Armenians And Present Day Genocides

[Armen]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Mr. Bush, Take a Look at MTV

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

 

Published: April 17, 2005

 

When Turkey was massacring Armenians in 1915, the administration of Woodrow Wilson determinedly looked the other way. The U.S. ambassador in Constantinople sent furious cables to Washington, pleading for action against what he called "race murder," but the White House shrugged.

 

It was, after all, a messy situation, and there was no easy way to stop the killing. The U.S. was desperate to stay out of World War I and reluctant to poison relations with Turkey.

 

A generation later, American officials said they were too busy fighting a war to worry about Nazi death camps. In May 1943, the U.S. government rejected suggestions that it bomb Auschwitz, saying that aircraft weren't available.

 

In the 1970's, the U.S. didn't try to stop the Cambodian genocide. It was a murky situation in a hostile country, and there was no perfect solution. The U.S. was also negotiating the establishment of relations with China, the major backer of the Khmer Rouge, and didn't want to upset that process.

 

Much the same happened in Bosnia and Rwanda. As Samantha Power chronicles in her superb book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," the pattern was repeated over and over: a slaughter unfolded in a distant part of the world, but we had other priorities and it was always simplest for the American government to look away.

 

Now President Bush is writing a new chapter in that history.

 

Sudan's army and janjaweed militias have spent the last couple of years rampaging in the Darfur region, killing boys and men, gang-raping and then mutilating women, throwing bodies in wells to poison the water and heaving children onto bonfires. Just over a week ago, 350 assailants launched what the U.N. called a "savage" attack on the village of Khor Abeche, "killing, burning and destroying everything in their paths." Once again, there's no good solution. So we've looked away as 300,000 people have been killed in Darfur, with another 10,000 dying every month.

 

Since I'm of Armenian origin, I've been invited to participate in various 90th-anniversary memorials of the Armenian genocide. But we Armenian-Americans are completely missing the lesson of that genocide if we devote our energies to honoring the dead, instead of trying to save those being killed in Darfur.

 

Meanwhile, President Bush seems paralyzed in the face of the slaughter. He has done a fine job of providing humanitarian relief, but he has refused to confront Sudan forcefully or raise the issue himself before the world. Incredibly, Mr. Bush managed to get through recent meetings with Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair and the entire NATO leadership without any public mention of Darfur.

 

There's no perfect solution, but there are steps we can take. Mr. Bush could impose a no-fly zone, provide logistical support to a larger African or U.N. force, send Condoleezza Rice to Darfur to show that it's a priority, consult with Egypt and other allies - and above all speak out forcefully.

 

One lesson of history is that moral force counts. Sudan has curtailed the rapes and murders whenever international attention increased.

 

Mr. Bush hasn't even taken a position on the Darfur Accountability Act and other bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Corzine and Sam Brownback to put pressure on Sudan. Does Mr. Bush really want to preserve his neutrality on genocide?

 

Indeed, MTV is raising the issue more openly and powerfully than our White House. (Its mtvU channel is also covering Darfur more aggressively than most TV networks.) It should be a national embarrassment that MTV is more outspoken about genocide than our president.

 

If the Bush administration has been quiet on Darfur, other countries have been even more passive. Europe, aside from Britain, has been blind. Islamic Relief, the aid group, has done a wonderful job in Darfur, but in general the world's Muslims should be mortified that they haven't helped the Muslim victims in Darfur nearly as much as American Jews have. And China, while screaming about Japanese atrocities 70 years ago, is underwriting Sudan's atrocities in 2005.

 

On each of my three visits to Darfur, the dispossessed victims showed me immense kindness, guiding me to safe places and offering me water when I was hot and exhausted. They had lost their homes and often their children, and they seemed to have nothing - yet in their compassion to me they showed that they had retained their humanity. So it appalls me that we who have everything can't muster the simple humanity to try to save their lives.

 

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/opinion/....html?th&emc=th

[Armen]

I think what's happening in Darfur should be given special attention during the 90-th commemoration. All Armenian organisations should raise their voice on this issue.

[ED]

Armen, when our great Andranik was asked when fighting in Bulgaria against ottomans, "we know you’re Armenian General, but why are you fighting here in Bulgaria when your people need you so bad"

Andranik replied

"I'm Armenian yes and I'm also a solder who is fighting for all those people who are oppressed and live under ottoman yoke"

 

Yes I agree, to say the list it’s a very politically correct thing to do,

[Armen]

A friend of mine noticed in his e-mail today that Armenian parliament should deal with this. And I agree. German parliament is going to discuss the bill shortly and yet our own parliament is not doing anything to adress the similar tragic cases that are going on as we speak. The death toll in Darfur is near 300.000.

[Armen]

Yes I agree, to say the list it’s a very politically correct thing to do,

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Edward, don't you think it is just correct thing to do from all perspectives? Not only political I mean. If feel pitty just for ourselves, we should ask a question why do we want all other nations to care for our tragedy and feel compassion towards Armenians.

[ED]

Armen I totally agree with you, but when I said it is politically correct thing to do I took into account our differences even when it comes to persuasion of the AG, sometimes I'm amazed and wonder if we ever will have a unified voice in any given question, and raising a voice to the victims of and what goes on in Sudan is a tremendous task for Armenians, I wish it was deferent, and I guess because of this psyche we paid dearly true out our history and more so ever now days. You don’t have to look further, just take a look around this forum

[Nakharar]

Apart from some American politicians who do it for political expediency, no one in Europe even mentions Darfur. In fact it's hardly in the news. No one seems to care. The American attitude reminds me of Gladstone who cried foul against the Turks who were surpressing the Bulgarians' demand for independence with excessive force in the late 19th century. In the end nothing happened despite the moral rhetoric and empty tears.

[kars]

Well, welcome to planet Earth, Nakharar.

 

FACT: Humans are genocidal by nature.

 

CONCLUSION: Do your best to survive as a nation, or whatever you want to call your group. And stop whining.

 

Look around: who really cares? And, while we’re at it – who should care, and why? I always wanted to hear a rationalized answer to this question, and still haven’t heard one.

 

Darfur, Marfur..., Tutsi, Mutsi...

[Armen]

FACT: Humans are genocidal by nature.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You mean you personally want to kill huge masses of humans of particular goup at any moment?

 

That claim is false. Governments may have that interest, individual humans mostly don't.

[Sasun]

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_r...es.php?prid=739

 

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_r...es.php?prid=739

[Sasun]

Look around: who really cares? And, while we’re at it – who should care, and why? I always wanted to hear a rationalized answer to this question, and still haven’t heard one.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That's called MORALITY.

[ED]

Sasun Jan, in my opinion ANCA is one of the, if not the most solid Armenian organization, and does a great job in every aspect and interests of Armenians around the world.

I have been starch supporter of ANCA for many years now

[Anoushik]

I think what's happening in Darfur should be given special attention during the 90-th commemoration. All Armenian organisations should raise their voice on this issue.

style_images/master/snapback.png

The all-ASA candlelight vigil at UCLA three days ago also brought up Darfur.

[Anahit]

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere . . . Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

 

Martin Luther King Jr

[Med]

You mean you personally want to kill huge masses of humans of particular goup at any moment?

 

That claim is false. Governments may have that interest, individual humans mostly don't.

 

Armen, I don't think that without popular support you can actually commit genocide. Sad but true. Those masses are in most cases more than willing accessories in genocide and massacres. Usually they are driven by hate, fear or by sheer opportunism. You don't have to actually take part in a crime to become an accessory to it. Turning your back and total apathy are worse in my opinion.

 

I have a pessimistic outlook on things as you can see from my post yesterday. style_images/master/snapback.png

[Nakharar]

Well, welcome to planet Earth, Nakharar.

 

FACT: Humans are genocidal by nature.

 

CONCLUSION: Do your best to survive as a nation, or whatever you want to call your group. And stop whining.

 

Look around: who really cares? And, while we’re at it – who should care, and why? I always wanted to hear a rationalized answer to this question, and still haven’t heard one.

 

Darfur, Marfur..., Tutsi, Mutsi...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

"Never has any people endured its own tragedy with so little sense of the tragic."

 

That means us.

[kars]

That's called MORALITY.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Oh! I see. “Morality” as in “morals”? If so, then here is a valid question: whose “morals”? Yours or mine? Or, perhaps, there is such a thing as “universal morality”, which I somehow missed?

 

Since it’s a known fact that “morality” is a subjective term, I’ll refrain from discussing it any further; it also came to my attention that many of you here are too moralistic, for my tastes.

 

Back to the topic. I still insist that humans are genocidal by nature. That’s how we evolved; you may call it “immoral”, “amoral”, “un-Christian”, “bad”, whatever – but that’s how it is. We – homo sapiens – kill our enemies (sometimes en masse), when we, as a group, perceive them as a threat to our own group’s survival. That’s normal.

 

Your turn, Sir.

[kars]

You mean you personally want to kill huge masses of humans of particular goup at any moment?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The answer is no. But your question was irrelevant, at least.

[Armen]

Armen, I don't think that without popular support you can actually commit genocide. Sad but true. Those masses are in most cases more than willing accessories in genocide and massacres. Usually they are driven by hate, fear or by sheer opportunism. You don't have to actually take part in a crime to become an accessory to it. Turning your back and total apathy are worse in my opinion.

 

I have a pessimistic outlook on things as you can see from my post yesterday. style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Med, popular support is acquire by propaganda. It is the government that motivates and organizes the people (just like the "hamidie" groups during the Armenian Genocide). Some part of population may have some grieviances but VERY rare it is such a general sentiment that government cna rely on that without futher preperation. Review the German case for example. There was a whole industry of propaganda under Goebbels that was pumping the German nationalism day and night for several years until the whole thing began. Tons of books, songs etc where produces for this reason.

 

Population cannot have an organised hatered. All the wars have been started by the governments. Take the Cusades for example. Would they start if the Pope was not there? Never.

 

No matter how much your neighbour hates some other guys, he cannot realy convince you that you should both go kill some other guy unless you have a grave interest in that (that is if you're a rational person/some people are not rational though).

[Armen]

The answer is no. But your question was irrelevant, at least.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

How is it irrelevant? If you personally don't feel that way, how can you say that with confidence about human nature. Start from youself.

[ED]

Armen, laitly I recall Socrates a lot where he stated, "some poeple just have to say something, and some poeple say something becouse they have something to say"

[kars]

How is it irrelevant? If you personally don't feel that way, how can you say that with confidence about human nature. Start from youself.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

OK. But I must ask you for a favour, Armen, before we continue. Right now I am not in debating mode. Let’s leave it for another time, and I will gladly explain why your question was irrelevant. Deal?

 

Anyway, it is a great pleasure to meet you guys here. Hopefully, we’ll get acquainted better in the future, in this forum.

 

Right now I am in Sayat Nova music world – which negates disputes, by default.

 

Աշխարումըս իմը դուն իս,

Բեմուրվաթ իս, մուրվաթ չունիս...

 

...

 

One of my favourites.

[sev-mard]

Well, welcome to planet Earth, Nakharar.

 

FACT: Humans are genocidal by nature.

 

CONCLUSION: Do your best to survive as a nation, or whatever you want to call your group. And stop whining.

 

Look around: who really cares? And, while we’re at it – who should care, and why? I always wanted to hear a rationalized answer to this question, and still haven’t heard one.

 

Darfur, Marfur..., Tutsi, Mutsi...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Alriiighty then...I'd think that's the type of thought that you don't want.

I know you can't save the world, but as a people who's overcome attempts to destroy them, it'd be reasonable to imagine some semblance of sympathy or desire to help those in a similar boat.

[Armen]

ZNet, MA

May 13 2005

 

The CIA's New Client in Sudan

 

......... by David Baake May 12, 2005

 

 

It was Woodrow Wilson who called the Armenian Holocaust `sad, but

necessary to quell an internal security threat.' Today it appears

that the Bush administration, only eight months after former

Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that Sudan's pro-government

militias were committing genocide, has changed its mind and now is

once again ignoring victims of genocide and allowing a government to

quell a `security threat.'

 

The Las Angeles Times recently reported that the US government and

the Sudanese government responsible for over 180,000 deaths are

forming a close intelligence partnership, and that government in

Khartoum is becoming a `surprisingly valuable ally of the CIA' in the

war on terrorism, as surprising as that would seem to anyone aware of

the fact that Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda a decade

ago and that Sudan's dictator retained ties with other groups

classified as terrorists by the US government after Al Qaeda left

Sudan.

 

The Times' report on the US' new ally shows very clearly the

opportunistic nature of the `war on terrorism' paradigm, which in

reality has nothing to do with stopping violence or promoting peace

but is merely a new justification for continuing with the imperialist

program that the US has pursued since the Second World War. The

article is full of completely contradictory messages from US

government officials, and it is difficult to imagine how an

establishment reader could make sense of them without resorting to

the use of doublespeak. The first few paragraphs explain that Sudan

has been charged with committing genocide by the US government, once

welcomed bin Laden, and has been described as "an extraordinary

threat to the national security" by the Bush Administration.

 

Paragraphs later, the readership is told that `"American intelligence

considers [sudan] to be a friend" by a senior official in the

Sudanese government, and that Sudan could become a `top tier' ally of

the CIA by a State Department official. In addition, the Bush

Administration has recently normalized relations with Sudan in light

of this recent cooperation.

 

According to these interviews with US and Sudanese intelligence

officials, in recent collaborative efforts partaken by the two

governments Sudan has expelled Islamic `extremists.' This leads one

to wonder, have they banished themselves from the country? Among

their other services, they detained Al Qaeda suspects, members of the

Iraqi insurgency, and other terrorist operatives and gave them to the

US for interrogation. Unfortunately, no members of the Janjaweed,

the pro-government militia committing genocide against the civilians

of Darfur have been detained or disarmed.

 

Why has the relationship between Sudan and the US shifted so

suddenly, and why is the Sudanese government so interested in helping

the US government hunt down extremists that it used to fund and give

sanctuary to? Why is the US so ready to normalize its relationship

with a country involved in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, as

the UN calls it, or genocide, as the Colin Powell called it?

 

Washington's radical reversal of relations with Sudan undoubtedly has

quite a bit to do with Sudan's oil, the majority of which it had been

selling to China. Washington has been looking for a way to gain

control over Sudan's oil fields for a long period of time. It is

likely that the US helped train the two largest rebel groups whose

attacks elicited the government's counter-insurgency campaign, the

Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army, in an

attempt to weaken Sudan's government at a time when it was developing

closer ties with China. When the atrocities began to escalate in

Darfur and the US Sate Department officially labeled the killings in

Darfur `genocide', it seemed the US was considering invading Sudan on

a platform of ending the genocide, disposing of the dictator who made

the mistake of giving China access to its oil fields, and replacing

him with a leader who would allow US corporations to funnel oil from

Sudan.

 

However, now that Sudan has proved willing to cooperate with the US,

new questions arise. Why would Sudan be dealing so comfortably with

Washington unless it knew that it would not be held accountable for

its own atrocities in any real sense?

 

It doesn't seem altogether unfeasible for the governments of Sudan

and the US have made a pact stating that the US would use its power

to prevent action against the genocide in Darfur, in exchange for aid

in countering `terrorism' and, at some point, access to untapped oil?

It is hard to think of another explanation for the sudden friendship

of the two regimes. The US has been considering an attempt to repeal

the sanctions placed on Sudan, a move favored both by Khartoum and by

US oil companies.

 

Once again, it seems the US is being complicit with genocide and

making deals with the war criminals responsible, just as previous US

administrations were complicit with the rise of the Khmer Rouge in

Cambodia which was engaged in a battle with the North Vietnamese by

allowing Thailand (then a US client state) to sell arms to Pol Pot

while he exterminated 1.7 million of his own people. Just as the US

was silent during the Rwandan genocide and instead focused on the

bombing of Yugoslavia, the US is again ignoring a massive tragedy in

Sudan in favor of perusing its immediate imperial interests and

destroying the resistance in Iraq.

 

Of course, just because ties have increased between Khartoum and

Washington doesn't mean that the US wouldn't abandon the Sudanese

government if the US feels the alliance is no longer politically

expedient or if Sudan is insubordinate, but right now it seems like

the alliance is a win-win situation for both governments; the only

losers of course being the citizens of Darfur experiencing living

hell.

 

The situation in Darfur is still one the of the worst humanitarian

catastrophes in the world with nearly 200,000 dead, either due to

violence or famine, and 2 million displaced. The pro-government

militias continue to raid the towns of Darfur, killing men, raping

women, and plundering entire villages, often abducting young women

and using them as sex-slaves. It is clear that rapid action is

necessary to save innocent lives and end the mass slaughter.

 

The solution to the tragedies in Darfur is most certainly not an

American or NATO military intervention; such an imperial intervention

would only augment the suffering felt in Sudan. To protect the human

rights of Sudanese civilians, it would be necessary for the UN to

launch a major peacekeeping mission or for the world to come together

to fund the African Union's peacekeeping campaign. The AU has

already launched a peace keeping mission, and AU peace keepers have

been effective in stopping violence in areas where they are

dispatched. However, the AU does not have the resources to sustain

the kind of mission necessary to bring any degree of peace to Sudan,

and has only been able to deploy 3,000 troops to Darfur, a region the

size of France. In addition to enduring vicious campaigns of

violence, the people of Sudan are also in dire need of humanitarian

aid and are experiencing a great shortage in food, medicine, clean

water, and other life essentials.

 

If the international community does not work together to build a

peacekeeping campaign and the humanitarian aid campaign, the Oxfam

aid agency predicts that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan will

continue until October 2006, most likely bringing hundreds of

thousands of additional deaths. However, it seems the US may present

an obstacle to such campaigns, as it does not want to offend its

terrorist ally in Khartoum.

[Sasun]

Oh! I see. “Morality” as in “morals”? If so, then here is a valid question: whose “morals”? Yours or mine? Or, perhaps, there is such a thing as “universal morality”, which I somehow missed?

 

Since it’s a known fact that “morality” is a subjective term, I’ll refrain from discussing it any further; it also came to my attention that many of you here are too moralistic, for my tastes.

 

Back to the topic. I still insist that humans are genocidal by nature. That’s how we evolved; you may call it “immoral”, “amoral”, “un-Christian”, “bad”, whatever – but that’s how it is. We – homo sapiens – kill our enemies (sometimes en masse), when we, as a group, perceive them as a threat to our own group’s survival. That’s normal.

 

Your turn, Sir.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I am convinced that humans without morality are essentially animals with human bodies. Therefore what you are describing is normal for animals, but not for humans. This reminds me of an incident with a group of young people, among them Nairi Hunanian. He was fiercely arguing that basically right is with the physical might. And since he was pretty much the only one arguing his point the others who were by that time quite irritated asked him if they were to beat him up would it mean they were right and he was wrong? He actually said yes. He barely got away without being beaten up, but guess what, a few years later he ended up in jail. This type of animalish attitude only brings trouble not only to the brute individual but also to many other human beings. So the choice is to be human or animal.