Alienating a Key Ally over an Apology

Apparently the Democratic controlled congress has too much free time on its hands. Instead of balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, or working together to improve national security, congress is busy rewriting history and passing judgment on historical events that occurred 90 years ago. Such frivolous behavior is problematic enough by itself, but in their ill-advised foray into historical revisionism, congressional Democrats are needlessly and recklessly jeopardizing diplomatic and military relations with a crucial ally in the War on Terror: Turkey.

A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.

The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21 vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.

Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.

Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.

CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:

Meanwhile Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, said the resolution would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people," predicting that its passage would create a backlash in his country.

The vote was also strongly criticized by Turkish newspapers, The Associated Press reported. "Bill of hatred," said Hurriyet's front page, while Vatan's headline read "27 foolish Americans.

The U.S. embassy in Ankara warned Americans there to brace for possible anti-American demonstrations.

Turkish protests come with relations between Washington and Ankara already tense amid Turkish military and political preparations for a possible strike into northern Iraq in response to recent attacks by Kurdish militants.

…Last year France voted to make it a crime to deny that the killings constituted genocide, causing the Turkish government to cut its military ties with the country.

The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.

Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.

Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.

Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.

We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.

Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.

Technorati Tags:
Turkey, Armenia, Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, Adam Schiff, House Resolution

Truth a Victim in Report on Israel's Darfur Refugees

There are only two reasons that a reporter might wait until the seventeenth paragraph of an article to provide the other side to a seemingly outrageous story: first, the reporter is an extraordinarily poor writer who is betting unwisely that readers will actually read all the way to the seventeenth paragraph; second, the reporter knows that the seventeenth paragraph takes all the controversy and shock value out of the first sixteen paragraphs and thus the other side of the story is intentionally buried in hopes that readers will not read that far into the article and learn the truth. A perfect example of this "journalistic" technique was available in this morning's AP story, "Israel to Send Darfur Refugees Back to Egypt." We'll let readers decide whether the AP reporter put the real explanation for Israel's seemingly outrageous and hypocritical rejection of Darfur refugees in the seventeenth paragraph of the story or whether the intent was to paint Israel in the worst light possible through a shocking headline and the first sixteen paragraphs.

Capital Cloak prefaces this analysis by declaring that the situation in Darfur is deplorable, and we have sympathy for the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in what many have labeled genocide in Darfur. Any fighting that kills so many and leaves millions with no choice but to flee their lands and become refugees is of grave concern and should be stopped through all available means. Many countries, particularly those that border Darfur, have absorbed large numbers of refugees, particularly Chad and Egypt. Israel likewise has allowed hundreds of Darfur refugees to remain in Israel despite having entered the country illegally. Yet Israel is now under fire, as evidenced by today's AP story cited above, for declaring that it will not accept any more refugees seeking asylum who enter Israel illegally, with no exceptions.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Darfur would read the headline of today's AP story with a sense of disbelief that a nation established specifically as a home for Jewish refugees from the Holocaust would turn away people escaping from genocide. The first sixteen paragraphs only reinforce the perception that Israel, in deporting Darfur refugees, is acting out the ultimate hypocrisy through its intolerant new policy against all illegal aliens found within its borders. Yet once the AP reporter finally got around to including the Israeli explanation for sending Darfur refugees back to Egypt, the logic of the Israeli policy was not hypocritical or sinister. Like the emotional controversy over illegal immigration in America, the key element in the Israeli Darfur immigration issue is the word "illegal."

Not until the seventeenth paragraph does a reader of the AP story encounter a critical factor behind the Israeli policy toward Darfur refugees: the refugees are not fleeing directly from Darfur into Israel seeking asylum. Israel does not border Darfur, thus refugees from genocide in that land illegally enter nations like Chad or Egypt seeking asylum, and only after realizing how poor their living conditions and economic opportunities are in Chad or Egypt do they then illegally cross into Israel. Thus from Israel's perspective, it is experiencing a rapidly increasing influx of African economic refugees rather than victims fleeing from genocide. Egypt had already promised Darfur refugees that it would not deport them back to Darfur, thus once in Egypt they were safe from genocide. What Egypt could not offer, however, were employment and good living conditions. Thus the refugees illegally entering Israel were not actually seeking asylum or protection from genocide, but rather hoped for jobs and a better standard of living than what was available in Egypt. That pertinent piece of information cast an entirely different light on the motives and hard line stance of the Israelis toward illegal aliens, including Darfur's genocide survivors.

Perhaps more than any nation on earth, Israel must be wary of who it allows to cross its borders. To that end, Israel has established, unlike the United States, very strict policies toward legal and illegal immigration. A paragraph near the end of the AP story further clarifies an important reason for Israel's policy:

That the refugees are from Sudan further complicates the matter, because Israeli law denies asylum to anyone from an enemy state. Sudan's Muslim government is hostile to Israel and has no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

Americans are wary of Middle Eastern terrorists crossing our border with Mexico by posing as Hispanics, and this has been one frequently cited reason for the need to secure our border with Mexico. Likewise, Israel faces a great peril from Muslim terrorists in Sudan posing as Darfur refugees and infiltrating Israel by playing on that nation's sympathies toward genocide survivors. In reality, Israel has no way to verify the identities of Darfur refugees and confirm whether they were in fact fleeing genocide, seeking jobs or better living conditions than Egypt offered, or were penetrating Israeli security to conduct future terrorist actions. Without the ability to make such determinations, Israel has adopted the most prudent course of action:

On Sunday, a government spokesman said some 500 Darfurians already in Israel would be allowed to stay, but all new asylum seekers would be sent back to Egypt, with no exception.

"The policy of returning back anyone who enters Israel illegally will pertain to everyone, including those from Darfur," spokesman David Baker said.

While international and internal activists fighting to publicize the plight of Darfur refugees condemn Israel for not living up to its "moral and legal obligation to accept any refugees or asylum seekers," Israel has attempted to make it clear that it is not deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to that country. Israel has been deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to Egypt, since the refugees entered Israel illegally by crossing Egypt's poorly policed desert border. Thus even in its hard line position toward illegal aliens from Darfur, Israel continues to demonstrate cautious compassion by deporting them back to the safety of Egypt. Yet the AP headline and most of today's article appeared to have been presented in such a way as to generate ill-will and unfavorable impressions of Isreal as enforcing an uncaring and hypocritical policy toward genocide survivors.

Once the distinction is made between asylum seekers and strictly economic refugees from an enemy Muslim government, it is no surprise that Israel has taken decisive steps to curb further attempts by Darfur refugees to come to Israel seeking economic prosperity rather than protection from an African holocaust.

It is a shame that readers of the AP story had to delve nearly twenty paragraphs into it to find the truth behind the emotionally charged headline.

Technorati Tags:
Darfur, Genocide, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Asylum, Deportation, Illegal Immigration, Chad, Economic Migrants, Holocaust, Associated Press, Biased Reporting

Blogs, Radio Talkers Use Mall Killer's Muslim Affiliation for Shock Value: Ignore Youth's Traumatic Escape from Bosnian Genocide

Are conservative blogs and news sites exploiting the fact that the Trolley Square Mall shooter, Sulejman Talovic, was Muslim simply to attract site traffic? Elaine Jarvik, Deborah Bulkeley, and Ben Winslow of the Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City) provided two very important follow-up articles in today’s edition about the slayings at the Trolley Square Mall earlier this week. Jarvik and Bulkeley took conservative sites to task for declaring, without any evidence, that because Talovic was Muslim he must have engaged in “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” as argued by Jihad Watch.

The authors cite emotion-inducing headlines from Little Green Footballs and MichaelSavage.com as incorrectly distilling the tragedy in Salt Lake City down to a single theme: “Salt Lake City Killer Was a Muslim.” As a regular reader of both sites criticized in this article, and as Spy The News! readers know, I have dedicated a career to countering ideologies like radical Islam. However, I sided with the authors in their assessment that the shooter’s religion played an important role in the incident, but not for the “jihadist” reasons headlined by Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs.

Before casting stones at Muslims in general or specifically Sulejman Talovic himself, perhaps news sites and bloggers should have delved into the background of this young man prior to publishing scathing headlines designed to incite hatred and fear.

The second Deseret Morning News article, by Ben Winslow with the assistance of a Bosnian news reporter, described in great detail the experiences that make the Trolley Square shooter very different from the teen slayers at Columbine or other youthful murderers. The article, “A Child of Violence: Talovic Survived Genocide,” should cause many to rethink their assumptions that Talovic acted out any “jihad” impulse. While it is true that he was Muslim, there is no evidence he was active in any local mosques and most of his ties to regular Islamic worship were cut when his family emigrated to the U.S. after five years as refugees from Milosevic’s genocide in Bosnia.

From Winslow’s article, the following excerpts shed light on what Talovic experienced at the tender age of 7 and through more than 5 years of his youth. Spy The News! urges readers and fellow bloggers to see the forest in this situation (suffered genocide trauma), and not merely the trees (he was Muslim):

As a little boy in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sulejman Talovic hid in fear from the Serb military forces who were slaughtering Muslim men and boys as war and genocide ravaged his country . . . . neighbors also acknowledged that the war in Bosnia likely left its mark on the boy. During the war, the family lived for five years as refugees in Bosnia, and spent almost a year in the mountains hiding from the Serb military forces, neighbors said. Up to 200,000 people were killed and 1.8 million others lost their homes in Bosnia's 1992-95 war. . . .

The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina forced the Talovic family to live as refugees. From 1993 until they emigrated to the United States in 1998, they were on the run, moving from village to village.

They lived near Srebrenica, where more than 8,300 Muslim boys and men were killed in 1995 by Serb forces loyal to ex-Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Sulejman Talovic was 7 years old then.

The atrocities of war and "ethnic cleansing," and the pressures of daily life in a new country after he immigrated to the United States, could have created immense pressure on Talovic, according to Greg Jurkovic, a psychology professor at Georgia State University who has studied Bosnian teenagers in both Atlanta and Sarajevo.

"What we're finding is that so many of these kids are suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)," he said. "What seems to be most important is what they were exposed to, their war exposure." [emphasis added]

Some argue that because he survived genocide against Muslims at the hands of “Christian” Serbs he was thus acting out a desire to kill infidels when he entered the Trolley Square Mall. However, that conclusion ignores the fact that the genocide was a personally traumatic experience that scarred the boy psychologically. Perhaps the authors of Little Green Footballs and Jihad Watch should visit the psychiatric emergency units at various Veterans Administration hospitals to witness firsthand the mental illnesses produced by battlefield trauma. Schizophrenia (acute or paranoid types), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, sleep disorders, Bi-Polar Disorder, and these merely scratch the surface of what one finds. The veterans in those wards were combatants in wars they may or may not have understood, at ages similar to Talovic’s youthful eighteen years.

Many of these precious veterans have attempted suicide with various weapons or available household items; many have assaulted family members they love and responding law enforcement, not because they truly wanted to hurt anyone but because they were no longer in control. A break from reality, or psychotic episode, can occur rapidly or gradually, and the fact that Talovic was calmly walking through the mall does not indicate he was acting rationally or with legally defined criminal intent. A comparison of PTSD manifestations in a U.S. Military veteran and in Talovic is enlightening. Consider the tragic situation of just one Marine, Jonathan Schulze:

Schulze, a machine gunner and a corporal, had fought in Iraq in battles where Marine casualties were high. He had told his family that he felt guilty that he had lived and close friends had died [emphasis added]. He left the Marines in late 2005 after four years of service.

Schulze's stepmother said that she witnessed Jonathan telling VA staff workers in St. Cloud that he felt like killing himself. She said she also heard him tell a VA counselor over the phone the next day that he was suicidal. After that conversation he told his stepmother that he learned that he was No. 26 on a waiting list for admittance to the St. Cloud psychiatric unit.

The St. Cloud VA has no waiting list for its locked, acute psychiatric unit -- where suicidal or homicidal veterans would be taken . . . [emphasis added]

Two other members of Minnesota's congressional delegation expressed concern about the VA's ability to cope with a growing wave of troops returning from Iraq. Many of those veterans are expected to need counseling because of combat stress, lengthy separation from families, financial problems and other worries. [emphasis added]

"The hidden costs of this war are not being addressed," said Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., a member of the U.S. House Veterans' Affairs Committee and a veteran. "I've been deeply concerned. I think there's been almost nothing done to prepare for this."

Examine carefully the words or phrases emphasized in red. All of these were a part of daily life for Talovic. Survivor's guilt? Watching your friends and neighbors being exterminated while you manage to flee would cause that. This was also common among Jewish Holocaust survivors. Combat Stress? Being hunted for extermination in the middle of a war zone seems to fit that criteria. Separation from families? Talovic's extended family remain in Bosnia today. Financial problems? Talovic's family fled and lived in abandoned shacks, working odd jobs to survive in Bosnia until they could emigrate to America. In America Talovic's father and Talovic himself have worked many low wage jobs to provide for the family and save money to help bring family from Bosnia to the U.S. Other Worries? Wouldn't these other factors be enough? Add being a teenager in a new country, with few friends to the stresses already described, and a very different picture of Talovic emerges from the "Mall Killer is a Muslim" frenzy.

Note the use of the word "homicidal" by the VA hospital official. Clearly PTSD and other psychological problems stemming from war trauma have led some of our veterans to act on homicidal impulse. Is it so hard to imagine someone who had gone through what Talovic experienced acting similarly? Or is it just easier and more newsworthy to assume he killed because he was nominally Muslim?

Many who suffer mental illnesses are “high functioning” and it is only when you sit down to interview or visit with them does the paranoia become apparent. Talovic’s actions, although horrendous, likely had no connection to the U.S. War on Terror, the Iraq War, or jihad against America despite current events. America is where his family fled to in order to escape Bosnia and find safety. By all accounts, Talovic’s family had no ties to any groups sympathetic to radical Islam, and the FBI has ruled out terrorism in this incident. Talovic’s family worked various jobs in an effort to provide funds for extended family to emigrate to the U.S. as well. This does not appear to be the portrait of a jihadist family.

Ascribing Talovic’s actions to his religion itself or some jihadist mentality may have shock value in the headlines, but it omits the central factors of the incident: The perpetrator’s mental capacity and intent. Both of those were likely influenced tremendously by his childhood experiences in Bosnia. In our criminal justice codes, those with mental illness or even “temporary insanity” are judged by different and more compassionate standards than criminals with clear intent. While Talovic’s death in this incident prevents a definitive assessment of his intent, there is far more in his background that points to genocide trauma, rather than jihad, to explain his terrible actions.