House Resolution 106, The Armenian Genocide

Floor Speech

HOUSE RESOLUTION 106, THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE -- (House of Representatives - October 15, 2007)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that recognition, and I appreciate the Republican leader giving me this opportunity tonight to participate in our Special Order.

I am here tonight to talk about something that happened last week in the Foreign Relations Committee and to talk about something that is proposed to happen here in the House between now and the middle of November when we are supposed to be taking a break for Thanksgiving. I am here to talk about House Resolution 106, the Armenian genocide resolution. I am, as I have said before here many times, an extremely proud Member of the House of Representatives. I am so pleased to be able to represent the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina. However, when I came here, I took an oath, an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the Constitution. I did not take an oath to say that I would ignore the good of the United States for the good of the Fifth District of North Carolina.

I thought that everyone who came here understood that our Number 1 responsibility is to work together as a group on behalf of the entire United States of America. Certainly we should do all we can to represent our districts, and I believe that every Member does that. But there are times when we must put aside provincial interest for the good of this country.

I am very disappointed that last week the Foreign Relations Committee voted out of that committee a resolution that I think puts the good of the United States in second place to the good of a small interest group. We should never do that as Members of Congress. We should assume that the oath that we take is like the doctor's oath, above all, do no harm. The resolution that was passed out of that committee last week does harm to the United States of America and does harm to people in Turkey and in other parts of the world. That is not what we should be about. The action that was taken last week and the proposed action for a vote on the floor by the entire House has been called by many others the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I agree with that.

I am particularly concerned that the Speaker of the House is the person pushing this resolution. She is third in line to be President of the United States. And exhibiting behavior that shows such provincial interest does not give me great comfort in thinking that if something were to happen and the Speaker were to assume the Presidency, that she would have the presence of mind to do what needs to be done for the good of this country. It is simply not being exhibited by her behaviors, by pressing this resolution and by other things that she has done. I am quite concerned about it.

Many people have written this Speaker, many editorials have been written saying, don't do this. This will do harm to the United States. This will do harm to Armenians. This is not the right thing to do.

I want to talk a little bit about the history of Turkey, our relationship with Turkey, and give a little bit of background to people who may not be so familiar with Turkey as a country and with what has happened there and talk about why, again, this resolution is so wrong not just at this time, but at any time in the history of this country. The Republic of Turkey was formally established on October 29, 1923, with the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was the visionary leader of modern Turkey and became its first president. You see, Turkey wasn't even a country in 1915 at the time that the events that are being discussed in House Resolution 106 are talked about. The fall of the Ottoman Empire was occurring during that period of time. And so bringing these charges against Turkey is wrong because Turkey didn't exist as a country.

Turkey is the only secular pluralistic westward-looking democracy with a predominantly Muslim population. I have been to Turkey. I have been to Turkey several times. I have gotten to know the Turkish people and know them for the wonderfully warm, kind, intelligent and entrepreneurial people that they are. We are so fortunate to have them as our ally. Turkey has a significant and constructive physical and influential reach in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The United States and Turkey share common values of democracy, diversity, tolerance, social mobility, the separation of religious and civic life.

Anatolia, the home of the Republic of Turkey, has been the cradle of civilizations for millennia. The city-states of the Lycian Federation located in Patara, Turkey, inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States as they wrote the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, there is a figure of Suleyman here in the House Chamber. We recognize Suleyman as one of the great lawgivers of the world.

Again, the United States and Turkey have been close friends and allies for more than half a century. Turkish Americans are leaders in many walks of life, ranging from the arts, science, academia and business, and have a proud heritage. Turkish Americans are good-will ambassadors of the friendship between the United States and Turkey. In celebrating their rich cultural heritage, Turkish Americans enrich society in the United States and the United States' understanding of that part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, Turkey is becoming a reliable energy hub for the Western world, in a highly volatile region, completing the East-West Energy Corridor. For decades, Turkey has stood as the bulwark of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the southeastern flank of the alliance, and guarded a long common border with the Soviet Union.

Turkey has become an important partner of the United States in facing new, major challenges, such as international terrorism, ethnic and religious extremism and fundamentalism, energy and security and diversity, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international organized crime, including drug and human trafficking. This has been especially true since the Cold War ended.

In July, 2006, the United States and Turkey signed a ``shared vision document'' outlining a strategic vision for bilateral cooperation and coordination on a wide range of international matters of common concern. In 2006, and so far in 2007, Turkey has been the 30th largest market for United States exports and the 44th largest source of imports.

Mr. Speaker, Turkey continues to play an important role in Afghanistan, having twice commanded the International Security Assistance Force, and maintains a provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan which builds hospitals, schools and roads. It plays a crucial role in helping supply services and equipment to United States forces in Iraq.

Turkey, again, has had an extraordinarily proud history and has been a very close collaborator with the United States in doing good things all over the world, but especially in its part of the world. We as Americans need to recognize the important role that Turkey has played, again, from the early millennium, and the importance that it plays in keeping peace in that part of the world.

I had the opportunity to go to Turkey in May of this year, along with five other Members of Congress. There were three Democrats and three Republicans. We visited the Armenian Patriarch and we visited the Jewish community while we were there. We visited all the major players in the Turkish government while we were there.

Turkey this year has gone through some challenges to its constitution. It has worked out those challenges. It has held elections. It has gone through some crises and handled them extremely well. We are very proud of the way that all of those things have been handled.

When we talked with people in Turkey, we heard over and over and over again how devastating this resolution would be to our relationship with the Turkish people. We heard from the Armenians in Turkey that this was a mistake. They told us over and over again that this is something people in the United States are pushing, that Armenians in the United States are pushing. They said ``We do not want this done. We are working out our differences here in Turkey, and working them out very well. Please do not pass this resolution.''

My three Democratic colleagues who went on that trip are all opposed to this resolution. The Republicans are opposed to it. This is a mistake. The Speaker should not be pandering to people in her own district and risking the friendship that we have with Turkey, and indeed risking our military endeavors in the Middle East. But that is what she's doing.

Again, I want to say that many people have called this the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I think that that is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some other people who have expressed their interest and concern and opposition to this resolution. Eight former Secretaries of State, Democrats and Republicans, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi. I want to quote from that letter, dated September 25, 2007:

``We are writing to express concern that H. Res. 106 could soon be put to a vote. Passage of the resolution would harm our foreign policy objectives to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would also strain our relations with Turkey and would endanger our national security interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. During our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each supported Presidential Statements recognizing the mass killings and forced exile of Armenians. It has been longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the administration continues to urge the Turkish government to re-examine its history and to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation, including normalizing relations and opening the border.

``There are some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging each other. We believe that a public statement by the U.S. Congress at this juncture is likely to undermine what has been painstakingly achieved to date.''

They go on to say: ``We must also recognize the important contributions Turkey is making to U.S. national security, including security and stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States continues to rely on Turkey for its geostrategic importance. Turkey is an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and build security. By providing the U.S. military with access to Turkish airspace, military bases and the border crossing with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the trans-shipment of vital cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops, coalition partners and Iraqi civilians.

``Turkish troops serve shoulder to shoulder with distinction with U.S. and other NATO allies in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub for non-OPEC oil and gas, and remains key to our efforts to help the Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by providing alternative supply sources and routes around Russia and Iran.

``It is our view that passage of this resolution could quickly extend beyond symbolic significance. The popularly-elected Turkish Grand National Assembly might react strongly to a House resolution, as it did to a French National Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge you to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.''

It is signed by eight former Secretaries of State, and I will submit this for the record with their signatures.

There is another letter sent to the Speaker of the House by three former Secretaries of Defense dated September 7, 2007.

``We write today to convey our deep concern regarding the damage that passage of H. Res. 106 could do to relations between the United States and Turkey, a long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical role in supporting the U.S. national security interests in the Balkans, greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and Afghanistan.

``The depth and breadth of our defense and security relationship with Turkey are considerable, and, as former Secretaries of Defense, we value Turkey's friendship and partnership. Turkey makes numerous and substantial contributions to U.S. goals and interests abroad, including its close relationship with Israel, its deployment of military forces to the Balkans and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat terrorism and support democracy in Afghanistan.

``Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own country, the reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of H. Res. 106 would be considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106 would have a direct detrimental effect on the operational capability, safety and well-being of our armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because the Turkish parliament would likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air base at Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the Habur Gate. The Turkish parliament would also likely retract blanket flight clearances for U.S. military overflights, which are vital to transporting supplies and fuel to our troops.

``We also believe the increasingly open debate about this issue in Turkey would surely be restricted by negative public reaction to U.S. congressional action. We are also concerned that any potential steps toward better relations between Turkey and Armenia will be set back by any action in the U.S. Congress.

``In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest that anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took place as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part of the last century. As President Bush and other presidents before him have done, we recognize the need to acknowledge and learn from the tragedy.

``We respect that this issue is of great concern to you, and hope that you can consider other appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate and honor the memory of the victims, without doing damage to our contemporary relations with modern Turkey.''

Again, I will submit this letter for the RECORD.

Editorials have come out in most of the major newspapers, newspapers that are not generally opposed to the Speaker. The Washington Post editorial was titled ``Worse Than Irrelevant.''

``A congressional resolution about massacres in Turkey 90 years ago endangers present day U.S. security. It is easy to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against Armenians during World War I as frivolous,'' and ``genocide'' is in quotations. ``Though the subject is a serious one, more than 1 million Armenians died, House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have petty and parochial interests.

``The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians, and therefore its government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal wave of anti-Americanism in the country.''

I am going to submit this entire editorial also, because it refers again to some of the letters that I have already read. But the Washington Post has said this is worse than irrelevant, because it will do harm. Again, what we should practice here is the same thing that doctors practice: Above all else, do no harm.

There is an excerpt from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2007. ``History is messy enough without politicians getting into the act. As a general rule, legislatures in far-off countries ought to think carefully before passing judgment on another people's history. When their sights turn in that direction, it is a fair bet that points are to be scored with powerful domestic lobbies. Playing with history often complicates the implementation of foreign policy goals as well. Politicians are paid to think about the future, not the past. Many would say, why are we doing this? Why should the Congress not be dealing with the future, instead of the past?''

I question that too, and I am going to come back to that in a minute in terms of what may be one of the real underlying reasons for all of these things coming out.

Some have said that Congress rarely holds the key to America's foreign relations with a critical ally. But now with Turkey, the only Muslim country in the world allied with the United States and NATO, the future of Turkish-American relations are very much in the hands of the Congress.

This is from a survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, an organization that did a survey in Turkey earlier this year. It was the first nationwide public survey of Turkey on the issue and what the survey found was that it would actually set back the cause it purports to achieve, namely Turkey's recognition of its own past and reconciliation with Armenia today.

I have a chart on this showing 78 percent of the Turkish people who were surveyed opposed this resolution, any congressional resolution dealing with the Armenian situation. Almost three-quarters of them felt that passage of an Armenian regulation resolution would worsen their opinion of the United States. Only 7 percent favored no action by the government or favored such a resolution. And three-quarters of Turks, though, would accept scholarship by independent historians on what occurred between Turks and Armenians during 1915.

Also, Turks do not consider the U.S. Congress a neutral judge of this issue. Instead, they see the resolution as driven by anti-Muslim feelings and American domestic politics. And 73 percent of Turks think a resolution will have the opposite effect and actually worsen relations between Turkey and Armenia. Again, this was a poll done in January and February of this year by Terror Free Tomorrow and the ARI Foundation. These are groups that wanted to study this issue to gather information to help people be informed of what the effect would be. The survey was done all over the country of Turkey, and the views that were held were held firmly regardless of age, income, education, or even their present view of the United States.

And 84 percent of those who now have a very favorable opinion of the United States responded that their opinion would deteriorate if the resolution were to pass. And of course the resolution has passed in the committee and the Speaker has said that she will bring it to the floor for a vote which most people in Turkey believe would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

Turkey again is a stable, moderate Muslim democracy. It is our most strategic and valuable Muslim ally. This resolution would help the cause of those extremists in Turkey who wish to reduce the nation's ties with the United States. It would discredit those within Turkey who continue to call for greater openness and plurality.

The Turkish people who answered the survey felt that it would alienate the Armenians and the Turks who through fits and starts have been slowly moving toward reconciliation of this important and divisive historical question. It could scuttle dialogue to establish a joint commission to examine the events of 1915.

Turkey is a country of considerable nationalism. The passage of this resolution would likely produce a nationalistic backlash against the United States. The whole issue of probing and making amends for the wrongs of history would be completely lost in this onslaught of Turkish nationalism. It would probably dramatically and perhaps permanently damage U.S. relations with Turkey.

As the Turkish community of Turkey recently said in a statement: ``What happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire during World War I--death, destruction, displacement--was a terrible tragedy, but eminent historians do not agree whether the term `genocide' is the appropriate description of that tragedy.'' I certainly agree with that.

In another article by the Washington Post it said:

``It is true that Turkey's military and political class has been slow to come to terms with the history and virulent nationalism, but Turkish writers and intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude and formal and informal talks between Turks and Armenians are making slow progress. A resolution by Congress would probably torpedo rather than help such efforts. Given that reality and the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the Armenian resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.''

Now I want to go to a piece that has been written that I certainly hope is not true. Jed Babbin, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration, has written in Human Events magazine: ``According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is the transshipment point for about 70 percent of all air cargo, including 33 percent of the fuel going to supply U.S. forces in Iraq. Included are about 95 percent of the new MRAP, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, designed to save the lives of American troops.

``Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a nonbinding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.''

And Mr. Boehner has said if the Turks cut off our ability to use Incirlik, there is no question this could jeopardize our troops on the ground in Iraq. And, frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrat string of back-door attempts to force a retreat against the war against al Qaeda, it is certainly the most dangerous.''

Mr. Babbin comes to a chilling conclusion in his analysis of the resolution and its impact on our Nation's relations with the nation of Turkey. This is what gives me great pause. He writes: ``Speaker Pelosi is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event. The House of Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time of war and possibly interdicting supplies to U.S. troops.'' If his prediction proves true, it will be a low point for the history of this noble body.

I hope that what Mr. Babbin is saying is not true. I hope that this is not an attempt by the Speaker to sabotage our efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan because it puts our troops in harm's way and we have been hearing over and over again that this is not what she wants or that others in the majority want. But it would have the effect of doing that. We as Members of Congress should never take a position that would in any way put our troops in harm's way.

I am urging the Speaker to rethink her statements that she will put this resolution, H. Res. 106, on the floor for a vote. It is a nonbinding resolution. It will go nowhere else. People outside here don't understand how these resolutions work, but it would not go to the Senate to be passed. It would not go to the President to be vetoed as I feel certain the President would veto if it went there. It is a resolution only from the House of Representatives. This is a body that is capable of doing so much good, but we also have the capability of doing harm. We should practice again what physicians take an oath to do: Above all, do no harm.

I urge the Speaker: rethink your commitment to put H. Res. 106 on the floor for a vote. Realize the significant responsibility that has been given to you not just as a Member of the House of Representatives but as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an extraordinarily great honor, the first woman in this country to be named Speaker of the House.

What message are we sending to our troops if we pass such a resolution or even consider such a resolution that puts our troops in harm's way, damages our relationship with a country that has been such a wonderful ally to us and does damage to our relationship for a long, long time to a government that has been working very hard to do the right things, to promote democracy in the Middle East, to shore up other countries that are working to promote democracy. What messages are those going to send to other people.

I urge the Speaker to rethink her commitment to put this resolution on the floor. I urge the Speaker to get above petty and parochial interests, to think about the tremendous responsibility she bears as the Speaker of the House.

We are not often involved in foreign relations on the scale that we are being asked to be involved in the House at this time. It is an awesome responsibility. We all should remember that we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and to defend this country. Bringing such a resolution to the floor will do damage to our country, to our relationship with a valued ally, and I believe ultimately will do harm to our efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.

I urge the Speaker to rise above again petty parochialism, come to the realization that this is an extremely serious matter that needs to be dealt with in a very different way than it has been dealt with thus far, and reject petty parochialism in favor of looking to the larger issue, looking to the future, not to the past, and helping the Armenians and the Turks come to grips with this difference of opinion that they have, resolve it within their own country, keep the United States looking for those things that are important to the United States, not getting involved with the internal affairs of other countries and promoting peace and stability in the Middle East.

Let us let the 110th Congress not be thought of as passing the most irresponsible resolution that could be passed in this session of Congress. Let us focus on positive things, things that will move this country forward and not things that will do harm to this country, to other countries and, most of all, not to our troops serving overseas, protecting us so we can be here to practice the free speech that they make possible for us.

I will insert the material I previously referred to in the Record at this point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source