CNN: Obama won't call it Armenian 'genocide' on 100th anniversary of atrocity
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama, wary of damaging relations with Turkey amid growing unrest in the Middle East, won't use the 100th anniversary of the massacre of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire to declare the brutal episode a genocide.
Despite Obama's campaign promise in 2008 to "recognize the Armenian Genocide" as president, the White House on Tuesday issued a carefully worded statement on a high-level administration meeting with Armenian groups that avoided using the term "genocide."
An administration official said Obama, who will mark the centennial this Friday, would similarly avoid using the word. The term angers Ankara, which denies that Ottoman Turks carried out a genocide.
More News On President Obama Refusing To Call The Armenian Genocide A Genocide
Obama Again Avoids Calling 1915 Armenian Killings 'Genocide' -- ABC News/AP
White House Acknowledges Armenian Genocide, but Avoids the Term -- NYT
Barack Obama will not label 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide -- The Guardian
White House Will Not Call 1915 Armenian Killings ‘Genocide’ -- WSJ
White House Avoids Calling Massacre Of Armenians Genocide -- Radio Free Europe
WH won't call Armenian killings 'genocide' -- The Hill
Obama Won’t Call Armenian Killings ‘Genocide’ -- Time
Who Recognizes Armenian Genocide? 20 States That Formally Acknowledge 1915 Events -- IBTimes
2 comments:
This is my surprise face.
Ankara's position is interesting. It acknowledges and condemns the massacres, but does not call them a genocide. One would think that this is simply splitting hairs, enabled by the highly formal definition of genocide that exists in international law - it needs to be an intentional effort aimed at exterminating an ethnic group in a given area. Intent in this case is hard to prove beyond all doubt either way, though, so the Turks (and those who don't want to annoy the Turks) can defend their position indefinitely with every formal justification, while the Armenians and those seeking to curry their favour (a considerably lesser number than with the Turks for some mysterious reason) can keep insisting that it was in fact a genocide.
To be honest it seems like just a lot of political grandstanding and I can't imagine the dead, or those who really care about their memories rather than scoring political points, would truly be concerned as to whether or not this atrocity is legally a genocide or just a large-scale state-sponsored massacre that nonetheless pursued some other aim. They are just as dead either way.
Post a Comment