According to many, there is an ongoing genocide in Sudan. As a political scientist I have to agree with the UN security council and say that I am uncertain as to whether or not the conflict displays all the components necessary to constitute a genocide in juridical terms. But as a human being it is easy for me to say that these killings must be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.
It does however appear to be more complicated than that. It seems the question of Darfur is a complex and delicate one, and that solving it will take finesse and skill by negotiators working to do so. No major power has any vital interest at stake, therefore the people of Darfur must suffer.
But genocides seem to never stop hurting the people and nations who have been involved in them. Knowledge of the Holocaust is still very much relevant in order to understand European current affairs, not to mention the Middle East.
It does however appear to be more complicated than that. It seems the question of Darfur is a complex and delicate one, and that solving it will take finesse and skill by negotiators working to do so. No major power has any vital interest at stake, therefore the people of Darfur must suffer.
But genocides seem to never stop hurting the people and nations who have been involved in them. Knowledge of the Holocaust is still very much relevant in order to understand European current affairs, not to mention the Middle East.
Another genocide, not often referred to as such, are the crusades. Here in the west they are practically forgotten, while in the Middle East these infamous undertakings are burned into the collective memories of nations and people and Saladin remains hero for his chivalrous victories.
But lately it is the (alleged(?)) genocide committed by the Turks against the Armenians between 1915-17 that is making news.As far as I have been able to understand, sitting here in a peaceful corner of the world in a small state where a peculiar mix of naivety and humanism are part of what characterise us both as a society and a people, what happened was a genocide. It seems scientists more or less agree on this.
Turkey however does not agree. In Turkey referring to the events as a genocide is punishable by law, and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was even tried for this. Once again, from where I'm sitting, it seems absurd for a democracy aspiring to join the European community to deny the obvious and to make it illegal even to mention or attempt to debate history.
Turkey however does not agree. In Turkey referring to the events as a genocide is punishable by law, and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was even tried for this. Once again, from where I'm sitting, it seems absurd for a democracy aspiring to join the European community to deny the obvious and to make it illegal even to mention or attempt to debate history.
Turkey was then off course outraged when the US congress, their ally, declared there had in fact been a genocide. Turkish-American relations went sour over night, something the Americans cannot really afford given the situation in Iraq - they fly in vast amounts of supplies to Iraq through Turkey and need Turkish goodwill in order to continue doing so.
The issue rapidly became a hot potato both in Washington and Ankara, and as far as I've heard it still is. Very much so. The result is that two countries who have the potential to play a constructive role in the region together have a hard time getting along. I think the world would be just a little better if they could, I think the world would be a little better if we all could. Talking friendly together is the start of everything good.
I talked about this whole situation with a Turkish friend of mine. She studies in Amsterdam at the moment, but was back home in Turkey for holidays when I chatted with her. She personally did not believe there had in fact been a genocide. But the reason for her conviction was interesting enough, she felt confident the Turkish army just would not have been competent enough to carry it out. She told me there had been several incidents in armed conflicts around the time where tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers had died due to incompetence and logistical nightmares caused by their leaders. She did not believe that organisation was capable of successfully carry out a genocide even if they wanted.She also told me that Turkish media and many ordinary Turks see the current development in the matter as an American conspiracy in which Bush plays a vital role. They reason along these lines: Bush could have stopped congress from passing this declaration. He didn't, so he must have a motive? Because the Americans would like to get their hands on potential oil fields in eastern Turkey, and is ready to invade if necessary. To me, the non-conspiratoric Norwegian, this seems to be nonsense.
In Norway we have a proverb saying that "one should call a shovel a shovel", meaning that when you see one you should call it a shovel, not a two-hand manual digging equipment. I think we should not be affraid to call something a genocide when it clearly is. I also think we need to acknowledge history in order to learn from it and move on in a constructive way.
But I am not sure the world will be a better place even though the US congress have declared the killing of Armenians in Turkey almost a hundred years ago to be a genocide. And I'm not sure who is to blame it might have become a little worse.
