Monday, December 24, 2007

Turkey Blasts the Kurds

The US House resolution labeling the massacres of Armenians in Turkey as a genocide has been shelved indefinitely. At least we can take solace in the face that Turkey will show constraint in dealing with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Right? Actually, Turkey is on its second day of bombing the rebels in Iraq, which, depending on your sources, includes bombing large areas of land in which villagers, not rebels, live. What does America have to say?

On Sunday, Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad, defended Turkey’s right to act against cross-border attacks, but urged against destabilizing Iraq.

Speaking at a meeting with reporters at the American Embassy in Baghdad before news emerged of the latest reported strikes, he said, “I think we have been clear on this: the P.K.K. is a terrorist organization, it has carried out a number of lethal actions inside Turkey from bases in Iraq, and the Turks clearly have the right to defend their country and their people.”
(from the NYTimes)

The militant group Hamas in Gaza has also been appealing to the idea of rights when indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli cities. In this case, the "right to resistance."

So, what we can learn from today's paper, is that it doesn't matter whether we label a genocide a genocide or not, Turkey's going to attack because it's within its "rights" to do so. The notion of rights, then, can be manipulated by whichever side to justify any use of force. This doesn't seem right, does it?

Monday, December 10, 2007

The Pen Is Still Mightier Than the Keyboard

A friend recently pointed my attention to a post made on the Claremont Portside's blog, titled, "Take your Activism and Email It" (available here). The post, written by Emily Meinhardt, chastises letter-writing campaigns on campus.

Ms. Meinhardt asks, "You know those pesky activist types (hey– I’m one of them, I’m allowed to say that) that come into ASCMC Senate meetings and ask for money for letter writing materials?" Well, actually, I don't, which is surprising since I have been a member of the ASCMC Senate for all of my three semesters here at CMC. This is even more surprising when you take into account that I have worked with the Holocaust Center on the Take a Stand Against Denial campaign and have been an active member of Amnesty International during those same three semesters. The organizations on campus that run letter writing campaigns use the funding they have already received; they have not solicited the ASCMC Senate.

Ms Meinhardt's main point, however, is: "When a person contacts a congressperson, whether it be by letter (the physical piece of paper that someone had to pay the postage on), phone call, or email– they are tallied in the same fashion." If they are tallied in the same fashion, writing a letter, which takes more time and money, is just a waste of time. Unfortunately, the assertion is based only on Ms. Meinhardt's experience in Senator Russ Feingold's office. While her experience is surely useful and shows that letters to Senator Feingold's office may be more wasteful than e-mail, one Senator's practices do not necessarily apply to the entire Senate.

As Rebecca Fairley Raney Points out in her 2001 article on email and Congress ("E-mail Finds the Rare Ear in Congress"), emails, being much easier and less expensive to send, pour into Congressional offices in huge numbers. The article may be dated, but it still highlights the sheer volume of e-mail that Congress receives (I doubt the volume has gone down, considering the increase in internet access) and the difficulties associated with it. Thus there is some advantage in letter-writing. Few offices can handle the number of e-mails and respond to each of them in any sort of reasonable manner. In her article, Ms. Raney points out "The ease with which e-mail can be sent and the push by advocacy groups for supporters to send e-mail to Congress have raised the public's expectation of being heard, the study said. Instead, the report concluded, the ''conflicting practices and expectations of all the parties are fostering cynicism and eroding trust.''

The article also notes, "Larry Neal, deputy chief of staff for Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, wrote, 'The communication that Sen. Gramm values most certainly does not arrive by wire. It is the one where someone sat down at a kitchen table, got a sheet of lined paper and a No. 2 pencil, and poured their heart into a letter.'"

Perhaps most strikingly, "Jonah Seiger, co-founder of Mindshare Internet Campaigns, which designs online communication strategies for trade associations, nonprofit groups and corporations, said he had not advised any of his clients to lobby via e-mail."

The most important part of a letter writing campaign is captured very well by Ms. Raney: "The objective of any campaign, he said, is to create a tangible sense of pressure within a Congressional office through ringing telephones, bulging mail bags and humming fax machines. E-mail silently accumulating in an inbox does not create that pressure."
This might be the most important. Many letter writing campaigns are directed toward non-democratic regimes, not only the U.S. Congress. They need to be confronted with the "tangible sense of pressure." This method has proven its effectiveness. Just take a look at the history of Amnesty International.

Senator Feingold's practices sound noble and democratic, and I wish all Senators took such a democratic standard with constituency correspondence. It sure would make my activism much easier. Until I can be assured of its effectiveness, however, I will continue to supplement my keyboard with my pen. And if anyone is interested in supporting Amnesty International, come out to the Motley tomorrow (Tuesday, December 11th) at 9:30 PM, where we will write letters to prisoners of conscience to console them while they are imprisoned.

Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, “We are evaporating our coal mines into the air.” After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent “carbon summer.”

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called “Satyagraha” – or “truth force.”

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between “me” and “we,” creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step “ism.”

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.”

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.” By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country –– that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”

Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.”
Woops. Thought I was posting on another blog.

While I'm here... feel free to take note of this article which highlights starvation existing next to affluence.

Friday, December 7, 2007

John Roth Featured on Voices on Genocide

Probably most of you are not subscribed to the Voices on Genocide podcast run by the Committee on Conscience at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I myself am a recent subscriber and, as such, the re-broadcast of an interview with John Roth from last year was new to me. You can listen to it on the main site or you can read the transcript here. This podcast is usually quite good and the interviews are conducted by Jerry Fowler, friend of the Center and this blog's inspiration.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Judea Pearl at the Athenaeum

Sorry for the lateness all -- I have been busy appreciating Thanksgiving and editing and such. But below is my response to Judea Pearl's speech at the Athenaeum.
--------------------------------

Before hearing Judea Pearl speak at the Athenaeum this past Tuesday (November 20th, 2007) I researched the death of his son, Daniel Pearl. In my investigation I discovered that Muslim extremists murdered an intelligent, thoughtful, critical, and humane journalist. I discovered that the journalist’s beautiful wife, a woman of incredible emotional death, employs art as a form of mourning. I discovered that two heart-wrenched parents, moved by the death of their shining son, create meaningful change in the world through the Daniel Pearl Foundation. I discovered that this foundation, named after their son, seeks to promote cross-cultural understanding through music, art, and the humanities. I also stumbled upon an article of debatable objectivism titled “Anti-Zionism is Racism”, written by Judea Pearl for the Jewish Journal. Like any objective journalist, I entered the Athenaeum as a critic.
Regardless of criticism, hearing Judea speak was a pleasure. He presented with clarity and introspection—he has obviously articulated his speech hundreds of times, and thought about it thousands more. He elucidated a few all-encompassing points. Primarily, that Judaism for Daniel Pearl was his source of historical identity, connection to extended family, strength, and respect. His heritage fed a deep spring of power—a flexible power which embraces difference and actively seeks common humanity between individuals. This strength, raised in Jewish history, is critical—it mistrusts dogma, authority, and conventional wisdom of all kinds.
According to Judea, Daniel’s most coveted virtues are not simply useful personal characteristics—they are mandatory weapons against a culture of terror that threatens humanity (and Judaism) today. Agents of terrorism live among us, Judea asserts, and they nurture dismissive disrespect for right and wrong. It is not merely enough to discuss theology and history—society must debate the “hot issues” immediately. With humanity, objectivity, and academic integrity, we are obligated to fire up these scorching problems. And in the process of doing so, the image of America internationally will flourish as a leader in the battle against hatred.
Yet the speech resonated with the rhetoric of his questionable article. Judea’s speech was somewhat tilted toward the Zionist perspective and thereby is not objective. However, Judea’s personal tilt is another reminder to be constantly critical of our allies and foes alike in order to seek out the truest, most humane perspective on any political struggle involving a possible violation of human rights.
Undoubtedly, I was moved by Judea’s call to action against today’s moral terrorists. His cohesion of religion, history, and familial culture is mandatory to empathize with any, all, and every peoples. In light of the death of Daniel Pearl and the strength of the Pearl family, I urge all activists to take Daniel’s virtues to heart—be objective, be intelligent, be empathetic, be humorous, be humane. The war is far from over, and the first battleground is within ourselves.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Denial Makes the World Go Round?

A friend of mine sent me this article over Thanksgiving break about denial and its necessity in our daily lives. While the article focuses on personal relationships, it's principles can be applied to reconciliation in the aftermath of the Holocaust and other genocides. Using self-deception as a model, it points to the effective use of denial in maintaining relationships, and suggests that this is an evolved tendency.

The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness.

While forgiveness is certainly a worthy goal, it's not always merited. It makes sense that one would then have to deny the problem in the first place to "forgive," but then forgiveness become suppression instead of a springboard for rebuilding trust.

Then there's the problem of trust based on this denial, instead of the actual integrity of the person: “'We concluded there is this skewed incentive system,' Dr. Kim said. 'If you are guilty of an integrity-based violation and you apologize, that hurts you more than if you are dishonest and deny it.'” It's no wonder Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide.

In society, taboos propagate this helpful denial.
This active recasting of events, built on the same smaller-bore psychological tools of inattention and passive acknowledgment, is the point at which relationship repair can begin to shade into willful self-deception of the kind that takes on a life of its own. Everyone knows what this looks like: You can’t talk about the affair, and you can’t talk about not talking about it. Soon, you can’t talk about any subject that’s remotely related to it.

This happens with issues of human rights all the time. Stories of human rights violations are marginalized into talking points or anecdotes, as it is not tactful in polite society to remind everyone of the injustices of the world. We wouldn't want to deny everyone their right to denial, would we?

Monday, December 3, 2007

Hypocrisy

> Secretaries Albright and Cohen Should be
> Removed from Genocide Task Force
>
> By Harut Sassounian
> Publisher, The California Courier
>
> How hypocritical of Madeleine Albright and William Cohen, former
Secretaries of State and Defense, to announce the formation of a task force
on prevention of genocide, when two months ago they wrote a letter to the
U.S. Congress against a resolution on the Armenian Genocide!
> One would have thought that genocide denialists would not be the most
qualified people to lead an effort on averting future genocides. Yet, this
is exactly what happened last week.
> Albright and Cohen shamelessly stood in front of TV cameras at the
National Press Club in Washington on November 13 to declare that they are
co-chairing a new "Genocide Prevention Task Force." The other members of the
task force are Sen. John Danforth, Sen. Tom Daschle, Amb. Stuart Eizenstat,
Michael Gerson, Secretary Dan Glickman, Secretary Jack Kemp, Judge Gabrielle
Kirk McDonald, Amb. Tom Pickering, Julia Taft, Vin Weber and General Anthony
Zinni. This effort is jointly sponsored by the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States
Institute of Peace. The task force has five working groups dealing with
early warning, pre-crisis engagement, preventive diplomacy, military
intervention, and international institutions. It is expected to issue its
report in December 2008.
> Cohen told members of the media with a straight face that the task force
is going "to look certainly to the past for lessons" in order to prepare a
set of recommendations to the U.S. government on how best to respond to
future threats of genocide. He stated that mass violence is "inimical to
human behavior, to human decency, [and] to our sense of humanity. We can no
longer live in a state of denial or willful indifference." These bold words
are from a man whose company, The Cohen Group, is affiliated with DLA Piper,
one of the major lobbying firms hired by the Turkish government, at a cost
of $100,000 per month, to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
> As soon as the two former high-ranking officials finished delivering
their opening remarks at last week's press conference, they were confronted
by skeptical members of the press and Armenian activists who questioned
their sincerity and pointed out their hypocrisy. This accusatory exchange
was covered extensively by CNN, AFP, AP, and the Jerusalem Post.
> Albright and Cohen were asked by Aram Hamparian (ANCA/Armenian
> Weekly): "How do you reconcile your work in trying to build a moral
American sentiment, an unconditional consensus against genocide, when just
very recently both of you signed letters urging America not to recognize the
Armenian Genocide?" Albright, forgetting her earlier words about learning
from the past, quickly shifted the mission of the group to the future.
Carefully avoiding using the term "Armenian Genocide," she acknowledged that
"terrible things happened to the Armenians, a tragedy. While we were
Secretaries, we recognized that mass killings and forced exile had taken
place, and we also said that the U.S. policy has been all along for
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia on this particular issue." She
also said that her earlier letter to Congress against the genocide
resolution merely questioned whether "this was an appropriate time to raise
the issue." Secretary Cohen, in his turn, referred to the Armenian Genocide
as "the human suffering that took place between 1915 and 1923." He said he
was concerned that the Armenian resolution "might result in reactions on the
part of the Turkish government that could place our sons and daughters in
greater jeopardy [in Iraq]." The two officials gave evasive answers when
Elizabeth Chouldjian (ANCA/Asbarez) asked whether they were advocating that
"for political expediency purposes we shouldn't be taking action on future
genocides because of what it could mean to U.S. interests."
> Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, then pointedly
asked if Albright and Cohen were in fact saying: "If our friends do it, it?s
not genocide; if our enemies do it, it is genocide. If you are going to
define genocide by who does it, not by what it is, your task force is in
trouble."
> Exposing his ignorance on the issue of the Armenian Genocide, Secretary
Cohen said: "I don't know that the UN has declared that genocide occurred in
the Armenian situation." He must not be aware that back in 1985 the UN
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
by a vote of 15-1, adopted a report which included a section acknowledging
the Armenian Genocide. "The experience of the Armenians does indeed conform
with the UN Convention," Nareg Safarian (The Armenian Reporter) shot back at
Cohen and added: "The two of you have personally worked toward ensuring that
the United States government does not take a stand recognizing the Armenian
Genocide. However, taking on this new role, how can you reconcile your
positions and the U.S. foreign policy?"
> Given their repeated attempts to block the reaffirmation of the Armenian
Genocide, both during and after their tenure in government, Secretaries
Albright and Cohen should be removed from the leadership of the Genocide
Prevention Task Force. They have undermined their own credibility and lost
the moral standing to speak on the topic of genocide. One cannot deny a
genocide and then turn around and act as a defender of its victims.
Furthermore, Secretary Cohen has a personal conflict of interest due to his
firm's affiliation with a company that lobbies for Turkey against the
congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide. This fact alone should
disqualify him from membership, let alone leadership, of the genocide
prevention group.
> The task force has already backed down from its declared position on
another controversial issue. During the November 13 press conference, in
response to a question on whether the Task Force would dare investigate
allegations of mass violation of human rights in Israel, Cohen told the
reporter: "On the issue of whether genocide is taking place in the West Bank
and Gaza, certainly that will be part of [what] the task force [is] looking
at." However, just hours after that bold announcement, Albright and Cohen
changed their tune by saying that the task force will not "determine which
situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute
genocide." Arthur Berger, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's senior
advisor for external affairs, was reported by the Jerusalem Post as saying:
"He did not expect Israel to be singled out or dwelled on by the task
force."
> Armenian-American groups in Washington should request a meeting with
members of the task force as well as its three sponsoring organizations, the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy,
and the United States Institute of Peace, to request that Albright and Cohen
be dismissed. Moreover, they should ask that a qualified Armenian-American
be appointed as a member of the task force.
> Readers are urged to convey their comments/complaints to: Andrew
Hollinger of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, phone: (202-488-6133) and
e-mail: ahollinger@ushmm.org; Lauren Sucher of the United States Institute
of Peace (202-429-3822) and e-mail: info@usip.org; and Amb. Ronald Neumann
of the American Academy of Diplomacy (202-331-3721) and e-mail:
academy@academyofdiplomacy.org.