image to the rest of the world?

America's image in the rest of the world is better served by calling a genocide a genocide, if that's what it was, then by turning a blind eye towards past misbehavior in an attempt to garner some temporary political advantage.

What's needless (among a vast number of other words) is genocide. What's exactly the opposite of needless (my inner Orwell says "needmore"?) is the condemnation of genocide.

You foreign policy realists are bleak, dislikeable people, you know?

Prof
As an outsider I feel it was time someone guided America its manifested place on Earth. No apologies, others on earth think the same.

To answer the second question, Rep. Lantos has rarely met an effort to aggravate US relations with Islamic nations that he couldn't support.

As for what the Democrats get out of it, in part it is due to a coincidence: Nancy Pelosi's district has one of the largest groups of Armenian voters. Members on both sides of the aisle have pushed this for years, but it was blocked by the House leadership. Having a Speaker who is out in front on the issue makes a difference.

Good point by the previous poster on the Armenian lobby. Actually in the early 1990s Armenia was one of the top recipients of US foreign aid per capita while Azerbaijan was more or less prohibited from aid -- both things mandated by Congress over the objections of the Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations. Later on as the Azeris and the oil companies got beter at lobbying things evolved towards today's balance.

"4) Is this the most pointless measure that Congress has ever considered?"

Huh? Of course the measure has a point. Filling Democrat campaign committee bank accounts.

The relevant question is not "why do this?" but "why do this now / to this ally?"

Seriously, man, when was the last time anyone's foreign ministry made a habit of "callin' 'em like [they] sees 'em?"

Do we really spend all that much time condemning Britain for their horrible acts during their imperial years? The Armenian Genocide was genocide, but it was committed by the CUP during the late Ottoman period. Please note, the Ottoman Empire isn't around anymore. Similarly, we don't spend a lot of time taking the Russians to task for the Purges. Hell, why the hell don't we apologize for all the murderous regimes we propped up in Latin America?

British imperialism, the Russian Purges and our actions in Latin America were not genocidal. Seeking to eradicate an entire people is a specific charge, and one of the gravest that can be made. So there's that.

More generally, this "people have done bad things to each other so why worry about it" and "foreign ministries are all full of conniving, self-interested spinsters so why expect anything better" line of thinking self-defeating and, quite frankly, boring. And obviously bleak.

The question of "why now?" is a very good one, of course. But Prof. Drezner's response, which echoed many other commentators ("What in the world were they thinking?!*% No one with anything going on upstairs would do this NOW!") assumes to me what is a very important question:

Is the condemnation of genocide worthwhile, even when politically inexpedient?

If we don't believe it is, perhaps we should curb our criticism of the foreign ministry...

What?

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (American Heritage Dictionary)

So I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans on your "it ain't genocide" argument. If you're really going to tell me that we don't have any moral burden to shoulder in the intentional, systematic murder of left-wingers, intellectuals and Jews that took place in Argentina from 1976-1980, I don't think we can discuss this issue further. The Purges were also genocide.

And again, the Armenian genocide was conducted by an entirely different political entity which bears no resemblance to modern Turkey. Which, in addition to the reasons below, is another reason this is a puzzling move.

The point I was trying to make is that our policy in this regard is inconsistent, suggesting that it is motivated by political expediency. If you accept that baseline motivation for American finger-pointing, then it's fitting to ask "why now?" I think we agree on that.

Finally, this isn't just politically inexpedient. Depending on Turkey's reaction, this imposes a significant burden on our military operations in Iraq.

So, perform the cost benefit analysis for me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Is the condemnation of genocide worthwhile, even when politically inexpedient?

Well it's hardly the case that this has suddenly come to light and America needs to take a stand now. Bills like this have been kicking around D.C. for years and years.

The fact that this is happening now has to do with, as anIRprof said, the interests Nancy Pelosi represents. But this happening so soon after the similar Parliamentary scolding in France, where a distaste Turkey is clearly again on the rise, makes one wonder if your question isn't backwards: Seems that at the moment, what is seen as politically expedient is to throw Turkey under the bus and wax moralistic about a Muslim regime extermininating a Christian minority. That is a recipe for the strategic disorientation of Turkey, which would be catastrophic.

Good discussion! I like it.

BAAM, I won't discuss the genocide point anymore except to clarify that *I do believe* we have a moral burden to bear for our actions in South America, but that burden isn't born of engaging in or advocating genocide, which has a specific definition.

On a separate point, I'd argue that the fact that the actions in question were undertaken by a completely different political entity is not a reason to fail to condemn them. You shouldn't be able to escape condemnation by dying off.

Also, I reread anIRprof's post and later comments about Pelosi's influence but I honestly don't think they make the case. Even assuming the strength of the Armenian lobby and its fundraising ability, every commentator here has correctly noted that offending Turkey would have catastrophic consequences for the war in Iraq and our outreach to Muslim nations generally.

Even taking the painfully cynical view that Pelosi was willing to throw American foreign policy under the bus for cold hard cash, why choose such a high profile issue? And why choose an issue with a narrative (Muslim majority preying on Christian minority) that emotionally feeds into support for the war in Iraq? When withdraw from Iraq is Pelosi's signature issue?

I would prefer the House Foreign Affairs Committee had not approved this resolution. The House of Representatives is not a judicial body, and is not well-advised to issues judgments on historical events that happened almost a century ago and did not involve the United States in any way.

At the same time, a resolution like this does not need to be approved by the full House, or by the Senate. It may not be by the House, and almost certainly won't be by the Senate. Opponents of mortgaging American relations with Turkey to a moral verdict about events no one can change will have ample opportunity to demonstrate that they rather than Rep. Lantos guide American foreign policy in this area.

As to provoking discussions of the Armenian genocide within Turkey, I don't think that is such a bad thing, though I would rather this means to do it had not be chosen.

If Turkey's efforts to join the EU do not bring this matter to a head (and the genocide has been raised in that context), nothing will.

In the meantime, it is interesting to note that those who are in favor of begining a withdrawal from Iraq for the benefit of the troops have no problem striking moral postures on this issue, though those postures couls have direct consequences on our troops in Iraq. At some point, somebody is ging to notice that our new Democratic majority is showing itself to be ust as ineffective and worthless as our president, and equally careless about the effects of their actions. (Except, of course, when actions impact donors)

Is the condemnation of genocide worthwhile, even when politically inexpedient?

If "condemnation" means nothing more than harsh words, with no actions to back them up, I'd say the condemnation of genocide is essentially worthless.

Really, if some head of state today is considering whether or not he should commit genocide against a minority he dislikes, the threat of being verbally condemned by the United States Congress is unlikely to influence his decision. It might cause him to carry out his genocide with more secrecy than he would have otherwise, but that's about it.

"the actions in question were undertaken by a completely different political entity"

Nominally. But there was a very high degree of continuity between Ottoman Turkey and the Turkish Republic. Most obviously, all the leaders of the early Republic had been important military or political figures in the late Empire.

The Dashnaks -- Armenian radicals -- had a program of targeted assassinations in the 1920s and 1930s; they went around killing Turkish figures who had played a major role in the genocide. And most of the guys they killed were ambassadors and deputy ministers of the Republic.

This is not to justify the killings. Just to note that those in charge were not exactly kicked to the curbside by the new state.

Doug M.

There's some background here that people are missing.

Tom Lantos has been on the House Foreign Relations Committee since forever.

The genocide resolution came before the Committee in the early Clinton years, and looked close to passing. (Even then, it wasn't new. It was first introduced in the late '70s.) The Turks, of course, were very upset. So Lantos helped negotiate a face-saving compromise: the Committee would kill the resolution if the Turks would appoint a committee to look into the facts of the matter. The Turkish government agreed...

...and control of the House changed a few months later, with the 1994 midterms. The Republican majority had little interest in passing resolutions about genocide. So the Turkish government promptly circular-filed any idea of an investigative committee.

12 years later, the Democrats got back in, Lantos took over the Committee... and one of his first acts was to re-introduce the resolution.

The media narrative is that it's personal for him because he's a Holocaust survivor. Not so! It's personal because he brokered the deal with the Turks, and they welched.

The Count of Monte Cristo has nothing on a senior Congressman. Don't offend these guys -- they live forever (Lantos is 80), they get meaner and more powerful with age, and they never, ever forget.

Doug M.

The question to ask is: Would we be willing to tacitly accept the denial of the Holocaust by Iranian president Mr. Ahmadinajat if we had important strategic ties with Iran? Should we then be concerned because our acceptance of the Holocaust would upset Iran? What would the implications of distorting the truth through silence be?

An acknowledgement of the near extermination of the Armenians 1915-1918 towards the end of the Ottoman empire and the birth of present day Turkey as genocide -as observers of the time, including the US ambassador to Ottoman Turkey Mr. Henry Morganthau saw it - serves as an acknowledgement that nationalist and ultranationalist entities cannot do away with, kill and eliminate peoples they perceive to be a threat to their nationalistic/racial ideology and label such events as an accident in History without other free nations knowing about it.

Modern Turkey, driven by nationalist interests, denies the occurrence of such an event. The present government of Turkey vehemently chastises those who dare to speak of an Armenian genocide and labels such free speech as a crime against Turkishness punishable by imprisonment and fines via penal code 301 in Turkey. Yet Turkey considers itself a democratic nation. The present government of Turkey is threatening to cut military ties with the US if such a resolution about the Armenian genocide were to pass in Congress. The present government of Turkey has made similar threats re cutting off its strategic alliance with Israel if resolution 106 were to pass.

Acknowledgement of the mass killings and the death marches that the Armenian population in Turkey were subjected to, would also send the message that our strategic partnership with Turkey - and our appreciation of Turkey's proclaimed pro-western, pro-democratic stance in that region of the world- cannot be contingent upon our compliance with and appeasement of Turkey's nationalist views.

A passage of this resolution would not be a "win" for armenians, nor would it be a "loss" for Turks or for Turkey. I believe it would strengthen modern Turkey by recognizing that horrific aspects of the past can have a good side in the future. Who knows, it may also lead Armenia to support secular Turkey.

The question to ask is: Would we be willing to tacitly accept the denial of the Holocaust by Iranian president Mr. Ahmadinajat if we had important strategic ties with Iran? Should we then be concerned because our acceptance of the Holocaust would upset Iran? What would the implications of distorting the truth through silence be?

An acknowledgement of the near extermination of the Armenians 1915-1918 towards the end of the Ottoman empire and the birth of present day Turkey as genocide -as observers of the time, including the US ambassador to Ottoman Turkey Mr. Henry Morganthau saw it - serves as an acknowledgement that nationalist and ultranationalist entities cannot do away with, kill and eliminate peoples they perceive to be a threat to their nationalistic/racial ideology and label such events as an accident in History without other free nations knowing about it.

Modern Turkey, driven by nationalist interests, denies the occurrence of such an event. The present government of Turkey vehemently chastises those who dare to speak of an Armenian genocide and labels such free speech as a crime against Turkishness punishable by imprisonment and fines via penal code 301 in Turkey. Yet Turkey considers itself a democratic nation. The present government of Turkey is threatening to cut military ties with the US if such a resolution about the Armenian genocide were to pass in Congress. The present government of Turkey has made similar threats re cutting off its strategic alliance with Israel if resolution 106 were to pass.

Acknowledgement of the mass killings and the death marches that the Armenian population in Turkey were subjected to, would also send the message that our strategic partnership with Turkey - and our appreciation of Turkey's proclaimed pro-western, pro-democratic stance in that region of the world- cannot be contingent upon our compliance with and appeasement of Turkey's nationalist views.

A passage of this resolution would not be a "win" for armenians, nor would it be a "loss" for Turks or for Turkey. I believe it would strengthen modern Turkey by recognizing that horrific aspects of the past can have a good side in the future. Who knows, it may also lead Armenia to support secular Turkey.