Azeri president, EU envoy discuss ties, Karabakh
ANS TV, Baku
14 Sep 05
President Ilham Aliyev today received a delegation led by Heikki
Talvitie, special envoy of the EU for the South Caucasus.
They discussed the resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the
forthcoming parliamentary election in Azerbaijan, cooperation between
Azerbaijan and the EU and other issues.
[Video showed the meeting]
Pan Armenian News
NKR MFA: ICG REPORT WILL HAVE POSITIVE IMPACT ON KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
16.09.2005 07:47
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Nagorno Karabakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
will soon express its position over the International Crisis Group (ICG)
report over Karabakh settlement, NKR FM Arman Melikyan said in the course of
a meeting with journalists September 16. `We now discuss the report, there
are certain approaches already formed. The matter lies not in to which
extent the Armenian or Azeri positions are presented in the report. We
should first of all understand the importance of the report to its authors
and the goals it should serve in the future. Obviously, the report is drawn
to assist the talks and may be used by the OSCE Minsk Group mediators and
other structures. Undoubtedly, the report includes provisions that we
consider unbiased and expedient. There are also provisions, which are in
conflict with our positions. However, undoubtedly, the report authors are
skilled professionals and they understand very well which work they do and
to what end. Having studied the report in detail we will prepare our written
comment, which I suppose to be very voluminous,’ A. Melikyan said. In the
opinion of the NKR FM, the ICG report will have a positive impact, as it
notes rather clearly that Armenia has not occupied any of Azerbaijan’s
territories and the armed forces situated in the territory of NKR are in
fact subordinated to the NKR authorities, IA Regnum reported.
TIGRAN TOROSIAN ATTACHES IMPORTANCE TO TWO CIRCUMSTANCES AMONG PARIS
DISCUSSIONS ON NAGORNO KARABAKH ISSUE
PARIS, SEPTEMBER 15, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Tigran Torosian,
the NA Deputy Chairman, the head of the Armenian delegation at the
PACE, attaches importance to two circumstances at the September 12
hearings in Paris concerning the Nagorno Karabakh issue within the
framework of the Ad hoc Committee created for using the PACE 14-16
resolution. As Tigran Torosian informed the NA Public Relations
Department, the first of them is that in such structures the Minsk
Group Co-Chairmen and not only they but the Ad hoc Committee members
as well have already started to speak about the necessity of using the
principle of nations’ self-determination. The second important
circumstance is that the opinion that mandates of the Council of
Europe and the OSCE must be separated was predominant.
At the hearings, Denis Samouth, the representative of the British NGO
Links, who is famous among the society for his activity within the
parliamentary initiative of the South Caucasus as well, presented a
historic review concerning the pre-history of the conflict and the
present state. According to Tigran Torosian, the report was
interesting and balanced and creating an objective idea about the
conflict.
Varuzhan Nersisian, the head of the OSCE Department of the RA Foreign
Ministry, presented positions of Armenia concerning the process and
prospects of settlement. Araz Azimov, the Foreign Minister of
Azerbaijan was to do the same, who, however, presented his owm notions
instead of presenting the viewpoint of his country.
Then, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen Bernard Fassier (France) and Yuri
Merzlyakov (Russia) as well as the representative of Steven Mann (USA)
made speeches. The main idea expressed by the Co-Chairmen was the
following: it’s impossible to give a solution based only on the
principles of territorial entity or nations’ self-determination, both
principles of the Helsinki Agreement should by used: the territorial
entity related to so called “occupied territories,” and the right of
self-determination in the issue relating to the status.
Andrej Kasprczik, the personal representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office, and Goran Lenmarker, the special representative on
the Nagorno Karabakh issue of the OSCE Parlaimentary Assembly made
speeches. The latter repeated the ideas of his famous report,
emphasizing the solution of the issue by giving Nagorno Karabakh wide
self-governance in the structure of Azerbaijan.
Heads of delegations of the Minsk Group in the South Caucasus and
other members of the Committee, Heiki Talvitie, the EU special
representative in the South Caucasus made their speeches as
well. Among them, the NA Deputy Chairman pointed out the speech of
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the RF delegation. The latter
mentioned that conflicts have different reasons and pre-histories and
should have different solutions, at the same time emphasizing that the
Council of Europe shouldn’t duplicate the OSCE activity, and the
solution should take into account both territorial entity and right of
nations to self-determination.
The head of the delegation of Turkey attempted to repeat Azerbaijani
legend concerning 20% of the Azerbaijani territory, but tangled and
then attempted to present other numbers.
The head of the Armenian delegation at the PACE and another Committee
member from Armenia, Shavarsh Kocharian, the representative of the
opposition made speeches from Armenia. Tigran Torosian emphasized that
there are some very important foundamental issues concerning the
problem settlement. The first of them is a clear separation of
differences of mandates by the PACE and, in general, the Council of
Europe and by the OSCE Minsk Group: the Minsk Group should undertake
problems of the conflict settlement, and the CE should undertake
creation of an atmosphere necessary for the problem settlement. This
issue fully meet both CE mandate in general and obligations of Armenia
and Azerbaijan before the Council of Europe. At the same time,
deepening of the European integration in the region is of upmost
importance for securing a peaceful solution of the conflict. It was
mentioned that there should be a clear notion on the fact that it
would be impossible to secure in any way a positive result of that
process without representatives of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
during the settlement process and making decisions. At the same time,
there should be a clear notion on the fact that the solution of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict is impossible without using the principle of
the self-determination of nations. It was specially emphasized that
creation of obseving mechanisms for implementation of proposals of
14-16 resolution is too important in order that it is clear which of
the parties carries out those proposals and which of them neglects
them.
In respond to Azeris’ questions, Shavarsh Kocharian presented numerous
facts concerning the war propaganda, thus, concerning those points
which obviously oppose the spirit of 14-16 resolution.
Few times there were questions relating to settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh problem by the example of Aland Isls. Concerning to this, the
head of the Armenian delegation presented that when Arkadi Ghukasian,
the President of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was asked such a
question, he clearly answered that just now we are ready to sign an
agreement concerning upmost possible self-governance, only … in the
structure of Finland.
There were numerous questions connected with Azerbaijani approaches,
particularly, concerning increasing of military expenses and martial
statements.
After the discussion, the Committee continued its work. It was decided
that the next meeting will take place in December but before that,
during the the October session, a meeting of delegations of Armenia
and Azerbaijan is necessary for discussing further activity.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Council of Europe can’t help Azerbaijan draw up list of voters in Karabakh
Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
15 Sep 05
[Presenter] The Council of Europe will not be able to help Azerbaijan
draw up a list of voters [Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian origin] in
Xankandi constituency No 122. This is explained by the fact the
Council of Europe’s Baku office received the appeal regarding the
problem too late.
[Representative of the Council of Europe secretary-general, Mats
Lindberg, speaking to microphone in English with Azeri voice-over] The
Central Electoral Commission asked us very recently to help them from
a technical standpoint, that’s to say to draw up a list of voters. The
issue cannot be dealt with as we received the appeal too late. We will
try to give more detailed and precise information about this soon.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – Czech republic
Sept 15 2005
Breakaway Regions Seek Closer Ties With Russia
14 September 2005 — Representatives of four regions that have broken
away from ex-Soviet republics reiterated their intention in Moscow
today to seek international recognition and closer ties with Russia.
A Russian lawmaker said it was about time the breakaway regions were
recognized as states.
Representatives of Georgia’s breakaway republics of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh disputed by Azerbaijan
and Armenia, and Moldova’s Transdniester region met in Moscow and
pledged to pursue independence.
Konstantin Zatulin, a lawmaker from the Kremlin-directed United
Russia party, called the sovereignty of these entities a reality that
should be accepted.
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 15 2005
Another suspect in youth movement chair’s case
Baku, September 14, AssA-Irada
Deputy chairman of the Yeni Fikir youth movement was detained over
the case of Ruslan Bashirli, the movement chair charged with plotting
with Armenian intelligence to stage a coup in Azerbaijan.
The police arrested Ramin Taghiyev for 48 hours as a suspect, said
Ali Karimli, chairman of major opposition Popular Front Party (PFPA),
who is known to maintain close ties with the movement.
Karimli, speaking at a news conference at the PFPA office on
Wednesday, termed the apprehension as the authorities’ `repressions’
against Yeni Fikir. Touching upon the earlier arrests of Bashirli and
another representative of the movement, Karimli said the authorities
are thus trying to `estrange politically-active youth’ from the
forthcoming parliamentary elections. The PFPA chairman did not rule
out that other movement members may be arrested over the next few
days as well.
Karimli said that youth organizations of PFPA plan to start series of
actions shortly in protest against `pressures against Yeni Fikir’.
Those of two other major opposition parties represented in the
Azadlig bloc – Musavat and Azerbaijan Democratic Party – will join
the protests, he said.
`Harsh messages will come shortly for the authorities from the West
over the repressions against differently-minded youth. I have
informed the European Union special envoy on South Caucasus Heikki
Talvitie about the considerable decline of Yeni Fikir deputy chairman
Seyid Nuriyev’s health and the arrest of Ramin Taghiyev. Talvitie has
acutely condemned these steps by the authorities and said that such
attitude toward young people is unacceptable. Europe will voice its
harsh position on these repressions in the coming days.’*
PRESS RELEASE
AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone: 212.319.6383, x137
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
Website:
Friday, September 16, 2005
AGBU SAN DIEGO KICKS OFF CULTURAL SERIES WITH WINES OF ARMENIA EVENT
San Diego, CA – The first in an upcoming series of cultural events,
AGBU San Diego organized a wine tasting event on August 7, 2005
entitled “Wines of Armenia” with the Honorable Gagik Kirakosian,
Consul General of Armenia, as guest of honor. The event held at the
Rancho Bernardo Courtyard attracted over 125 attendees from the San
Diego area, as well as neighboring Orange County, Los Angeles and
Indian Wells.
After welcoming remarks, AGBU San Diego Chair Ani Kalayjian Lanuza
introduced Kirakosian, who summarized the Embassy’s current projects
and initiatives. Other speakers included Honorable Joe Kellejian,
Solana Beach Council Member and three-time Mayor, who presented
Kirakosian with the key to the City of San Diego; Vahe Imasdounian,
AGBU Southern California District Committee (SCDC) Chair; and
Archpriest Reverend Father Datev Tatoulian.
Guest Paul Kousharian praised the event for its high caliber and
impressive attendance of key community leaders. Kousharian was the
former AGBU SCDC Secretary/Treasurer and was instrumental in
revitalizing the AGBU San Diego Chapter two years ago.
The evening was underwritten by the generous contributions of Stella
Bartholomew, Alan Yaghdjian, owner of Rancho Bernardo Courtyard,
Mr. and Mrs. Paul & Rosemarie Kalemkierian, and Gourgen Darbinyan of
Importers Direct Wholesale Co.
AGBU San Diego is dedicated to preserving and promoting the Armenian
identity and heritage through humanitarian, educational and cultural
programs. For more information, please contact AGBU San Diego by
emailing [email protected].
For more information on AGBU and its worldwide chapters, please visit
Congresswoman Betty McCollum
Serving Minnesota’s 4th Congressional District
1029 Longworth HOB w Washington, DC 20515
For Immediate Release: September 15, 2005
Contact: Dany Khy (202) 225-6631 / [email protected]
Statement from Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04) on the Armenian Genocide
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04) made the
following statement in the U.S. House International Relations Committee
during debate of H.Con.Res.195, a resolution to commemorate the Armenian
Genocide of 1915-1923:
“I had an opportunity to attend in St. Paul a remembrance of the victims of
the Armenian genocide. The Armenian community warmly embraced and said
prayers for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Darfur.
“One and a half million people died under a former government, the Ottoman
regime. It is important to remember Mr. Schiff’s statement about the age of
the survivors of the genocide. We are running out of time as an
international community to move toward peace and reconciliation. We are
running out of time for the victims and those who remember the tragedy to
come together and heal.
“I am pleased that a joint commission is being discussed. I’ve spoken to
people in Turkey and to people within the Turkish government who would like
to see reconciliation move forward.
“The fact that the Turkish government has not moved as quickly as many of us
would like is important. Equally important is that there are many in Turkey
who realize that truth and reconciliation, and a recognition in history,
will go a long way in healing many wounds.
“We need to look at what has happened in history in order to move forward
with reconciliation. Look at our own history with the Native Americans and
the Japanese internment. In my state of Minnesota, people with mental
illness were warehoused, buried without even a marker to recognize them as
individuals.
“We have to acknowledge when we’ve had failures. We have to acknowledge
when we’ve hurt one another. The failure to do so sends the wrong signal to
our children, that it doesn’t matter what you do, people will forget about
it. It sends the wrong message, that there’s no lesson to be learned from
treating each other cruelly and inhumanely. There’s no judgment.
“I support both resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide [H.Con.Res.
195 and H.Res. 316]. However, I would like to say this to the Turkish
government: you are moving forward; slowly but forward. I appreciate,
respect and acknowledge that, but time is running out.
“As a member of the International Relations Committee, it is my
responsibility to try to be consistent on policies. I recognized genocide
in Darfur. I saw it with my own eyes – I witnessed a government attacking
its own citizens. For me, the atrocities that occurred under the Ottoman
Empire, not the Turkish Republic, but the Ottoman Empire, were similar — a
government attacking its own citizens. Fortunately, that government no
longer exists. However, people living in the region must have an accurate
reflection of history in order to move forward toward peace and
reconciliation.
“And to the Turkish government, I would also like to say, as I said to the
Turkish Ambassador when he was in my office shortly after the Turkish
Parliament took a vote not to allow U.S. troops: I respect their
sovereignty. I respect their democracy and I respect their right to
determine how they will be engaged in policy.”
####
‘JEWS ARE NEWS’
Maclean’s, Canada
September 12, 2005
Why does the Nazi Holocaust preoccupy us more than any other genocide?
In this excerpt from Beethoven’s Mask, heavily condensed by
Maclean’s, Toronto-based author and journalist George Jonas refutes
the popular notions — articulated, among other places, in Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners — that the
Holocaust was a unique event, and that it arose from a peculiarly
German kind of anti-Semitism.
I SPENT the first 10 years of my life in Nazioccupied Europe. My
immediate family and I survived the war by hiding. Since I kept no
diary, had the Nazis found me as they had found Anne Frank, I would
have disappeared without a trace. This would undoubtedly have made
the Holocaust a singular and unique event for me. I am less sure
about the Holocaust having been a singular and unique event in world
history. To me it seems that it was one of many horrifying holocausts,
albeit of immense proportions. I also doubt that the Holocaust was the
inevitable result of anti-Semitism, and especially that the Holocaust
was inevitably caused by a singular and unique type of anti-Semitism
peculiar to Germany.
Goldhagen’s thesis is that the Holocaust could never have happened
without the participation of ordinary Germans, who participated
because they were virulently anti-Semitic. This is true enough as far
as it goes, but it does not go very far. Saying that Hitler could not
have killed six million Jews without the participation of many other
people, and that people who participate in the wholesale slaughter
of Jews are likely to be virulently anti-Semitic, is saying something
singularly self-evident.
Goldhagen contends that German people and culture were anti-Semitic in
a unique way that he calls “eliminationist.” For proof, he documents
the historic existence of German anti-Semitic ideas and policies
exhaustively and convincingly. But he offers no proof of its German
singularity, or that “eliminationist” anti-Semitism can be taken as
a precursor to, or at least a portent of, genocide.
Proof would be hard to come by, for history shows no inevitable link
between anti-Semitism — or any other type of racial, ethnic, class, or
religious prejudice or hatred — and genocide. What’s more, traditional
German prejudice against Jews, though widespread and intense, was
less acute than traditional Polish prejudice, and not significantly
more acute than French prejudice. Before Hitler’s time, Jews often
emigrated to Germany to escape worse discrimination elsewhere.
Was German anti-Semitism before the Hitler era materially different
from anti-Semitism in other times and places? I believe it was not.
Modern anti-Semitism developed side by side with nationalism, as
older organizing principles of the social order weakened. Ironically,
it came as a by-product of the Enlightenment. As the dynastic and
religious systems by which groups used to define themselves were losing
their grip, people were gradually beginning to think of themselves as
“Russians” rather than subjects of the Czars, or “Germans” rather than
subjects of the Hohenzollern emperors. The one-time vassals of the
Bourbons were turning into the Gallic sons and daughters of Marianne,
the emblematic figure of the French Revolution. The pilgrims and
warriors of Christendom or Islam were evolving into “Italians” or
“Turks.”
Such definitions inevitably put a premium on ethnic identity.
Suddenly Jews were no longer patches in the colourful tapestry of
empires, but alien and potentially baneful cells in the bloodstream
of nations. As national identities assumed greater importance, a new
type of anti-Semitism was born.
But these modern, populist-nationalist-racist elements existed in the
anti-Semitic laws and opinion of all contemporary cultures, not only
in Germany’s. The “Jewish question,” so-called, was raised by almost
every nation from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. Raising it
was regarded as legitimate.
Why, then, did the Holocaust occur in Germany and not in some
other country? There is a danger of replying to this by attributing
some peculiar evil to Germans as a group — i.e., as a “race.” To
his credit, Goldhagen takes great pains to avoid it. The problem is,
unless we postulate evil, there is little in German history or culture
to provide an alternative explanation. Germany’s traditions were
no less rational, no less civilized, no less chivalrous, than other
Western traditions during the same period. Her public laws and civic
morality, the personal habits of her citizens, their ethical precepts,
their customary religious beliefs, were not markedly different from
those of the citizens of other European nations.
German art, science, industry, and infrastructure were, if anything,
more advanced. Although the governmental institutions in Germany’s
recent past were more autocratic than those of France and England,
not to mention the United States, they were not nearly as autocratic
as many other countries’. In any event, by the time Hitler came to
power, the Weimar Republic was a democracy.
Jews in Germany were well integrated — not only far better than the
Jews of Poland or Russia, but on the whole better than the Jews in
many Western countries, including even the United States and Canada.
Most German Jews were German patriots. Though after their emancipation
in the mid-18th century, their contribution to music, arts, sciences,
commerce, literature, journalism and even politics far exceeded their
numbers (about one per cent) in Germany’s population, Germany’s
institutions were not overwhelmed by Jews (though this became a
frequent explanation offered by anti-Semites for their anti-Semitism),
not even to the extent that Austria’s or Hungary’s might have been. One
looks in vain for a rational — or even irrational — explanation
for a supposed “unique hatred” in the history of the relationship
between Jews and Germans. The search turns up nothing.
What, then, is the answer? Why did the Holocaust occur in Germany? We
can certainly view traditional German anti-Semitism as one contributing
cause. Hitler himself must be considered a significant factor. A
charismatic leader is like an ignition source, a spark: utterly
insignificant in the absence of an explosive mixture, but the direct
cause of a blow-up in a place filled with combustible fumes.
In another country — or in Germany in another historic period —
Hitler might have died unnoticed in a flophouse or in a mental
institution. But he was where he was, therefore he did what he did.
The Holocaust would not have happened without him.
There were many reasons for Germany being unlike other countries
in the 1920s. Other countries lacked the shock that follows losing
a war that the Germans believed they were winning almost until the
last minute. The national trauma of that unexpected blow is still
insufficiently understood outside Germany. It was inevitable for
conspiracy theories to start flourishing after such a traumatic
event. The soil for Nazism was prepared by German indignation. It
sparked an immediate search for scapegoats. It seemed natural to
include Jews in this conspiracy.
The super-inflation that started in 1922 and lasted until 1924 was
devastating. The stock market crash of 1929 was undoubtedly a factor,
but the Depression did not necessarily lead to the rise of totalitarian
systems elsewhere. More significant was the rare, maybe even unique,
vulnerability of the Weimar Republic. Conventional analysis often
blames the treaty of Versailles for the rise of Nazism, but the status
of Germany as an adolescent democracy was at least as important. This
almost teenage-like stage in the nation’s life probably had more to do
with the irrational eruptions in Germany’s soul than any other factor.
Mature democracies, such as the United States or Great Britain, with
solid traditions of both individual liberty and checks and balances
on the exercise of power, would have been far more resistant to the
totalitarian nature of Nazism than Germany. Additionally, a class
society such as Britain’s would have been far more resistant to letting
a party composed of tradesmen and petty officials grab the helm of
the ship of the state. Social snobbery alone would have prevented a
corporal like Hitler from becoming supreme leader of England.
But there is something even more important. The seemingly
insurmountable hurdle of “Why in Germany?” vanishes if we stop
insisting on the Holocaust as a unique and singular event. If it were
unique, we could scarcely explain it, in spite of all the points listed
above, except by attributing to Germans an inherent, subhuman barbarity
that comes perilously close, no matter how we try to get around it,
to the inherent, subhuman malice the Nazis attributed to Jews.
A race of barbarians with inherent streaks of virulent anti-Semitism
does not metamorphose into a race of liberal humanists overnight,
as Goldhagen incongruously insists in his book. The influence of
postwar education could not achieve such a miracle. If Germans are
not genocidally anti-Semitic today — as indeed they are not — it
is because Germans were never uniquely or inherently genocidal or
anti-Semitic. They were just situational murderers between 1933 and
1945, as many groups have been at one period or another.
If we view the monstrous tragedy of the Holocaust as only one of many
such monstrous tragedies in human history, then the accurate question
becomes “Why not in Germany?” Why could Germans not do evil in the
same way that so many other people have done?
“I would suggest that barbarism be considered as a permanent and
universal human characteristic which becomes more or less pronounced
according to the play of circumstances.” The French Catholic
philosopher Simone Weil, a converted Jew, wrote these lines in 1940.
The years since have given us no better insight.
A different question: If there is nothing unique about the Nazi
Holocaust (aside perhaps from its dimension), why does it preoccupy
us more than other holocausts?
Match it, for instance, with our attitude to the Communist holocaust.
While Nazi criminals who played a direct role in the murder of six
million are still hunted down and tried, we rarely prosecute Communist
criminals of similar degrees of responsibility.
(Interestingly, almost all the exceptions occurred in Germany, which
did prosecute some former East German officials after unification.)
Elsewhere it has been more usual for ex-functionaries of KGB- or
Gulagtype organizations to receive government positions or pensions.
The Nazi Party was immediately outlawed in post-war Germany. The
Communist Party, in contrast, is still the official opposition in
the former Soviet Union. Ex-Nazi officials like Kurt Waldheim, once
discovered, became international untouchables. Ex-Communist officials
like Mikhail Gorbachev are still asked to join think-tanks or lecture
at Western universities. It would be unthinkable for known ex-Nazis
to be invited to the same diplomatic cocktail receptions in Western
countries at which ex-Communists, or even current Communists, are
honoured guests. And imagine a former Gestapo officer being accepted
as the president of post-Nazi Germany, the way ex-KGB officer Vladimir
Putin has been accepted as the president of post-Soviet Russia.
Why do we react to the Nazi Holocaust and the Communist holocaust
differently? It is possible to postulate the following answers:
To begin with, the Holocaust provided people with the initial images
of mass slaughter as the Nazi death camps were being liberated.
Cinemas around the world showed — for the first time in history —
heaps of skeletal corpses being pushed into mass graves by bulldozers,
along with mounds of footwear, gold teeth, artifacts alleged to have
been made of human skin, and charred remains inside the incinerators
of Auschwitz. No ordinary person had ever seen anything like it. Those
inaugural images literally shocked the world’s conscience.
The Communist holocausts provided no comparable photo opportunities.
The islands of the Gulag deep inside the Soviet Union or China remained
inaccessible to the cameras of the Western media. Their millions of
victims between the 1920s and the 1980s perished unseen.
By the time a few snippets appeared on television screens, such as
the aftermath of the holocaust in Cambodia, audiences had become
inured to death and destruction through repeated exposure. Pictures
of slaughter in people’s living rooms became commonplace during the
television coverage of the Vietnam War. By the end of the 1970s,
photographic images had lost their power to shock.
Another contributing reason, at least until recently, was the
contrasting attitude many opinion makers had to Nazism as opposed
to Communism. Identical as the two intoxicants may have been,
intellectuals could get drunk on the wine of one far more easily
than the other. Nazism never “travelled,” to borrow an expression
from viticulture. Communism did.
There were self-evident reasons for this. It would have been
nonsensical for ideas of German superiority to become an export item
for non-Germans, or ideas of Aryan superiority for non-Aryans.
Marxist notions of the class struggle faced no similar obstacles. In
addition, Nazism as a social theory could rely on nothing but the
coldest and most selfish of human impulses to justify its call for
conquest and slaughter, but Communism could also enlist warm and
humane impulses of altruism to rationalize its own genocides.
Next, given that Nazism suffered an abject military defeat within
a decade of its emergence, while Communism appeared to march from
triumph to triumph until the mid-1980s, it is not surprising that
generations of opinion makers in academia, journalism and government
have been reluctant to discuss acts of Communist genocide in the same
breath with Nazi acts of genocide. To this day, Communist holocausts
may be respectably denied in countries whose laws treat the denial
of the Nazi Holocaust as a crime.
World opinion has also been affected by the fact that the largest
single group of Hitler’s victims were Jews. Murdering six million
members of one group does not have exactly the same consequences as
murdering six million members of another. Recent massacres of Mayans,
Moluccans or Kurds have not resulted in the same echo as earlier
massacres of Armenians. The opprobrium that attaches to genocide will
vary not only with the slaughter’s magnitude, cruelty, irrationality,
documentability and scope, but also with the ability of its victims
and survivors to attract attention and sympathy.
All victims are equal in their desire for, and entitlement to,
the world’s notice, but they are not always equal in their capacity
to capture it. When Germans decided to exterminate the Jews, they
picked the wrong group. As individuals, Jews tended to be gifted and
articulate. As an aggregate, they were well placed to disseminate
information, especially in the Western hemisphere. Traditional
Jewish occupations, in addition to science, business and the law,
included such natural forums as the literary arts, the entertainment
industry and the media. What’s more, the Diaspora spread Jews all over
the globe. Many rose to prominence in various fields. Jews always
amounted to a constituency in many key nations, at least in weight
if not in numbers. “Jews are news,” as an eminent Western scholar on
Islam quipped in a speech in 2002, quoting an old witticism.
Anti-Semites have often pounced on these characteristics, distorted
them, or used them illegitimately, mixed with false ones of their
own invention, to raise the spectre of a mythical “Jewish conspiracy.”
That is poisonous rubbish, but it does not mean that some of these
characteristics do not exist. It is hardly surprising that Jews were
traumatized by Nazism and resented being murdered. As they had the
necessary attributes to attract public attention, they relied on them
— especially after the Holocaust — in self-defence.
Still, the foremost reason for which we view the Holocaust not only
as one of many such abysses in humanity’s past, but as a unique
occurrence and the epitome of evil, is probably different. Germany
was Europe’s most cultured nation. It was a nation of Kant, Beethoven
and Goethe. Even if only a minuscule minority of its Nazis read poetry
or played Mozart on the piano, the gulf between the cultural history
of Germany’s inhabitants and their barbaric behaviour during the Nazi
era was incomprehensibly wide. It stunned their victims as it stunned
the world.
The scope and barbarity of the Holocaust would have been stunning
even if carried out by headhunters from Borneo, but it was not. It was
carried out by Germans. It may be difficult for post-war generations
raised in the last half century — during which Germans became
equated with the Nazi salute, not only in popular entertainment but
also in political and academic discourse — to understand the sheer
bewilderment people felt in the decade between the mid-1930s and the
1940s as they were gradually discovering the full extent of the vulgar
brutality of Hitler’s regime. It did not seem “typically” German, as we
might think of it today, but fundamentally un-German. It did not fit.
At the risk of trivializing a cataclysmic event by a facile metaphor,
the Holocaust was like a society murder. Society murders become
notorious because of the contrast between the criminal and the crime.
Butchery in the slums hardly makes the back pages, but the same act
committed in a mansion becomes headline news. The crimes of a serial
killer would be noted in any event, but if Jack the Ripper turns out
to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, it occupies a unique place in
the annals of crime. It becomes singular. This, I suggest, is what
happened in 1945 when the Allies entered Bergen-Belsen and revealed
the Germans to the world as mass murderers.
It is the human race that is genocidal, not the Germans. Saying this
is not to excuse the Germans, but to note a fact. In one vital sense
we are all Jews and we are all Germans, potentially, depending on the
conditions in which we find ourselves. Remembering this may reduce
the likelihood that we will ever be Jews or Germans again as Jews or
Germans were during one night-marish period between 1933 and 1945.
Reprinted with permission of Key Porter Books from Beethoven’s Mask:
Notes on My Life and Times by George Jonas.
For original reprints (with graphics) available
WAR OR CHANGE OF AUTHORITIES?
A1+
| 20:41:59 | 12-09-2005 | Politics |
Today two representatives of the Crisis Managing group met the
journalists in hotel Congress to inform them that they have prepared
the first report about the Karabakh conflict. The report will be
presented on Wednesday.
The main theme of talk of the deputy head of the group Alain Deletroz
was that the parties must put an end to the preaching of mutual hatred
and hostility and meet each other half way, taking any step for the
peaceful settlement of the conflict.
“The parties have never been so close to the peaceful settlement of
the conflict as now. If there is the wish to settle the conflict,
the sides must do everything proceeding from the present state of
things”, stressed the deputy head of the Crisis Managing group.
Years ago the first President of RA Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced
that there will be no more a suchlike chance to settle the conflict,
but the powers which were not ready for compromise realized revolution
in the country. Asked the question if in case of missing this chance
the current authorities will be deprived of chair, the head of the
Crisis Managing group answered laconically, “There is only one thing
I can say: the Karabakh conflict must be settled now”.
During the press conference he periodically reminded the journalists
that they are investigating about 44 suchlike cases of conflict that
they now only two ways of settling them – the military way, and the
compromise way.
Alain Deletroz also said that they have met with the Azeri Mass
Media and our neighbors were more passionate. He told the Armenian
journalists, “If you preach all day that the Azeris are your enemies,
it’s clear that the society will never be ready for normal relations
with them”. He also informed that he is aware of Azerbaijan intending
to make its military budget equal to the Armenian state budget.
He also made another interesting remark about the Armenian-Azeri
relations, “The fact that peace has been kept in the front line for
more than 10 years without the interference of international peace
detachments, testifies to the fact that the Armenians and the Azeri
are able to take joint actions”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress