ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Patil Halajian
DATE: May 7, 2010 Tel:
416-250-9807
Latin America’s Largest University Hosts International Conference on `The
Prototype Genocide of Modern Times’ in Partnership with Zoryan Institute and
Governments of the State of Sao Paulo and the Republic of Armenia
Scholars from Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey and
the United States participated in an international conference, the first of
its kind in Brazil, on `The Prototype Genocide of Modern Times,’ held at the
University of Sao Paulo (USP), Brazil, April 22-24, in commemoration of the
95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
The conference was co-organized by the University of Sao Paulo Laboratory
for the Study of Ethnicity Racism and Discrimination, the State Government
of Sao Paulo Secretary of Institutional Affairs, the Consulate General in
Sao Paulo representing the Government of Armenia, and the Zoryan Institute.
The conference was opened by Prof. Dra. Maria Luiza Tucci Carneiro,
Associate Professor at the Department of History, USP, and Coordinator of
the Laboratory for the Study of Ethnicity Racism and Discrimination. She
welcomed everyone and described the reasons for the university’s partnership
in this conference.
Prof. Dr. Celso Lafer, former Brazilian foreign and commerce minister,
Professor of Philosophy of Law at USP and President of the Research
Foundation of the State of Sao Paulo, spoke strongly in affirming the
Armenian Genocide. He was followed by Prof. Dr. Dalmo de Abreu Dallari,
Emeritus, Faculty of Law of USP, and a jurist with the Permanent Peoples’
Tribunal. He noted that the Verdict of the Tribunal’s hearing in Paris in
1984 on the Armenian Genocide was key in the UN Subcommission of Human
Rights Report of 1985, affirming that the World War I Armenian experience at
the hands of the Ottoman Turks was genocide.
K.M. Greg Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan Institute, in his opening
presentation of the academic portion of the conference, explained the
rationale for the theme, `the prototype of modern genocide.’ He described
the phenomenon, whereby a government turns against an identifiable ethnic
minority among its own citizens with the intention of destroying them, as a
perceived solution to its political problems. This marked a change from the
mass slaughter of populations that occurred many times throughout history,
associated with war, imperialism and conquest. The Armenian Genocide is now
widely understood to be the `prototype’ of modern genocide, as labelled by
Prof. Robert Melson, who first coined the term.
Sarkissian explained the meaning of April 24, which the beginning of
deportation and mass killings of the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek population
of the Ottoman Empire. He added, `The year 1915 was the beginning of the
Ottoman genocidal policy of ethnic cleansing and massacres, which continues
in Turkey today because of its official state policy of denial.’ He noted
that Prof. Roger W. Smith first pointed out some years ago, and it is now
recognized by scholars, that denial is the last stage of genocide, since it
continues to victimize the survivors and their descendants. Noting that
Brazil was among the first countries to vote for the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and sign the UN Genocide Convention in 1948, Sarkissian
called upon Brazil to be among those countries who refuse to be complicit in
the ongoing crime of genocide denial by officially recognizing it.
Prof. Steven L. Jacobs of the University of Alabama gave a comprehensive
explanation about Raphael Lemkin, the man who conceptualized and coined the
term `genocide.’ He pointed out Lemkin’s obsession with the fact that there
were no laws to punish the mass killing of a whole people, such as the
Armenians, by their own government, Ottoman Turkey, even though there were
laws for punishing the killing of a single person. The 1921 trial in Berlin
for the assassination of Talat Pasha, one of the architects of the Armenian
Genocide, by Soghomon Tehlirian and his acquittal was a major influence on
Lemkin and his determination to secure international support outlawing the
crime of genocide through the United Nations. Lemkin considered the Armenian
case so important that it is the only case in all of his papers where a
full-length manuscript has been written independently and accompanied by a
shorter manuscript. In that study he noted, `A strong parallel may be drawn
between the extermination of the Armenians by the Turks and the
extermination of the Jews by the Germans.’
Dr. Sévane Garibian, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Law at the University
of Neuchtel, Switzerland, spoke on `The Armenian Genocide and the
Development of the Modern Concept of Crimes against Humanity.’ She described
the declaration of the Allied Powers on May 24, 1915, which said, in
essence, `In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and
civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly … that they will
hold personally responsible … all the members of the Ottoman government
and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres,’ and
explained how this was a major event in bringing the concept of `crimes
against humanity’ into modern international law.
Mr. Ragip Zarakolu, renowned human rights activist and publisher in Turkey,
spoke about `Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide.’ He made insightful
comments about the nature and motives of denial of the Armenian Genocide by
the Turkish State. He drew parallels with the State’s problematic treatment
of other subjects in the political and social life of the country,
specifically in relation to minorities and their rights. For example,
currently about 1,000 mid-level Kurdish politicians are jailed, preventing
them from running in the next election. Zarakolu emphasized that the AKP,
Turkey’s current ruling party, has made some progress in adopting certain
European standards into Turkey’s constitution, under the pretext of
democratization. However, the gag order imposed on the Armenian Genocide
issue, coupled with the replacement of military hegemony in the country’s
institutions by a new hegemony of a police state, has raised fear among
Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslim minorities of the outbreak of mass violence
against them, just like the Armenians 95 years ago.
Prof. Dra. Maria Luiza Tucci Carneiro, of the USP, spoke about `Brazil in
Front of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the UN Resolution.’ She
analyzed Brazil’s political position – government, press and Brazilian
diplomats – since the Armenian Genocide until the integration of the crime of
genocide in International Law. Through diplomatic documents and articles
published by important Brazilian newspapers, she related the multiple
discourses about the Armenian Genocide as prototype of the modern genocide,
from 1915 to 1948. She referred to historical archives that documented
Armenian refugees fleeing the Genocide and coming to Brazil. She explained
how politicians during the debate at the UN on the Genocide Convention felt
that issue did not concern them, stating, `Brazilian people are homogeneous,
made up of heterogeneous races. Therefore, the problem of genocide does not
concern us directly. It is a crime the common Brazilian man cannot figure
out, but it horrifies him anyway.’ However, in 1956, Brazilian law accepted
genocide as a crime, adopting the same definition ratified by the UN
Convention.
Prof. Emeritus Robert F. Melson of Purdue University discussed `The Armenian
Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of Modern Genocide,’ taking a
comparative approach. He put forward the position that the Armenian Genocide
was not only the first total genocide of the 20th century, but that it also
served as the prototype for genocides that came after. In particular, the
Armenian Genocide approximates the Holocaust, but at the same time, its
territorial and national aspects, which distinguish it from the Holocaust,
make it an archetype for ethnic and national genocide. In both the Armenian
Genocide and the Holocaust, a deliberate attempt was made by the government
of the day to destroy an ethno-religious community of ancient provenance.
When comparing the two cases, a pattern becomes apparent. This pattern shows
some differences, however, and it is those differences that link the
Armenian Genocide not only to the Holocaust but also to later instances of
that crime.
Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian, Director of Genocide Research at the Zoryan
Institute, analyzed `The Armenian Genocide as a Dual Problem of National and
International Law.’ He described first the elements of the Armenian Genocide
within Turkish national law after the end of WWI. These include the charge
of crimes against humanity by the Allied Powers, the post-war debates in the
Ottoman Chamber of Deputies and Senate about what had happened to the
Armenians, and the Military Tribunal and Courts Martial, which prosecuted
the perpetrators of `crimes against the Armenians.’ Within international
law, he pointed out that principles arising out the Armenian case are found
in the Nuremberg charter and in the UN Genocide Convention, and in
comparison with the Eichmann case, the principle of state succession. Thus,
Turkey is responsible for acts committed by the Ottoman State.
Prof. Dr. Marcio Seligmann-Silva, Lecturer of Literary Theory at the
University of Campinas in Sao Paulo and researcher at the National Council
of Technological and Scientific Development, spoke on `The Armenian Genocide
and the Question of Evil Memory in the XX Century.’ He dealt with the
question of the necessity of bearing witness after genocide as a way to give
meaning to the event and to allow for the progression from victim to citizen
with rights, including the right to sue in court those responsible for the
genocide. Bearing witness is often confronted with denial. Nevertheless, it
is a process that encompasses individual, collective and national trauma and
allows the victim to work through the envisaging of justice, truth and the
reconstruction of the person and of post-genocide societies. The Armenian
Genocide occupies a key position in the history of genocides and of denial.
As an example of extreme genocide denial, it argues for the necessity of
bearing witness.
Prof. Emeritus Roger W. Smith of the College of William and Mary, and also
Chairman of the Academic Board of Directors of the Zoryan Institute, spoke
on `Remembrance and Denial.’ Without remembrance of past examples of
genocide, there would be no sense of urgency in the present, no perceived
need to prevent future atrocities. We would cut ourselves off from the
knowledge of the causes and sequences of genocide, knowledge that might help
prevent other peoples from being subjected to this crime against humanity.
Denial of genocide has become the universal strategy of perpetrators. Those
who initiate or otherwise participate in genocide typically deny that the
events took place, that they bear any responsibility for the destruction, or
that the term `genocide’ is applicable to what occurred. Denial, unchecked,
turns politically imposed death into a `non-event.’ The Armenian Genocide,
in fact, illuminates with special clarity the dangers inherent in the
political manipulation of truth through distortion, denial, intimidation,
and economic blackmail. No other regime has gone to such extreme lengths to
deny that a massive genocide took place as Turkey. That democratic
governments (the United States, Great Britain, and Israel) have supported
Turkey in that effort, raises significant questions about governmental
accountability and the role of citizenship in a world in which truth
increasingly comes in two forms – `official’ and `alleged.’
Prof. Khatchik Der Ghougassian teaches international relations at the
University of San Andrés in Buenos Aires and is a Visiting Adjunct Professor
at the American University of Armenia. He analyzed the complexities of `The
Armenian Genocide and international power relations.’ In the 19th century,
the European Powers utilized the struggle for the rights of the non-Muslim
minorities as one of their pretexts for involvement in the Ottoman Empire.
After the start of World War I, the Allied Powers made the first
international attempt at humanitarian intervention by warning the Young Turk
leaders that they would be called to account for their wholesale massacre of
Turkey’s Armenian population. After the post-WWI peace negotiations, Armenia
dropped from the international agenda until 1965, 50 years after the
Genocide, when Armenians around the world began to revive the world’s
attention and conscience on that injustice. The Armenian Genocide has come
increasingly on the world stage as an issue in the United Nations, as a
subject of official recognition by national and international governments
and official bodies, and even as an issue for Turkey’s accession to the
European Union. He discussed the place of the Armenian Genocide in Armenia’s
foreign policy and suggested how it could be employed more effectively.
Prof. Herbert Hirsch, Professor of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia
Commonwealth University, explored `The Lessons of the Armenian Genocide for
the Prevention of Genocide.’ Within the last ten years, at least four major
international and national prescriptions have appeared outlining the
mechanisms necessary to prevent genocide. Hirsch analyzed their strengths,
weaknesses, confirming that action lags behind academic forums. This is
because the overriding principles in international relations are state
sovereignty and national interest. The study of the genocides of the 20th
century has suggested to analysts certain models for the prevention of
genocide. These include humanitarian intervention, protection of civilians,
peacemaking, and punishment of the perpetrators. This has led to calls for
creating an early warning system which would alert the public and exert
pressure on nations or groups to stop atrocities, and the creation of a UN
Rapid Reaction force. Each of these has its shortcomings that limit freedom
of action, to monitor, follow prescription, and establish rules of
engagement while doing no harm, and including the ability to build. The
adoption of the Responsibility to Protect has been a step in the right
direction, but this has not been effective because of the lack of political
will. Hirsch explored the sources of this lack of political will.
Prof. Dr. Anita Novinsky, Historian and Lecturer of the Department of
History and President of the Laboratory of Studies on Intolerance, USP,
spoke on `Education for Life.’ She described the profound questions
philosophers and theoreticians have wrestled with in modern times regarding
how man can commit such violence against fellow humans. In the words of
Theodor Adorno, the fight against war and aggression will be in vain if we
do not change our educational systems. We can find the reasons of the
genocides in the 20th century in the resurrection of aggressive
nationalisms. She described how perpetrators of genocide are formed during
their childhood years, and proposed the need for an educational system that
teaches the value and the sanctity of human life.
The Zoryan Institute is the parent organization of the International
Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, which runs an annual,
accredited university program on the subject and is co-publisher of Genocide
Studies and Prevention: An International Journal in partnership with the
International Association of Genocide Scholars and the University of Toronto
Press. It is the first non-profit, international center devoted to the
research and documentation of contemporary issues with a focus on Genocide,
Diaspora and Armenia. For more information please contact the Zoryan
Institute by email [email protected] or telephone (416) 250-9807.
www.zoryaninstitute.org