Genocide, schmenocide?

Last week, a rift threatened to open between the United States and Turkey when the House of Representatives passed a resolution labeling certain events that unfolded in Turkey against the Armenian population from 1915-1917 as "genocide."Several things baffle me about this incident.

First, the resolution wasn't actually passed by the entire House when the controversy first arose. The non-binding resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Yes, just one committee.

Second, President Bush, whose administration was quick to label actions in Darfur as genocide, and then proceed to not do much about it, condemned the action by the House. Allegedly, he opposed the move because it had the potential to damage American-Turkish diplomatic relations. Granted, it did, but in general I'll just chalk this up to one more thing about the Bush administration that I'll never understand and move on.

Third, and the thing that I have yet to understand, despite hours of heavy thinking on the matter, is that Turkey still opposes the label genocide.

I'll admit that being labeled a perpetrator of genocide isn't anything to be proud of, but it happened a long time ago, and there's nothing much that could be done about it now.

The most mind-boggling thing about Turkey's reaction is that the government doesn't deny killing, deporting or doing any other number of nasty things to the Armenian population. It's not like they're claiming none of it ever happened, they just refuse to use the word "genocide.

"I could understand this if it was because there was no such term as genocide until after World War II, and thus using it to describe the Armenian question would be an inappropriate ex post facto imposition of terminology.

The primary argument Turkey seems to make as to why the situation shouldn't be labeled genocide (and why Turkey freaks out anytime any country even so much as hints that it might have been genocide) seems to be: "It wasn't. So there.

"A non-binding resolution doesn't mean a whole lot (just look at the United Nations - pretty much all the General Assembly does is pass non-binding resolutions). Especially taken with Bush's earlier condemnation, it seems especially meaningless. One committee in Congress can't dictate foreign policy toward a country.

According to the text of House Resolution 106, after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated and was replaced by the country of Turkey, the Turkish government conducted trials of those responsible for spearheading the movement against the Armenians.

The guilty verdicts handed down, which came with a sentence of death, were never carried out.

In 2000, the House buckled under the impending ire of the Turkish government and did not pass a resolution labeling the 1915-1917 atrocities of genocide.

Seven years later, it seems that the House (or at least the Foreign Affairs Committee) has finally done right by itself. Especially if the members of the committee were under direct pressure from the president to not pass the resolution, I admire all 27 members of the committee who voted to pass the resolution. Regardless of party affiliation, it can't be particularly easy to essentially look the president in the eye and tell him to shove off. If this really does pose a threat to Turkish-American ties, I feel there should be some kind of logical reason.

But there doesn't seem to be, so the initial question still stands.How isn't it genocide?