Take a look at the official definition and scope of the term "genocide". A careful reading of the definitions, and more importantly, a meticulous examination of the evidence for and against, could conceivably make a prima facie case for the word "genocide" to apply to the massacres and deportations of the Armenians in eastern Anatolia in the period 1915-20. But applying the actual label of genocide at this time does nothing to further establish the guilt of the perpetrators, nor to mitigate the suffering of their victims. To my mind, whatever happened was bad enough. Would the crimes committed lose their enormity by a determination that they did NOT constitute genocide? What would change if Turkey were to admit that it WAS a genocide? The people who were responsible have died, and either been killed, or were sentenced by Turkish courts after World War I, as the resolution itself admits. The whole point of examining the evidence - and there is enough evidence of criminality, even if there may not be enough to officially label it a genocide - should be to warn present and future generations of politicians and citizens, not just in Turkey but all over the world, not to allow such a crime to be committed again.
And THAT point has been lost, especially in the US itself. The very same Senators who submitted the resolution - Mr. Schiff (for himself, Mr. Radonovich, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. McCotter) - voted as follows on the authorization of the use of force in Iraq (HJ Res 114 107th Congress October 10, 2002)
For - Radonovich, Knollenberg, Sherman
Against - Pallone
McCotter - No record. .
Gary Ackerman and Christopher Smith, who voted for the Armenian Genocide resolution, also voted for what turned out to be the Iraqi genocide, despite being in a position to know that they were being fed lies by the President and those who wanted the invasion.
Has the US senate itself reflected (in the words of the resolution) "appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide" in Iraq after the invasion that it supported overwhelmingly? The horrendous scale of the killing and displacement of almost a fifth of the population of Iraq is well documented in the public domain, and can arguably amount to a genocide within the terms of the UN definition cited above. So why doesn't the Turkish Parliament pass a resolution to apply the term genocide to the deaths and displacement resulting from the sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1991, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of the country? For good measure it could also have those responsible identified as war criminals under the Nuremberg definitions of crimes against humanity.
Comments