On Genocide, and Armenia

I recently linked to an article containing a number of WWII images taken in Nazi occupied Russian territory.  As an introduction to the pictures the article’s author wrote the following:

The photos are shocking and cruel, but they should teach us to respect others’ lives and dignity. We are equal and we are not born to be slaves.

Moving prose.  We are principally equal – human beings – and deserve equal treatment. We are not born to be slaves. Not to each other, not to ideology, not to States.  We should increase our principal understanding of what respect, dignity, and slavery means. We should increase the measure of respect, dignity, and liberty we give each other and demand from the institutions that govern us.

That bit of reflection prompted me to do bit of research into the series of atrocities the Armenians call the Armenian Genocide, but Ottomans Turks, the perpetrators of the aforementioned atrocities, deny was genocide. You probably know that whether to label the over one million Armenians that Ottoman-Turkey killed during the first world war is a contentious issue internationally and domestically.  For instance:

Two years ago [in 2008], before a resolution was to be put to a vote in the House, Turkey recalled Ambassador [to the US] Sensoy in protest. Its president warned of “serious troubles” and its top general said that military ties with the U.S. would never be the same. To limit further damage, the Bush administration and eight former secretaries of state then weighed in to kill the bill. It worked.

With regard to the fight over whether to officially label the Turk-on-Armenian atrocities ‘genocide’ this author persuasively argues what I believe is a more important point:

Among the ways in which freedom is being chipped away in Europe, one of the less obvious is the legislation of memory. More and more countries have laws saying you must remember and describe this or that historical event in a certain way, sometimes on pain of criminal prosecution if you give the wrong answer. What the wrong answer is depends on where you are. In Switzerland, you get prosecuted for saying that the terrible thing that happened to the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman empire was not a genocide. In Turkey, you get prosecuted for saying it was. What is state-ordained truth in the Alps is state-ordained falsehood in Anatolia. * * *

This kind of nonsense is all the more dangerous when it comes wearing the mask of virtue. A perfect example is the recent attempt to enforce limits to the interpretation of history across the whole EU in the name of “combating racism and xenophobia”. A proposed “framework decision” of the justice and home affairs council of the EU, initiated by the German justice minister Brigitte Zypries, suggests that in all EU member states “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” should be “punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment”. * * *

Let me be clear. I believe it is very important that nations, states, peoples and other groups (not to mention individuals) should face up, solemnly and publicly, to the bad things done by them or in their name. The West German leader Willy Brandt falling silently to his knees in Warsaw before a monument to the victims and heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto is, for me, one of the noblest images of postwar European history. For people to face up to these things, they have to know about them in the first place. So these subjects must be taught in schools as well as publicly commemorated. But before they are taught, they must be researched. The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.

It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride (as in the notorious article 301 of the Turkish penal code). The historian’s equivalent of a natural scientist’s experiment is to test the evidence against all possible hypotheses, however extreme, and then submit what seems to him or her the most convincing interpretation for criticism by professional colleagues and for public debate. This is how we get as near as one ever can to truth about the past.

How, for example, do you refute the absurd conspiracy theory, which apparently still has some currency in parts of the Arab world, that “the Jews” were behind the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York? By forbidding anyone from saying that, on pain of imprisonment? No. You refute it by refuting it. By mustering all the available evidence, in free and open debate. This is not just the best way to get at the facts; ultimately, it’s the best way to combat racism and xenophobia too. So join us, please, to see off the nanny state and its memory police.

The author’s name is Timothy Garton Ash. He has a good piece here on Europe’s illogical, illiberal, and appalling stance degrading position on civil liberty, and especially free speech.  A snippet:

So, for example, last week the home secretary pathetically and idiotically banned the Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the UK to show his noxious and offensive anti-Islam film at the invitation of members of the House of Lords. Result: a curtailment of free speech that gives Wilders more free publicity than he could otherwise have dreamed of. And how does the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne react? Oh, that’s all right, he says, because the film is really offensive. Well, d’oh. Call yourself a liberal? John Stuart Mill would be turning in his grave. And I shall need some convincing that the Conservative frontbench are going to be any better.

I’m not sure I fully understand all the reasons for this cravenness, but here’s one. A couple of years ago I asked a very senior New Labour politician if his government had not got the balance between security and liberty wrong. “Well”, he replied, “one thing I can tell you is that if you ask the British people they will always choose more security.” And this is where the ball comes back to us. Since our leaders are now mainly followers – following the latest opinion poll, focus group or newspaper campaign – it’s up to us, the people, to change their view of what “the people” want.

Pardon my digression. Atrocities should be be investigated thoroughly, and people free of Orwellian restrictions on speech and thought should discuss them openly to find truth. Here are some links with pertinent information about what the Turks did to Armenians during the First World War.

Images:

Here’s a m0ral-relativistic argument against labeling the Armenian atrocities as genocide.

This is a good window into the Armenian point of view.

Finally, here’s the transcript of a Sixty Minutes video clip on the matter.  Excerpt below.

(CBS) Wars are fought over oil, land, water, but rarely over history, especially about something that happened nearly 100 years ago. But that’s what Turkey and Armenia are still fighting over: what to label the mass deportation and subsequent massacre of more than a million Christian Armenians from Ottoman Turkey during World War I.

Armenians and an overwhelming number of historians say that Turkey’s rulers committed genocide, that its actions were a model for what Hitler did to the Jews. The Turks, meanwhile, say their ancestors never carried out such crimes, and that they too were victims in a world war.

Ever since, this battle over history has not only ensnared the two nations but even the White House and Congress, where resolutions officially recognizing the genocide are currently moving through the House and Senate.

But our story begins where the lives of so many Armenians ended, far from Istanbul, in the desert.

“60 Minutes” and correspondent Bob Simon took a drive into what is now Syria, to the barren wilderness, to what amounts to the largest Armenian cemetery in the world.

“As many as 450,000 Armenians died here,” author Peter Balakian told Simon.

Balakian is an Armenian American who has written extensively about what happened in this desolate place.

According to Balakian, 450,000 Armenians died in this spot in the desert. “In this region called Deir Zor, it is the greatest graveyard of the Armenian Genocide,” he explained.

Deir Zor is to Armenians what Auschwitz is to Jews. The most ghoulish thing about the place is that 95 years later the evidence of the massacres is everywhere.

Just a short distance from the banks of Euphrates there’s a dump. It’s also the site of a mass grave. It has never been excavated. All we had to do was scratch the surface of the sand to collect evidence of what had happened here.

Under the surface was evidence of bones. “It’s the hill full of bones,” said Dr. Haroot Kahvejian, an Armenian dentist who showed Simon around.

Culture, History, Socio-Political