"Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are" - sometimes this phrase is true not only when it comes to people, but also documents. Samantha Power and Adam Schiff, two of Russia's worst political enemies, supporters of the myth about "Russia gate" and Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, became main lobbyists of the US House of Representatives' resolution on recognition of Armenian genocide, adopted this week.
Schiff, as head of the House Intelligence Committee, introduced a resolution on the Armenian Genocide to this lower house of Congress. Samantha Power immediately published an article in the main American newspaper The New York Times titled "A Belated Recognition of the Genocide." Let's just say that: it's not Samantha Smith, it's another Samantha, who headed the US mission to the UN and attacked Russian colleague Vitaly Churkin in March of 2014 at the headquarters of the United Nations. This happened soon after the Crimean referendum, and the only things that could be heard during her loud screaming was the phrase: "You lost the Cold War."
Let me explain myself: I know tragic history of national minorities in the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th century; I have very good relations with Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish peoples. This article is not about how to evaluate the events of 1915 and whether it's necessary to make the entire planet call them genocide. This is about much smaller issue: how can politicians of the richest and most armed country in the world called the United States of America doubt something for 104 years, and then suddenly attack country, accusing it of events that happened 105 years ago? Have they opened their eyes just yesterday? Or were there some hidden documents? There can't be any new witnesses, because the last participants of those events died 30-40 years ago, and last people who saw those events during their childhood died 10-15 years ago...
There are no new documents and evidences. Congressmen are not motivated by history, but by modern conditions. And Samantha Power herself sayd in her article in the New York Times what made her write it:
"Although Turkish officials may see the vote as retaliation for Turkey’s recent forced displacement of Syrian Kurds, that operation — as well as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s sweeping human rights crackdown in Turkey and his purchase (over American and NATO protests) of a Russian air defense system — simply reduced the impact of Turkish blackmail," Ms. Power writes.
That's how she talks about purchase made by sovereign country (Turkey) from another sovereign country (Russia). As well as about operation of Turkish troops against people who Turkey suspects of terrorist crimes and who live a few kilometers from Turkish borders. (Let me remind you that the United States occupied entire countries - Iraq and Afghanistan - based on much more obscure "terrorist" accusations. And those countries are located extremely far from its borders.)
I wonder what Power means by "blackmail"? How could distant Turkey, which doesn't have nuclear weapons, intimidate mighty nuclear state for the entire century, despite the fact that Washington has military budget that is tens of times larger?
Power writes that “for many years, out of fear of causing hostile reaction in Turkey, diplomats followed the instructions and didn't talk about well-documented genocide. In 2005, when John Evans, American ambassador to Armenia, said that "Armenian genocide was the first genocide of 20th century", he was called back home and was forced to retire... When I became US representative to the UN in 2013 I was afraid of questions about Armenian genocide... But now Washington officials have been given the authority to tell the truth... Because when bullies are allowed to torture others, they usually bully people even more, and we must learn this lesson in our future relations with China and Saudi Arabia. After all, Turkish government spends millions of dollars every year to lobby American officials and lawmakers - they spent over $12 million during the Obama administration's rule."
What an interesting interpretation. So silence of current Washington rulers on historical issues can be sold and bought. While Turkey was spending billions of dollars in the framework of NATO - including on purchase of American weapons - Ms. Power was afraid to speak about notorious genocide. After all, one of her bosses (officials of the Obama administration) could get a piece of those $12 million. And in case those $12 million were somehow lost because of her actions, red-haired ex-journalist of Irish descent Samantha Power could easily lose her job in the State Department.
But now Samantha Power has all the power in the world. Now she's not afraid to openly talk about Turkey, as well as China and Saudi Arabia. And now she despises those Turkish millions, despite the fact that she had nothing against this money in the past.
The second “human engine” of the genocide resolution, Adam Schiff, is even more hypocritical. As the head of the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives, over the past few years Schiff has continuously argued that Russia has "stolen" the US election, allegedly imposing Donald Trump on America as an alternative to democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. And even when in April of this year, the Commission led by democrats (!) and headed by special prosecutor Robert Muller came to the conclusion that there was no “conspiracy” between Trump's team and Russia, we still didn’t hear any kind of apology from Mr. Schiff.
