The Washington Post comes out against passing a resolution condemning the Armenia genocide. On what grounds? Turkey is an ally of the US and instrumental in waging war in Iraq, thus let's not get them mad. The Post also works a little genocide denial into the article as they put in quotes around the term itself.
The Post still likes to ride on the coattails of the Watergate days when they helped topple a President but historically they have been a flak for US power. This latest grand stand is just part in parcel in their long traditional of standing for power of the state over truth.
A few sources on the Armenian genocide.
By the way the Clinton Administration also played the game of denial in the interests of national security under its watch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So is Armenia. However, two things come to mind:
Congress, if anything should apologize for the policy of the State Department at the time of forgiving the Turkish government by oking the kemalists and calling for amnesty for the Ittihadists.
And secondly, why not also pass resolutions on current genocides?? China just got on board in the UN to send 26,000 troops to Darfur, after stalling efforts to send aid and protection to the massacre sites.
From an Edward Barnaysian view, you could justify a "hard stance on muslim arab militias" in Sudan, where Osama trained "al qaeda" in Sudan in the 80s. This would help their PR for their "global struggle against fundamentalist dickwads", now that all of the Security Council is on board and domestic support is waning. My point is, if you're going to use condemnations against a genocide for political purposes, then why miss the Darfuran example, which isn't at root a religious conflict, but could be drawn up as a Muslim v. Christian and animist showdown?
Post a Comment