Justin McCarthy: UN definition of genocide is meaningless

UN definition of genocide is meaningless

By Justin McCarthy

Turkish Daily News
Friday February 28, 2003

A brief analysis of the recent statement of The International Center
for Transitional Justice (ICTJ):

It must first be understood that the ICTJ statement that the word
"genocide" can be applied to what happened to the Armenians is
true. They applied the UN Genocide Convention definitions to the
history of one group, the Armenians, during World War I. Note what
ICTJ states as defining the so-called genocide:

i) The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

ii) Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical,

racial, or religious group

iii) The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of
similar conduct directed against that group.

All of those statements were true of the so-called "Armenian
Genocide." There were indeed many Muslims of Eastern Anatolia who
killed Armenians. That fulfills the definition. Indeed, the definition
is fulfilled whenever two "national, ethnical, racial, or religious
groups" fight each other.

The basic problem is that the UN definition of genocide is essentially
meaningless. It can be applied to almost any conflict. The most
dangerous problem is that, once the word genocide is used, people
do not think of the UN definition. They think of what Hitler did to
the Jews. Those who read that the ICTJ has decided that the Turks
committed genocide will seldom read the quasi-legal document produced
by the ICTJ. Often they will not even know there is a UN Genocide
Convention. Instead, their prejudices will be reinforced. Their
knowledge will not be increased. They will blame the Turks without
knowing anything of the real history of the events.

By the UN definition there indeed was a genocide of the
Armenians. There also was a genocide of the Muslims and a genocide of
the Turks. When the Armenian Nationalists killed the Muslims of Van,
was that not genocide? When they rounded up the villagers around Van,
herded them into the great natural bowl in Zeve, then killed them,
was that not genocide? Was the Armenian murder of the innocent and
unarmed Muslims of Erzurum, Erzincan, Tercan, and so many other places
not genocide?

Beyond the fact that the UN definition is meaningless there are some
extremely troubling facets to the ICTJ analysis: They state, "This
memorandum is a legal, not a factual or historical analysis." How,
one might ask, can anyone make a decision on the events of World
War I without an historical analysis? Of course, ICTJ does make an
historical analysis. Indeed, they also make a "factual analysis," using
a very selected group of facts. While a number of what may be called
the standard works of the Armenian Cause are cited, only one brief
book published by Turkish Government and some Government web sites
are cited (thus reinforcing the erroneous view that only the Turkish
Government objects to the Armenian version of history.) Reading the
text, it is obvious that the authors completely adopted the Armenian
Nationalists' view of history. They do not seem to have attempted
to consider the other side. Had they done so, they would have seen
that applying the word "genocide" only to the Turks was anything but
a neutral statement of fact.

If one only utilizes the fabrications in sources such as the Bryce
Report or the missionary reports, then "genocide" is a foregone
conclusion. Those books contain few dead Turks. The only suffering
mentioned is Armenian suffering. Using only such sources results in a
complete distortion of history. World War I propaganda becomes modern
propaganda, dressed in a legalistic package.

I have no idea of the process used in naming the ICTJ to make
this decision. Nor do I know how the ICTJ went about making their
decision. Perhaps their good will was wrongly assumed. More likely,
they simply did not know what they were doing. They may have believed
they were making a simple legal statement that needed little historical
analysis. That is a sure path to error, because those who believe they
do not need to study history all too often accept what they have always
been told without examining the facts, exactly what happened here.

I have supported and still support the concept of a Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission. Anything that brings contending sides
together to discuss their differences is good. But the TARC made a
false step in asking the ICTJ for their opinion. I have never agreed
with the idea of submitting historical questions to lawyers for final
answers. What is need is a commission of historians, not a commission
of lawyers.

--
******************************
Dr. Dennis R. Papazian
Professor of History
Director, Armenian Research Center
The University of Michigan-Dearborn
Dearborn, MI 48128-1491
313-593-5181
Fax 313-593-5219
Home Fax 248-641-0128
URL www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian
*************************************