Face Turkey’s Crime, Then Go Beyond It : Armenians: By its refusal to recognize that a genocide occurred, the Bush Administration holds back the process of healing.

The negative response by President Bush and 51 senators to the recent Armenian genocide commemorative resolution reflects the same kind of moral weakness that led President Reagan to pay a visit to Bitburg, Germany. “Whistling Past the Graveyard” was how a Times editorial described that trip. The defeat of the Armenian resolution is a similar example of how the meaning of the past can be perverted to suit the present.

Bush opposed the resolution because he was “sensitive to the close relationship the United States has with our friend and ally, Turkey.” Under the guise of national security, in essence, the White House elevated the interests of corporations that profit in Turkey above moral principles that define America. Challenging the facts of history was a means to the end: To justify his opposition, Bush invoked “the differing views of how the terrible events of 1915-23 should be characterized.”

The fading of memories is a useful phenomenon for policy-makers inclined more to the pragmatic than the proper.

But the evidence remains: In 1919 the official Turkish gazette Takvimi Vekayi published the verdict of the Ottoman Court, which stated that the intention of the Ottoman leaders was “the organization and execution of (the) crime of massacre.” The National Congress of Turkey declared that the “guilt” of the officials who “conceived and deliberately carried out this infernal policy of extermination and robbery is patent.” They “rank among the greatest criminals of humanity.”

German Ambassador Johann Bernstorff wrote about the “Armenia where the Turks have been systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population.” American envoy Adm. Mark Bristol acknowledged “the cruelties practiced upon the Armenians by Turks acting under official orders, and in pursuance of a deliberate official policy” for which “there can be no adequate excuse.”

Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word genocide, specifically cited the “genocide of the Armenians.”

Yet the senators were told that 69 “academic experts” who signed an ad in the Washington Post doubted whether it was genocide. The fact that only 18 of them specialized in fields that encompass the Armenian experience was sidestepped, while only four had done any scholarly work specifically on the topic. Also sidestepped was the fact that, in response to an inquiry by the Armenian Assembly, several signatories later explained: “You ask me what my understanding is of the treatment of Armenians . . . I cannot say authoritatively. First, that period is not the subject of my own scholarly expertise . . .”; “I do not question that massive numbers of Armenians perished during World War I as a result of criminal and even genocidal intents . . .”; “As scholars, we acknowledge that there were terrible sufferings . . . Even the word ‘genocide’ is not wholly inappropriate here.”

Such information was ignored by legislators who argued during 15 hours of debate on the Senate floor that the resolution be set aside while newly opened Turkish archives are studied. Some senators saw through the obvious manipulation. Others allowed themselves to be taken in--even though it is the height of naivete to think that the determination of which archival files to release was not subjected to political criteria.

The lesson for the future is ominous. One can easily imagine what kind of “differing views” of the Holocaust might be generated someday by “academic experts” under the influence of fading memories, a coming to power by neo-fascists and newly revealed Nazi archives.

The point is that for some historical events, key evidence is already in. We do not need to check American archives in 1990 to prove that the stock market crashed in 1929.

Nor do we need Turkish archives to resolve the Armenian question. Instead, just as Germans atoned for the crimes of a defunct regime and still retained their dignity, Turks need to adopt a similarly expiatory and honorable policy toward the crimes of the defunct Ottoman regime. NATO’S declining importance may soon make it harder to coerce Congress to bow to the hollow threat that a commemorative resolution will harm American-Turkish relations. The relationship is much more in Turkey’s favor than America’s.

An equitable solution to the Armenian question would also work in favor of the majority of today’s Turkish people, who for too long--because of the misguided policy of the Turkish government--have been forced to wear like an albatross the image earned by a previous regime. A mutually beneficial Armenian-Turkish harmony is a difficult but attainable goal that needs to be pursued, through dialogue and compromise based on an accurate reading of both history and current realities.