Honesty or Cordiality?

My initially preferred title was "Honesty or Polity?" for the rhyme and rhythm, and the connotations, but I decided that using polity to mean "as a matter of friendly policy" would be pushing the modern use of the word a bit too much. (I did find suitable support in the OED, but I'm pretty sure none of my readers' dictionaries will include that arcane and now obsolete definition.) The title reflects what The Economist sees in "Past imperfect, present tense" as the issues at stake over the recent moves by the US Congress to vote on whether or not the largely Muslim Turkey committed genocide against Armenian Christians during and after the first world war almost a century ago (2010).

As The Economist notes, almost a full century later, the issue continues to be extremely sensitive. Turkey is very unhappy about being officially seen as having committed such a crime, and the Armenians are equally insistent that the truth be acknowledged by everyone. For President Obama's government, it is a headache he wishes would do away, and that is what he and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton are trying to bring about: they want the US Congress to not vote on the matter at all as the best way to please, or at least not upset, the opposing sides. The House of representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee has already voted, by a very narrow 23:22, that turkey did indeed commit genocide and to send the matter to Congress for a vote; that action, and the resulting full vote can, however, still be avoided.

I thought that The Economist set out very clearly what was at issue here: the conflict between being honest and being diplomatic. Should the truth be told when it will certainly upset some powerful allies? This also seemed to me related to Thailand's recent decision to refuse a visa to the Dalai Lama's sister to enter Thailand to make a speech at a conference. The Thai government's most unhappy response is in marked contrast to that of the US. Embarrassing and inconvenient as it is, I think that the US government is right to both state and allow the truth to be told. Suppressing teh truth for convenience, suppressing freedom of speech for the sake of financial or other political benefit seems to me wrong, and a very dangerous idea to agree to. Once it is allowed that governments can lie with impunity for their own purposes about events and persons, whether their motives are patriotic or not, it is impossible to trust that government, which is why censorship of political opinions must also be not only immoral but harmful to society as it erodes the possibility of trust and even of knowledge on teh censored topic. I cannot see how ignorance can possibly be preferable to knowledge.

Turkey is certainly angry that the House Committee has already voted to describe their past historical acts as genocide. They will be even more offended if the matter now goes before a full house of Congress vote. But again, not offending people is a very bad, a truly awful reason, not to tell the truth about something that matters (Although Kant would disagree, I think it's probably OK to lie about a partner's new haircut, which doesn't really matter all that much). It would be better, and far more honourable, for Turkey to admit it's old evils and move forward. Every country has shameful acts in its past, and the more decent way of dealing with those acts, however evil, is not to pretend that they did not happen, but to admit them and work to ensure that they cannot so easily be repeated. My own country has had to come to terms with the appalling treatment, including genocide, of the aboriginal settlers in Australia before my European ancestors arrived not so long ago. The Aborigines of Tasmania were completely wiped out, and Australians would be wrong to pretend that our ancestors did not commit that evil. There have been more recent shameful acts in Australian history, such as the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their parents to "save" them from the Aboriginal lifestyle. This last was done with the best of intentions, but was still absolutely wrong and had disastrous consequences. Our current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was right to formally admit and apologise for this. The Turkish government, instead of complaining and denying the truth, should also take the more honourable course of admitting and apologizing for past sins. In the meantime, the US Congress is right to hold that not offending Turkey or other nations is less important than being honest and allowing truths to be told.

__________

References

Past imperfect, present tense, (2010, March 5). The Economist. Retrieved March 7, 2010 from http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15640909