Saturday, April 23, 2005

The genocide conference is over and in terms of it being good for Armenian genocide recognition, it was great. For it being a good well rounded conference on genocide recognition and prevention, it was not.

I spoke again and touched on the following subject, which I wrote about on the way back to Artsakh, while riding on a bus and passing through the Lachin corridor. Though I was not allowed to say all that I’ve written due to time restraints, I did get out half of my question, which the discussants on the panel did not answer and it was only later kind of answered by Professor Richard Hovanessian who directed me to where I could find answers.

The following is an unedited and very rough version of what I wrote, which needs some additional information that I will collect when I have some spare time:

Genocide -- Crime against humanity or act of human nature?

The word genocide which was invented by Raphael Lemkin, was adopted by the United Nations on December 9, 1948 as a punishable crime against humanity.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity

For more information on what constitutes genocide, see:

When the word was invented by Lemkin, it was done so to describe the crimes committed by the Adolph Hitler’s German government towards the Jewish minorities in Eastern Europe.

One has to ask the question of prior to 1948, what was Genocide called and how were those that committed such acts were punished?

From the beginning of written history, aggressions that would today be called genocide have been taking place.

These crimes for the most part have gone unpunished and accepted as an event that took place and life has moved on. Very rarely have victims of such aggression been compensated for their loss of material wealth, or the deaths of their relatives.

Of course this all changed with the invention of the word Genocide, where the Jewish people have gain recognition of the Jewish Holocaust, for which the German government has and will continue to pay compensation for the losses Jews and other ethnic minorities sustained.

While examining genocide and it’s cause and effect, one has to ask what would drive a government and it’s people to commit such atrocities towards weaker minorities found in the country they govern and is this act an animal instinct which lies dormant in all humans and all that is needed is something to trigger it?

While seeking an answer to this question, one also has to examine what a human being is and what makes them so humane, to have such a word to describe them as such.

The reality is that humans in general are for the most part not humane and in too many cases are in fact very inhumane. This is proven by looking no further than with the division of rich and poor, with the majority of humans living in poverty.

The reality is that if humans were in fact humane, they would be more interested in making sure that their fellow humans were at very least secure with minimal life sustaining nutrition and shelter for a healthy existence.

This fact and other common acts of greed and the pursuit of wealth, going so far as the willingness to go to war over material wealth should sufficiently illustrate that humans are in fact not humane and are vicious creatures with parasitical tendencies.

So if humans are not humane and are in fact parasites, why should we expect anything less than them be at risk of committing genocide?

When one thinks of genocide, one thinks of people being killed and their property being misappropriated.

Genocide according to the UN definition is not just about spilling blood and misappropriating of victims material wealth.

The term “white genocide” is used to refer to a genocide that does not spill blood on the surface and when the genocide is taking place, but in most cases can be even more damaging.

Such white genocides have also been going on undoubitly since the beginning of time, which effect have been recently documented in the recently independent republic of Armenia, where the once strong educational, religious ad social structure has been systematically disassembled by Western influences and financial institutions, under the name of promoting democracy and the fair rule of law.

The United States government has for the last 200+ years been influencing and financing foreign countries in an effort to promote democracy, a democracy that the founding fathers of the United States Republic did not adopt as their method of governing, as they knew a country that adopts democracy is doomed to fail.

Knowing this and the US’s promoting democracy in foreign countries knowing it’s effect and their foreign policy, which includes US Army’s 100-20 – Low Intensity Conflict, which is intended to destroy and destabilize venerable and struggling nations to collapse or at very least become dependent on the West for their survival and could also be a contributing factor that leads governments to commit genocide.

So going back to the original question of this paper, is genocide a crime against humanity, or in fact a natural and instinctual acts that “humans” are capable and willing to do?

One other thing that needs to be considered is what triggers Genocides? Could it be nothing more than the basic law of nature, survival of the fittest and nature cleaning the weak and allowing the strong to flourish?

This clearly was one of Hitler’s beliefs, which was the Arian race was superior in his mind and being it the strong, it should only be allowed to survive.

There could also be an economic issue and a non-humane way of thinking when it comes to fulfilling ones economic needs, or it could be the victims of genocide were an economic risk for the aggressors. What better way to motivate someone than to point blame for ones economic woes as being the victims and the need to eliminate the treat?

The reality is that out of 200+ nations, only eight of them are considered economically independent and that one of these eight, namely the United States, represents less than 5% of the worlds population, consumes over 25% of the worlds energy resources, controls over 50% of the world economy and is one of biggest culprits of White Genocide today.

Taking everything written above, it seems that genocide as defined by the UN is a natural and predictable occurrence that is unique and natural for humans to commit and can not be entirely eliminated, but if properly studied can be partly avoided.

No comments:

Post a Comment