Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AZTAG: Looking Back, Moving Forward: An Interview with Roger Smith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AZTAG: Looking Back, Moving Forward: An Interview with Roger Smith

    "Aztag" Daily Newspaper
    P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
    Beirut, Lebanon
    Fax: +961 1 258529
    Phone: +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
    Email: [email protected]


    AZTAG: Looking Back, Moving Forward: An Interview with Roger Smith

    Interview by Khatchig Mouradian


    http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/interviews.htm


    The best way to move forward is through looking backward, it is said. This
    might not be a good idea when you are driving a car, but whenever "backward"
    signifies turning your eyes toward the past, memory or history, this
    statement rings as true as any established cliché.

    "The Armenian Genocide provides many clues to why contemporary genocide
    occurs, what its warning signs are, and thus offers some hope, that if the
    nations will act, genocide in the making can be prevented," says Professor
    Roger Smith in this interview. In a world plagued with genocide and ethnic
    cleansing, we, the human race, have often failed to look back, acknowledge
    our mistakes, learn from them, and hence move forward. Unfortunately, world
    leaders today are more interested in making history - no matter how twisted
    it comes out to be - than learning from it. "We learn from history that we
    learn nothing from history," said George Bernard Shaw.

    According to Paul Valery, "History is the science of what never happens
    twice." Yes, probably Armenians will not be marched to the desert and
    slaughtered again. But as Armenians continue to reflect on the uprooting and
    the near extermination of their people in 1915, they cannot help but see the
    path that led humanity to the Holocaust, to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and
    most recently, Darfur.

    "Perpetrators of genocide have learned from their own "study" of genocide
    that they can commit the crime under the cover of war, in the name of
    self-defense, will receive impunity, can deny that they committed genocide,
    and that the world will forget," says Roger Smith. The message is loud and
    clear. If you want to have the killing of 1.5 million Armenians in the
    Ottoman Empire acknowledged worldwide, if you want the millions of Jews and
    Gypsies slaughtered in Europe to rest in peace, then do something about
    Darfur now! And act in a way so as to prove that Bernard Shaw was wrong and
    that Paul Valery was right.

    Roger W. Smith is Professor Emeritus at the College of William and Mary in
    Virginia, where he taught courses in political philosophy and the
    comparative study of genocide. Educated at Harvard and the University of
    California, Berkeley, Smith has written widely on the nature, history, and
    the possibilities of preventing genocide. He has dealt, among other topics,
    with the roles of gender, denial, and the thirty-five year-long reluctance
    of the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention that was broken only
    in 1988. Smith has written the introduction to a recent edition of
    "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" (first published in 1918), a classic account
    of the Armenian Genocide. His other works include "Women and Genocide" and
    "Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide," both
    published in the journal Holocaust and Genocide studies in 1994 and 1995
    respectively. One of Prof. Smith's most recent publications is "American
    Self-Interest and the Response to Genocide," published in The Chronicle of
    Higher Education on July 30, 2004. He is also the author of the entry on
    "Perpetrators" in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against
    Humanity, which will be published in November 2004.

    Professor Smith's public lectures have taken him to Armenia, Western Europe,
    Canada and to numerous prestigious universities across the United States. He
    has also given interviews to the Voice of America, the National Public
    Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Public Broadcasting
    Service, participated in documentaries on genocide, and provided testimony
    before the US Congress.

    Professor Smith is co-founder and past president of the International
    Association of Genocide Scholars. Currently, he is Program Director of the
    Zoryan Institute's Genocide and Human Rights Program in Toronto (Information
    about the course is available at www.zoryaninstitute.org ).

    In this interview, he looks back at a century of Genocide.




    Aztag- In an article published lately in the "Chronicle of Higher
    Education," you say: "Relatively small, well-organized lobbying groups are
    more likely to be effective in moving policy makers to act against genocide
    than broad, but somewhat amorphous public opinion." Citing, among others,
    the facts that public opinion doesn't have direct access to policy makers
    and that human-rights groups have the expertise to be persuasive.
    How effective have human-rights groups dealing with this specific issue been
    when lobbying for a more assertive stance against genocides? Do you envisage
    a better strategy for a more effective functioning of such groups?

    Roger Smith- Human rights groups in recent years have multiplied, but the
    effect on policy, whether in Bosnia or Rwanda, was not great. Budgets are
    small, agendas differ, and resources and efforts tend to be scattered. But
    mainly, they have run into the reluctance of the United States and other
    countries to take action to prevent, or end, genocide. But things change:
    Somalia cast a shadow over involvement in Rwanda; now the costs of not
    acting in Rwanda cast a shadow over Darfur. In the present climate, perhaps
    direct lobbying of decision-makers, whether in national governments or the
    United Nations, will be more productive. But human rights organizations
    must also create ways to lobby more effectively; this will require access to
    greater resources, but in some instances internal changes and change of
    focus; for example, away from individuals and toward policy and
    institutions. Some organizations (Amnesty International) have been oriented
    toward prisoners of conscience (that is individuals) rather than mass
    killing; Human Rights Watch has taken a different approach, concentrating on
    policy and institutions. Other organizations have been primarily concerned
    with providing relief, and have seen themselves as having to be neutral
    between perpetrators and victims (perhaps even removing such distinctions
    from their vocabulary). Fewer, but stronger, organizations might also be
    needed: effectiveness is not necessarily increased by a multiplicity of
    groups. Nevertheless, I believe that human rights organizations, unlike a
    somewhat amorphous public opinion, can help move policymakers to act against
    genocide.




    Aztag- During the annual meeting of the institute for the Study of Genocide
    you said, referring to Samantha Power's Pulitzer prize book "A Problem from
    Hell": " My one concern for Power's book is that in a few years she will
    have to issue an updated edition, listing yet another genocide: one in
    which, yet again, the United States stood by."
    What is your take on the West's reaction to the atrocities in Darfur? Do you
    think the chapter on Sudan will not differ from the previous ones?

    Roger Smith- I am hopeful that Darfur may turn out differently, that the
    world's reaction may bring the killing and destruction to a close. But
    there are mixed signals: the US Congress calls what is taking place
    "genocide," but just what it proposes to do other than some kind of
    sanctions through the UN is not clear; on the other hand, the European Union
    says that genocide is not taking place in Darfur, and thus would not be in
    favor of active intervention. The UN Security Council has given a month's
    deadline to Sudan to show improvement; the African Union seems to more
    active than in the past, and various countries (including Rwanda) intend to
    place monitors in the region. But Sudan continues to maintain that no
    intervention is necessary, that the militias are outlaws, not proxies for
    the regime. It is hard to say what will happen next, but my guess is that
    no direct intervention will take place.




    Aztag- In your testimony before the House Committee on International
    Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights you
    said: "The Armenian case is the prototype for much of the Genocide that we
    have seen since 1945; it was territorial, driven by nationalism, and carried
    out with a relatively low level of technology."
    Can you please draw parallels between the Armenian Genocide and the other
    genocides in terms of territory, nationalism, and technology?

    Roger Smith- Many scholars and the general public thought of the Holocaust
    as the model of genocide: they saw it as driven by racial ideology, that it
    was transnational, killing persons from all over Europe, and that it used a
    complicated technology to transport and kill in assembly line fashion
    millions of persons; by those standards, genocides that took place before or
    after the Holocaust tended to be described as "tragedies," but not genocide.

    This had the effect of demeaning the victims of those genocides and
    blinding us to the ongoing nature of genocide in the 20th century.
    But most of the genocides that have taken place since 1945 do not fit the
    characteristics ascribed to the Holocaust. Whether it was Bangladesh,
    Burundi, Rwanda, or Bosnia, there was a pattern that the Holocaust did not
    illuminate to any extent: where the killing was largely territorial, the
    ideology was nationalism (Cambodia is different in this respect), and the
    technology employed was at a relatively low level (hoes, machetes, bullets,
    fire, death due to exposure, and starvation). Rather, the Armenian Genocide
    of 1915 was where the parallels could be found; indeed, it is the prototype
    for much of the genocide that has taken place since 1945 and is taking place
    now in Darfur. In addition to the elements already mentioned, there is the
    perpetrators claim that they were only defending themselves against
    revolutionaries and subversives; that what took place was civil war, not
    genocide. The Armenian Genocide provides many clues to why contemporary
    genocide occurs, what its warning signs are, and thus offers some hope, that
    if the nations will act, genocide in the making can be prevented.




    Aztag- During a panel organized by the Zoryan Institute you said that "a
    precondition for reconciliation is a shared, accepted historical account."
    What do you think about the attempts to sidestep the issue of genocide in
    order to achieve reconciliation (for example TARC)? Do you think "a shared,
    accepted historical account" is achievable when the Turkish government
    continues the policy of denial and the education system in Turkey is
    bringing up generations with the same distorted view of history?

    Roger Smith- I think that a precondition for reconciliation in any genocide
    is a shared, accepted historical account. But this is lacking with Turks and
    Armenians, both at the State level and the individual level. The issues
    have little to do with actual history: rather Turkish denial and the
    rewriting of history involve a defense of Turkish self-image and political
    concerns. A mythological history would have to be replaced; but identity has
    been built on this history; change would have disturbing effects, leading to
    confusion and questioning the very legitimacy of the state. But in the long
    term, this is the only way Turkey can master its past; the acknowledgment of
    the Genocide will, if it comes, coincide with a greater democratization of
    Turkey, and with a more open and pluralistic society. We will know that
    Turkey has come close to democracy when its citizens can openly discuss what
    was done in 1915 and how it has been denied and covered up for 90 years.
    The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) was an attempt to
    bypass a common version of history. Its very title tells us something: it
    contains "reconciliation," but not "truth." But ultimately, is not truth,
    acknowledgment, necessary if full reconciliation is to be possible? The
    commission was ill-conceived: it lacked legitimacy in how it came into
    being, and in terms of its members, who were hardly representative of the
    Armenian community. It was widely-viewed as a dodge, created by the State
    Department and the Turkish government to delay Congressional and
    international resolutions affirming the Genocide.

    Partial steps toward reconciliation without public acknowledgment by Turkey
    of the genocide could happen: Japan has never accepted responsibility for
    its war guilt, yet enjoys good relations with the U.S. Some steps Turkey
    could take, but may not unless pressured by the European Union: diplomatic
    recognition of Armenia; opening borders; lift embargo against Armenia, allow
    for free development of Armenian culture within Turkey; allow for free
    public discussion of the Genocide; rescind its policy of educating its youth
    (Armenian included) in genocide denial; stop building monuments blaming
    Armenians for genocide; and abandon denial. But the issue of genocide would
    remain; until this is acknowledged, no full reconciliation is possible.
    It seems to me doubtful that Turkey will acknowledge the genocide. And what
    would follow if it did? Armenians are not of one mind about this. But for
    now, I think Armenians are right to look to public opinion in many countries
    and to seek affirmation of the Genocide by national and international
    bodies. Even the Pope has signed on.




    Aztag- A New York Times book review mentions that there are 37,000 works on
    Nazism, 12,000 of which have appeared in the previous five years alone.
    The Armenian genocide, among others, is far less researched and documented
    and, adding insult to injury, the campaigns of denial force historians to
    dedicate much time and effort in order to falsify the claims of deniers and
    revisionists.

    What are, in your opinion, the challenges facing historians dealing with the
    Armenian genocide a century after the fact?

    Roger Smith- Although works on Nazism and the Holocaust continue to appear
    at a rapid pace, there is increasing awareness among scholars that the 20th
    century presented numerous other examples of human destructiveness There
    is now an effort to research the many other cases of genocide, and to put
    them in comparative perspective. What do the cases have in common? How do
    they differ? Why were they previously ignored? How has denial affected
    writing about them? What can genocides other than the Holocaust teach us
    about the dynamics of destruction, warning signs of genocide, and possible
    prevention?

    The Armenian Genocide was well-known at the time it took place, but after
    the 1920s almost dropped from sight. When I began teaching about genocide
    some 20 years ago, there were few materials available on the Armenian
    Genocide that I could assign in class. That has changed greatly in the past
    few years; in fact, I am currently reviewing five books on the Genocide that
    were published last year alone. But much needs to be done: research
    completed, dissemination of the historical record, making the story of the
    Genocide available to a wide audience.

    But there are special problems that face those who write about the Armenian
    Genocide. First, there are the linguistic skills needed. Then there is the
    fact that many of those who deal with the genocide spend more than half
    their time refuting the denial and falsification of the Turkish government
    and its accessories in academia and the foreign offices of the U.S., Israel,
    and Britain. There is also the problem of audience: outside the Armenian
    community, there has been little public interest in what took place 90 years
    ago. The Armenian example does not stand alone: how much do we hear about
    Pol Pot and his utopian experiment of only 25 years ago? To reach a broad
    audience and place the narrative of the first major genocide of the 20th
    century before the public may require that the story be incorporated into a
    larger, even universal, history. Several recent books, for example, have
    attempted to connect the history of the destruction with the rise of an
    international humanitarian movement in the United States. In this way, the
    Armenian case remains what it is; a crime against a particular people, but
    it also becomes part of a broader history. The challenge is to find
    additional ways in which such connections can be made.



    Aztag- In a recent interview with Professor Ben Kiernan, I asked him about
    the importance of comparative genocide studies. Part of his answer was:
    "While perpetrators of genocide seem to have benefited from their own
    comparative analysis of the potential and possibilities for genocide in the
    modern era, the rest of humanity has failed as yet to learn lessons from the
    past that could lead to meaningful intervention in such catastrophes".
    What have we learned from the comparative study of genocides? How realistic
    is the belief that these studies will contribute in driving policy makers to
    actively oppose genocidal campaigns wherever they happen?

    Roger Smith- I agree with Professor Kiernan that perpetrators of genocide
    have learned from their own "study" of genocide that they can commit the
    crime under the cover of war, in the name of self-defense, will receive
    impunity, can deny that they committed genocide, and that the world will
    forget. Even many of the techniques of destruction are transportable and
    easily available: concentration camps, deportations, destruction of food
    supplies.

    Comparative genocide studies can help us understand the conditions under
    which mass violence, including genocide, is likely to take place; it can
    help identify warning signs of the impending violence; and it can suggest
    ways in which genocide can be prevented. But it will also, as discussed in
    my essay in THE CHRONICLE, indicate the patterns of governmental inaction
    where genocide is concerned and the reasons for that. Thus, the problem of
    prevention of genocide is not simply a question of knowledge, but of
    political will. My own view is that the single most effective means to end
    the slaughter of so many millions is for states to expand their concept of
    national interest to include the prevention of genocide. The arguments for
    this are humanitarian, but also follow political realism: genocide
    frequently spawns regional wars, leads to the outflow of huge numbers of
    refugees (some 10 million from Bangladesh in 1971, millions from Rwanda and
    Darfur), the economic costs are far greater than the cost of early
    intervention. Whether scholars and human rights activists can persuade
    policy makers to redefine national interest is not clear, but it is a goal
    that should be high on their agenda.

    There are many other things that I have learned from the comparative study
    of genocide: differences between ancient and modern genocide; the fact that
    genocide throughout most of its long history was committed almost
    exclusively by men, but that this began to change in the 20th century; the
    evolution of the technology of destruction, yet the reappearance of many of
    its "primitive" methods (fire, starvation, handheld weapons) in the
    contemporary period. I also learned that in ancient times rulers boasted of
    destroying whole groups: no denial for them. Indeed, they erected monuments
    so that their annihilation of whole groups would not be forgotten. And,
    yes, I learned much about human nature.




    Aztag- You have taught courses on Genocide for 20 years. In what way have
    your approaches to teaching methods changed? In what way has the approach of
    student to the subject matter changed?

    Roger Smith- My seminar on genocide had 15-20 advanced undergraduates and
    graduate students. The course was comparative in scope and dealt with the
    following questions: what is genocide? Why does it occur? Who is
    responsible? How can genocide be prevented? My approach was to involve the
    students as much as possible in discussion and to get them to confront the
    issues instead of just taking notice of them. Much of the discussion was on
    responses of students themselves: their assumptions about human nature,
    about how it is possible for anyone to commit genocide, about our
    responsibility as citizens, about our own stereotypes and prejudices.
    My own approach to the course did not change much over the years, but I
    added new material and we had to add new cases studies. But one had to
    guard against becoming "numb" after confronting so many cases of genocide
    over the years. I remember too that students worried that they would fall
    into either despair over their inability to prevent genocide, or, faced with
    so many examples of mass killing, throw up their hands and say about yet
    another genocide, "What's the big deal?"

    I do think, though, that the students changed somewhat over time in how they
    responded. When I first started the course in 1981, the students were
    fixated on the horror of genocide and could not believe that anyone other
    than monsters could commit such acts. As we proceeded, they came to realize
    that ordinary men and women could do these terrible things. But the groups
    I had in the 1990s had greater awareness of the frequency of genocide; they
    grew up, so to speak, with Bosnia and Rwanda. Their focus was less on the
    horror and more on how they could prevent genocide, how they could become an
    active force for the protection of human rights.

    I retired three years ago, and since there are still few scholars who work
    in the area of genocide studies, no one at my university has continued the
    course. On the other hand, the past three summers I have taught in the
    Zoryan Institute's Genocide and Human Rights University Program, a two week
    intensive course (9-5) at the University of Toronto. Again, this is a
    seminar, with about 22 students, who come from many different countries and
    ethnic groups. There are Armenians from Canada, Lebanon, Uruguay, the U.S.;
    Turks and Kurds from Turkey; students from Germany, France, the Netherlands,
    and several countries in Latin America. The students have found it a
    powerful experience: they bond closely, rid themselves (to a large extent)
    of misunderstandings, and, in many cases, leave the course determined to
    pursue further study in genocide studies. In its own way, on a small scale,
    the seminar contributes to dialogue, understanding, and maybe personal
    reconciliation. As one of the students said, "We became family."

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X