The Bush administration had this special way of throwing words around so that they could justify any action they’d take. If they did something that was just simply wrong, it could be re-defined to be good. If someone else did something that the US did not like, it could be re-defined to have been an unjust thing to do. A couple of examples:
Unlawful combatants. According to the Geneva Conventions, there are certain rights that POW’s always have. And according to any sensible constitution, there are rights that any civilian should have, like the right to a fair trial. In the US as well, these two held true, but having every terrorist through a court would be an awful hassle, so what to do… The answer, of course, was to implement a new category, unlawful combatant, that did not have any rights at all. Anyone who was deemed (note: not judged) an unlawful combatant, could be sent straight to Guantánamo without a fair trial. And, seeing as this was a world-wide War on Terror, even civilians could easily be re-classified as unlawful combatants, since every civilian is potentially a terrorist. How convenient!
And then the US went on to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, re-defining and justifying their actions along the way. But in August 2008, Russia helped the liberation movements of South Ossetia and Abkhasia and this certainly meant trouble. One wouldn’t have anyone else than the US invading countries at will, and especially not Russia! Moreover, after having invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, it would seem kind of hypocritical to scold Russia over their invasion of parts of Georgia. So what to do… The answer, of course, lies in what kind of country has been invaded. It is obvious that Georgia is a sovereign state, as Afghanistan and Iraq consequently was not. I’ve never seen a definition of “sovereign state” that would include Georgia and exclude Afghanistan and Iraq. If the US had just said that invading oppressive military regimes, or better yet; simply “baddies”, is OK, that would have been a lot more honest than these vague definitions that always seem to prop up after the fact.
But that was over a year ago, Bush is gone and the status quo in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhasia seems pretty stable, so I wouldn’t expect to accomplish much by ranting over old news. The reason I’m writing this, however, is that the US is ranting over old news. Almost a hundred years old, old news, in fact.
Apparently, The House of Foreign Affairs Committee has passed a resolution calling the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire between 1917 and 1923 a genocide. I have been watching for signs of such re-definitions as the Bush administration was applying, and luckily I haven’t found any before now. I, like a lot of other people, really wanted to believe that Obama was a regular Good Guy, but trying not to be naïve, I have been watching nonetheless. However, it was against the recommendations of the Obama administration that the resolution was passed, so I guess we can continue believing that Obama is a Good Guy. Anyway, back to the resolution.
This resolution, however, is not like the “unlawful combatant” and “sovereign state” definitions. It does not serve to justify some immediate action and it’s seemingly just an acknowledgement of historical fact, which I think is a very important thing. But why now? That’s what I don’t get. Is there some ulterior motive behind it all? Is there some force in the US that wishes to prevent the normalization of Turkey’s and Armenia’s ties? Does the US wish to gain goodwill with Armenia and is this the beginning of a closer relationship between the US and Armenia? Could it be a back-up plan and another way into Iran if something goes wrong with Turkey? And why do I say that?
Well, recently there has been reports of a foiled coup d’état in Turkey. This, perhaps, proves that Turkey is not such a stable country as one would like, being a member of NATO and all. Then, there’s the fact that Turkey has moved politically towards the other Middle East countries, just recently threatening Israel with war if Israeli planes were to cross into Turkish airspace in an attempt to reach Iran. And speaking of Iran, Turkey shares a border with Iran. Very convenient if one needs to enter Iran for whatever reason. Another fact to consider is that 99% of Turkey’s population are Muslims. How many Islamic countries can NATO forces invade before the public in Turkey starts to feel that something is not right? I’m sure these are thoughts have passed the minds of the strategists in the US.
Then there’s Armenia. A seemingly stable apparent democracy without any coup d’états on regular basis and a majority of the population in favor of joining the EU. It has a short borderline to Iran and another to Georgia (meaning passage into Iran from the Black Sea via Georgia and Armenia) and less than 1% are Muslims. It should be a very stable ally indeed, if things were to turn sour with Turkey. And I can easily see that happening.
Having actually bothered about one genocide of Turkey, namely against the Armenians, how would one justify not turning to the next, the one against the Kurds? Perhaps one will not justify it, but just neglect to mention it and pretend there’s nothing more to it.
But then again, this might just be a piece of the big oil pipe game or some hidden economic dynamics which I can’t say I understand too well. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if this turns out to be something important or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment