Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation
The IHJR seeks to dispel public myths about historic legacies
in societies divided by ethnic conflict
About IHJR
Projects
IHJR Networking Initiatives
Previous Projects
Resources
Contact
Get Involved
Site Search
Loading...
With many pinning the hopes of underrepresented and marginalized people around the world on a single man, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has taken on arguably the most important job in the world.
Although the financial meltdown and continued concerns over national security top his agenda, Obama will make an impact in the realm of international justice, human rights and reconciliation.
As the world waits to see what this son of a white mother and black father will do, we can take heart in knowing that his role in historical justice and reconciliation will on the whole be positive. As the recent issue of The Economist pointed out “Because he is young, handsome and intelligent, and also because as the child of a Kansan and a Kenyan he reconciles in his own person one of the world’s most hateful divisions, Mr. Obama carries with him the hopes of the planet” (Jan. 17, 2009 pg. 11).
He will have a long list of things ahead of him, and while historical justice and reconciliation will not factor in as a campaign promise, they will benefit from the approach and style the international community can hope for from Obama.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama has already given us much to look forward to. His personality, education, demeanor and intellect have proven to be harbingers for a shift in America’s standing in the world.
His most telling move is to close Guantánamo, which he has promised to do. The New York Times reported today: “Saying that “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground” to combat terrorism, President Obama signed executive orders Thursday ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year.”
Amnesty International USA had asked that in his first 100 days he: “announce a plan and date to close Guantanamo, issue an executive order to ban torture and other ill-treatment, as defined under international law, ensure that an independent commission to investigate abuses committed by the U.S. government in its "war on terror" is set up.” This is the first step to resurrect our moral standing in the world. We must rectify the wrongs from this disturbing chapter in American history.
On the larger international scale is the smoldering aftermath of the Israeli-Palestinian war. The recent flare up appears to be coming to an end, and it would be the ideal time to further talks about a peaceful solution. Past American presidents have stepped in to try to reconcile the two sides. Though his stance on Israel is not fundamentally different than his predecessors, we can hope he brings fresh perspective to this decades-old conflict. While much of historical justice and reconciliation lies outside of the realm of politicians, it is often their political wills that move and guide societies on these paths.
And, its’ the reconciliation in our American minds – that a man born of a union that was considered illegal not too far back in history has now risen to the ranks of the highest and most important office in the land, if not the world.
How far his character and intellect stretch to the corners of the globe remains to be seen. But most likely his voice will resound a little louder with nations mired in ethnic conflict with a vision of what reconciliation on some level can look like, especially on a social level. After all, he is living proof that vicious histories can be overcome.
Although the financial meltdown and continued concerns over national security top his agenda, Obama will make an impact in the realm of international justice, human rights and reconciliation.
As the world waits to see what this son of a white mother and black father will do, we can take heart in knowing that his role in historical justice and reconciliation will on the whole be positive. As the recent issue of The Economist pointed out “Because he is young, handsome and intelligent, and also because as the child of a Kansan and a Kenyan he reconciles in his own person one of the world’s most hateful divisions, Mr. Obama carries with him the hopes of the planet” (Jan. 17, 2009 pg. 11).
He will have a long list of things ahead of him, and while historical justice and reconciliation will not factor in as a campaign promise, they will benefit from the approach and style the international community can hope for from Obama.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama has already given us much to look forward to. His personality, education, demeanor and intellect have proven to be harbingers for a shift in America’s standing in the world.
His most telling move is to close Guantánamo, which he has promised to do. The New York Times reported today: “Saying that “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground” to combat terrorism, President Obama signed executive orders Thursday ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year.”
Amnesty International USA had asked that in his first 100 days he: “announce a plan and date to close Guantanamo, issue an executive order to ban torture and other ill-treatment, as defined under international law, ensure that an independent commission to investigate abuses committed by the U.S. government in its "war on terror" is set up.” This is the first step to resurrect our moral standing in the world. We must rectify the wrongs from this disturbing chapter in American history.
On the larger international scale is the smoldering aftermath of the Israeli-Palestinian war. The recent flare up appears to be coming to an end, and it would be the ideal time to further talks about a peaceful solution. Past American presidents have stepped in to try to reconcile the two sides. Though his stance on Israel is not fundamentally different than his predecessors, we can hope he brings fresh perspective to this decades-old conflict. While much of historical justice and reconciliation lies outside of the realm of politicians, it is often their political wills that move and guide societies on these paths.
And, its’ the reconciliation in our American minds – that a man born of a union that was considered illegal not too far back in history has now risen to the ranks of the highest and most important office in the land, if not the world.
How far his character and intellect stretch to the corners of the globe remains to be seen. But most likely his voice will resound a little louder with nations mired in ethnic conflict with a vision of what reconciliation on some level can look like, especially on a social level. After all, he is living proof that vicious histories can be overcome.
There is often an uneasy tension between national sovereignty, political pressure, and international justice. The execution of Jose Ernesto Medellin in the United States yesterday highlights this often palpable strain.
The execution of Medillin, 33, in the state of Texas, occurred after a widespread international plea for leniency. At the root of this controversy lies the fact that Medillin was not informed of his right to a consular before and during the trial. The state of Texas earlier stated that while it was true that Medillin was not informed of his right to an attorney, as he did not raise a complaint during the trail, he may not do so after a verdict has been reached. The US Supreme Court also rejected an appeal from Medillin's lawyers, stating that "...(the) petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access."
The International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has long been against the execution in Medillin:
While the US did not abide by the ICJ's strong suggestions, it openly supports the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan President Bashir. It does not officially recognize the ICC.
This insistence on the prosecution of President Bashir comes in the face of many African leader's insistence that a suspension of Bashir's indictment is essential in order to stop further bloodshed in the region. The Sudanese government has threatened to expel peacekeepers if Bashir's indictment continues. In response, US envoy Alejandro Wolff stated:
This irony has not been lost on many critics of the current system of international justice. In his recent opinion piece, Osama al Sharif, a journalist based in Jordan, lamented the political nature of international justice. Warranted or not, Bashir stated that many powerful nations, their allies, and their leaders are able to perpetrate human rights abuses with impunity. For him, this is the biggest problem with the current system of "international justice":
While al Sharif's indictment of the international community may be controversial, there is no doubt that there is a considerable and unfortunate divide between what is politically acceptable, and what is judicially acceptable in current international justice proceedings.
The execution of Medillin, 33, in the state of Texas, occurred after a widespread international plea for leniency. At the root of this controversy lies the fact that Medillin was not informed of his right to a consular before and during the trial. The state of Texas earlier stated that while it was true that Medillin was not informed of his right to an attorney, as he did not raise a complaint during the trail, he may not do so after a verdict has been reached. The US Supreme Court also rejected an appeal from Medillin's lawyers, stating that "...(the) petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access."
The International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has long been against the execution in Medillin:
The ICJ told US authorities in 2004 that Medellin's case and that of other Mexicans facing execution violated the Vienna Convention because authorities failed to inform the foreigners of their right to consular access and assistance during trial.
While the US did not abide by the ICJ's strong suggestions, it openly supports the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan President Bashir. It does not officially recognize the ICC.
This insistence on the prosecution of President Bashir comes in the face of many African leader's insistence that a suspension of Bashir's indictment is essential in order to stop further bloodshed in the region. The Sudanese government has threatened to expel peacekeepers if Bashir's indictment continues. In response, US envoy Alejandro Wolff stated:
There is no compromise on the issue of justice...The crime of impunity has gone on too long and the United States felt that it was time to stand up on this point of moral clarity and make clear that this permanent member of the Security Council will not compromise on the issue of justice.
This irony has not been lost on many critics of the current system of international justice. In his recent opinion piece, Osama al Sharif, a journalist based in Jordan, lamented the political nature of international justice. Warranted or not, Bashir stated that many powerful nations, their allies, and their leaders are able to perpetrate human rights abuses with impunity. For him, this is the biggest problem with the current system of "international justice":
Legal experts will waste much ink explaining the differences and underlining the reasons why the ICC is focusing on Sudan now and not on Israel. But the fact of the matter is that we do not live in a perfect world and while the survivors of the horrors of Srebrenica will see justice served in the arrest and trial of Karadzic, the reality is many notorious war criminals are walking free in other areas of conflict because the big powers chose to let them off the hook.
While al Sharif's indictment of the international community may be controversial, there is no doubt that there is a considerable and unfortunate divide between what is politically acceptable, and what is judicially acceptable in current international justice proceedings.
Canadian aboriginal leaders and residential school survivor groups are calling for the resignation of the Owen Young, lawyer and chief consul of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation commission, reported CBCNEWS. This is due to Mr. Young's role as a governmental prosecutor in a court case against native residents earlier this year; many native leaders question whether there is a potential conflict of interest, as this commission is creating an account of the Canadian schooling system, and past harm towards aboriginal peoples.
This also comes in the wake of criticism of the Canadian government's possible over-involvement in the truth commission.
The nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations compiled an interview with Stewart M. Patrick, a former member of the United States' State Department's Policy Planning staff. Mr. Patrick summarizes many of the issues that International Criminal Courts face, along with an examination of the United States of America's recent actions (most notably "un-signing" the Roman Statute). Click here for the article.
Finally, the AP reports that Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has stated that his government will never deal with the ICC. The ICC recently indicted President al-Bashir. Reuters reports that nearly 120 developing nations recently stated that they fear that any attempt to prosecute President al-Bashir could result in further destabilization of Sudan and the surronding region, and may also impede future reconciliation.
This also comes in the wake of criticism of the Canadian government's possible over-involvement in the truth commission.
The nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations compiled an interview with Stewart M. Patrick, a former member of the United States' State Department's Policy Planning staff. Mr. Patrick summarizes many of the issues that International Criminal Courts face, along with an examination of the United States of America's recent actions (most notably "un-signing" the Roman Statute). Click here for the article.
Finally, the AP reports that Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has stated that his government will never deal with the ICC. The ICC recently indicted President al-Bashir. Reuters reports that nearly 120 developing nations recently stated that they fear that any attempt to prosecute President al-Bashir could result in further destabilization of Sudan and the surronding region, and may also impede future reconciliation.
Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation is a theme of a Czech film festival that began on 25 July, according to a recent article from the Prague Daily Monitor. Many of the films being shown examine the shared narratives of the conflict. Refer to the link for the whole story.
Events such as this film festival can be powerful tools in promoting reconciliation between different groups. Television and film are large sources of information for young people. Furthermore, festivals, and other positive sources of televised information geared towards younger viewers are able to respond to many of negative sources of information that children are exposed to. A recent ABC news story reported on a Hamas television children's show that allegedly encourages its viewers to commit martyrdom. The article also discussed how some of these Hamas cartoons has exacerbated tensions between Hamas and Fatah.
This film festival and investigation of negative television shows occur just as inter-Palestinian tensions may be increasing. Earlier today, AFP Press reported that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas' security forces arrested 50 members of Hamas. Some have suggested that this is in response to an earlier incident in which Hamas forces arrested 300 members of Abbas' Fatah party. A security official of Abbas "declined to say" whether the incidents were connected. If the situation worsens between the two parties, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the near future will undoubtedly become more difficult.
Events such as this film festival can be powerful tools in promoting reconciliation between different groups. Television and film are large sources of information for young people. Furthermore, festivals, and other positive sources of televised information geared towards younger viewers are able to respond to many of negative sources of information that children are exposed to. A recent ABC news story reported on a Hamas television children's show that allegedly encourages its viewers to commit martyrdom. The article also discussed how some of these Hamas cartoons has exacerbated tensions between Hamas and Fatah.
This film festival and investigation of negative television shows occur just as inter-Palestinian tensions may be increasing. Earlier today, AFP Press reported that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas' security forces arrested 50 members of Hamas. Some have suggested that this is in response to an earlier incident in which Hamas forces arrested 300 members of Abbas' Fatah party. A security official of Abbas "declined to say" whether the incidents were connected. If the situation worsens between the two parties, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the near future will undoubtedly become more difficult.
On February 13, Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd apologized for the wrongs perpetrated by the Australian state against its indigenous peoples. His remarks were more than a simple expression of regret ("we're sorry"); they were a strong acknowledgment of official wrongdoing ("our laws and policies inflicted grief and suffering"). The full text of the apology deserves to be cited here:
----- Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations this blemished chapter in our nations history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australias history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. -----
Rudd followed this apology with a longer speech that recounted a number of victim narratives, and this act of a head of state transmitting stories once consigned to silence is a remarkable step in the right direction.
----- Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations this blemished chapter in our nations history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australias history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. -----
Rudd followed this apology with a longer speech that recounted a number of victim narratives, and this act of a head of state transmitting stories once consigned to silence is a remarkable step in the right direction.
Recent weeks have seen ethnic strife between repatriated Crimean Tatars and Slavs in Crimea, an autonomous republic in Ukraine, reach a fever pitch. The Black Sea peninsula is the ancestral homeland of the Crimean Tatars, who were deported en masse to Central Asia by Stalin in 1944 for alleged collaboration with Nazi occupiers in World War II. As I explained in a previous post which can be found here: http://www.salzburgseminar.org/ihjr/blog/index.cfm?mode=day&day=14&month=6&year=2007 the notion that the Crimean Tatars were wrongly accused of treason and wrongly oppressed for decades has not seemed to reach some Ukrainians and Russians in Crimea. Today, the descendents of the Crimean Tatar deportees who have returned to the peninsula encounter consistent and concerted resistance from local authorities in their efforts to reclaim land, property, and respect. Many have been left with no other choice than to squat on land tracts and build settlements for their families.
On November 1, a makeshift brigade of so-called Sevastopol' Cossacks nothing less than a vigilante group stormed one such settlement in the capital Simferopol', destroying houses and reportedly beating women and children. When Berkut (Golden Eagle) special forces under the control of the Crimean directorate of the Ministry of the Interior arrived at the scene, they allegedly joined in on the destruction instead of protecting the vulnerable. On November 6, a secret deployment of approximately 1,000 Sokol (Falcon) and Berkut (Golden eagle) forces raided the plateau of Ai-Petri, a popular tourist site near Yalta on Crimea's southern shore, in order to carry out a court order to demolish seven cafs illegally built by Crimean Tatars. (The original court order called for the demolition of only one caf; this number increased to seven apparently after the fact.) The raid was marked by violence at the hands of the Berkuty, video footage of which can be seen here: http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/67257.html. Lying down in front of bulldozers in the spirit of nonviolent resistance that has characterized their movement for decades Crimean Tatar men can be heard yelling that they are ready to die in defense of their property.
There is a cold economic side to these events: the property on the Ai-Petri plateau is a veritable gold mine for developers. But they nevertheless reek badly of ethnic discrimination: the cafs and stores built there by Slavs likely outside the law, to varying degrees were untouched and unaffected by the court order and the resulting Berkut raid.
This strife shows little signs of abating any time soon. As the video footage sadly demonstrates, this is an issue of a pacific minority seeking justice against an aggressive local state apparatus avoiding it at any cost. What is our role in such a scenario?
On November 1, a makeshift brigade of so-called Sevastopol' Cossacks nothing less than a vigilante group stormed one such settlement in the capital Simferopol', destroying houses and reportedly beating women and children. When Berkut (Golden Eagle) special forces under the control of the Crimean directorate of the Ministry of the Interior arrived at the scene, they allegedly joined in on the destruction instead of protecting the vulnerable. On November 6, a secret deployment of approximately 1,000 Sokol (Falcon) and Berkut (Golden eagle) forces raided the plateau of Ai-Petri, a popular tourist site near Yalta on Crimea's southern shore, in order to carry out a court order to demolish seven cafs illegally built by Crimean Tatars. (The original court order called for the demolition of only one caf; this number increased to seven apparently after the fact.) The raid was marked by violence at the hands of the Berkuty, video footage of which can be seen here: http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/67257.html. Lying down in front of bulldozers in the spirit of nonviolent resistance that has characterized their movement for decades Crimean Tatar men can be heard yelling that they are ready to die in defense of their property.
There is a cold economic side to these events: the property on the Ai-Petri plateau is a veritable gold mine for developers. But they nevertheless reek badly of ethnic discrimination: the cafs and stores built there by Slavs likely outside the law, to varying degrees were untouched and unaffected by the court order and the resulting Berkut raid.
This strife shows little signs of abating any time soon. As the video footage sadly demonstrates, this is an issue of a pacific minority seeking justice against an aggressive local state apparatus avoiding it at any cost. What is our role in such a scenario?
By promising to bring a vote on the Armenian genocide to the floor of the US House of Representatives at this time, have Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress in fact hindered the broader project of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation?
The (possibly imminent) vote again raises the issue of the who, what, where, and when of official recognitions of historical injustices by foreign countries. As in 2005, the what (the act of recognition of the Armenian genocide by the US) is an important and welcome event, but the who (a state with its own unrecognized genocide against Native Americans, not to mention diminishing moral standing in the world), the where (Washington, DC rather than Ankara or Istanbul), and the when (October 2007, just as Turkey readies a deployment of troops against Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq) threaten to alienate Turkey, destabilize an already volatile region, and undermine the prospects of a honest, bilateral confrontation of the tragedies of 1915-17 and beyond.
What can we learn from these developments?
The (possibly imminent) vote again raises the issue of the who, what, where, and when of official recognitions of historical injustices by foreign countries. As in 2005, the what (the act of recognition of the Armenian genocide by the US) is an important and welcome event, but the who (a state with its own unrecognized genocide against Native Americans, not to mention diminishing moral standing in the world), the where (Washington, DC rather than Ankara or Istanbul), and the when (October 2007, just as Turkey readies a deployment of troops against Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq) threaten to alienate Turkey, destabilize an already volatile region, and undermine the prospects of a honest, bilateral confrontation of the tragedies of 1915-17 and beyond.
What can we learn from these developments?
Commenting upon Franz Werfels 1933 historical novel The Forty Days of Musa Dagh (Die vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh), which dramatized the Armenian uprising against Ottoman Turks on Musa Dagh (Mount Moses) in 1915, the writer Dov Kimchi remarked, We Hebrew readers for whom the problems which Werfel presents are our daily bread, the essence of our existence read into his book on the Armenians our very own tragedy of the Jews." (1) A Central European Jew, Werfel seized on a lexical and historical affinity between Masada and Musa Dagh to help cultivate an empathic solidarity between Jews and Armenians, a powerful sense of fellow-feeling that would inspire, for example, fighters in the Jewish underground in Bialystok in 1943 to conceive of their ghetto as their own Musa Dagh." (2)
Recent events are testing this solidarity in the Boston area. Last week, the town of Watertown, Massachusetts (Armenian-American population: 8,000) rescinded a two year-old resolution supporting the No Place for Hate campaign coordinated by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the U.S. advocacy group founded in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism and bigotry. The unanimous decision of the town council to break ties with the ADL over No Place for Hate a campaign that mobilized local volunteers against area hate crimes, among other things came soon after Watertown residents discovered that the ADL does not recognize the massacre of the Armenians during World War I as genocide. Indeed, while it mourns the events of 1915-18 as a profound tragedy, the ADL withholds the term "genocide" in reference to them. In the wake of Watertowns decision, the regional director of the ADL, Andrew Tarsy, attempted to defend the ADLs official line. But only days later, on August 16, he dramatically reversed his position, announcing that his regional office would break ranks with the ADLs national leadership and call on it to change its policy. I have been in conflict over this issue for several weeks, Tarsy said in the Boston Globe. I regret at this point any characterization of the genocide that I made publicly other than to call it a genocide. I think that kind of candor about history is absolutely fundamental. This candor was swiftly punished by national ADL director Abraham Foxman, however, and Tarsy was fired the next day.
In response to the controversy, the national leadership of the ADL is publishing an open letter to the New England community in various periodicals this week. It can be accessed here. While it rightly calls on the Republic of Turkey to pursue reconciliation with the Armenian people, the letter wholly ignores the consensus among historians that the brutal acts perpetrated against the Armenian population of Ottoman Turkey constitute the first genocide of the 20th century. Moreover, it gives no consideration to the effect of the ADLs policy on the Armenian-American community today, coming off as preachy, defensive, even insensitive. Absent is any trace of the solidarity that Werfel, among many others, helped foster between Jews and Armenians after World War I. Perhaps most disconcerting, however, are the reasons that the letter outlines for the ADL policy - reasons that betray, quite explicitly, more of a concern for realpolitik than for historical justice. Turkey is a key strategic ally and friend of the United States and a staunch friend of Israel, it reads. [In] the struggle between Islamic extremists and moderate Islam, Turkey is the most critical country in the world. The message is clear: the ADL will avoid alienating Turkey no matter the cost in principle. Its ethics seem sadly captive to its politics.
Let us hope this changes soon. In the meantime, here is Levinas in reply: It is [] attention to the suffering of the Other that, through the cruelties of our century [], can be affirmed as the very nexus of human subjectivity, to the point of being raised to the level of supreme ethical principle the only one it is impossible to question shaping the hopes and commanding the practical discipline of vast human groups. (3)
*Update: As it turns out, a welcome change did come soon. On August 22, the national leadership of the ADL amended its policy and formally recognized the Armenian genocide. On August 27, Andrew Tarsy was rehired as ADL's New England director.
1. Qtd. in Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism & the Armenian Genocide (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 294.
2. Ibid., 302.
3. Emmanuel Levinas, Entre nous: On Thinking-of-the-Other, trans. Michael B. Smith and Barbara Harshav (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 94.
Recent events are testing this solidarity in the Boston area. Last week, the town of Watertown, Massachusetts (Armenian-American population: 8,000) rescinded a two year-old resolution supporting the No Place for Hate campaign coordinated by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the U.S. advocacy group founded in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism and bigotry. The unanimous decision of the town council to break ties with the ADL over No Place for Hate a campaign that mobilized local volunteers against area hate crimes, among other things came soon after Watertown residents discovered that the ADL does not recognize the massacre of the Armenians during World War I as genocide. Indeed, while it mourns the events of 1915-18 as a profound tragedy, the ADL withholds the term "genocide" in reference to them. In the wake of Watertowns decision, the regional director of the ADL, Andrew Tarsy, attempted to defend the ADLs official line. But only days later, on August 16, he dramatically reversed his position, announcing that his regional office would break ranks with the ADLs national leadership and call on it to change its policy. I have been in conflict over this issue for several weeks, Tarsy said in the Boston Globe. I regret at this point any characterization of the genocide that I made publicly other than to call it a genocide. I think that kind of candor about history is absolutely fundamental. This candor was swiftly punished by national ADL director Abraham Foxman, however, and Tarsy was fired the next day.
In response to the controversy, the national leadership of the ADL is publishing an open letter to the New England community in various periodicals this week. It can be accessed here. While it rightly calls on the Republic of Turkey to pursue reconciliation with the Armenian people, the letter wholly ignores the consensus among historians that the brutal acts perpetrated against the Armenian population of Ottoman Turkey constitute the first genocide of the 20th century. Moreover, it gives no consideration to the effect of the ADLs policy on the Armenian-American community today, coming off as preachy, defensive, even insensitive. Absent is any trace of the solidarity that Werfel, among many others, helped foster between Jews and Armenians after World War I. Perhaps most disconcerting, however, are the reasons that the letter outlines for the ADL policy - reasons that betray, quite explicitly, more of a concern for realpolitik than for historical justice. Turkey is a key strategic ally and friend of the United States and a staunch friend of Israel, it reads. [In] the struggle between Islamic extremists and moderate Islam, Turkey is the most critical country in the world. The message is clear: the ADL will avoid alienating Turkey no matter the cost in principle. Its ethics seem sadly captive to its politics.
Let us hope this changes soon. In the meantime, here is Levinas in reply: It is [] attention to the suffering of the Other that, through the cruelties of our century [], can be affirmed as the very nexus of human subjectivity, to the point of being raised to the level of supreme ethical principle the only one it is impossible to question shaping the hopes and commanding the practical discipline of vast human groups. (3)
*Update: As it turns out, a welcome change did come soon. On August 22, the national leadership of the ADL amended its policy and formally recognized the Armenian genocide. On August 27, Andrew Tarsy was rehired as ADL's New England director.
1. Qtd. in Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism & the Armenian Genocide (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 294.
2. Ibid., 302.
3. Emmanuel Levinas, Entre nous: On Thinking-of-the-Other, trans. Michael B. Smith and Barbara Harshav (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 94.
On a recent visit to Bagasaray (Bakhchisarai), Crimea the former capital of the Crimean Tatar Khanate and now a city in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine I came upon two Orthodox novices unloading bricks from a contractors truck and working to renovate the beautifully-sited Uspenskii (Assumption) Cave Monastery. It was, at first, a heartening scene, a moment symbolizing the determination and hard work of the past decade that have restored and revived a place of pilgrimage nearly destroyed by the Soviet regime.
But then I noticed a portrait of Stalin prominently placed in the trucks windshield. It seemed to escape the notice of the monks, who likely would have found disturbing the makeshift homage to a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of clerics. But the portrait was not directed at them in any case. In Ba?asaray, the portrait was a message meant for the Crimean Tatars, an indigenous Muslim people who continue to return to the peninsula from the exile in Central Asia that Stalin brutally imposed on them at the end of World War II. It was, in effect, a call for a new deportation.
In the middle of the night on May 18, 1944, one month after the Red Army regained Crimea from German occupation, most of the ancestors of these Crimean Tatar returnees were given mere minutes to collect their belongings, ordered from their homes at gunpoint, and herded onto the cattle carts of waiting trains by thousands of NKVD officers. This ethnic cleansing came at the order of Stalin, who wished the Black Sea peninsula purged of so-called agents and resident spies of the Germans. Despite the fact that hundreds of Crimean Tatar soldiers had won medals for their valor in the Red Army in World War II, the Crimean Tatars were accused of mass collaboration with Nazi occupiers and deported eastward along with Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians in an event remembered in the Crimean Tatar language as Srgn (The Exile). Of the approximately 200,000 deportees, half are believed to have died over the course of the 2,000 mile journey to Central Asia from lack of water and food and vicious treatment by the NKVD. After their arrival, hundreds more perished from hunger, exposure, and disease in spetsposeleniye (special settlement camps). Only in recent years have the descendents of these deportees returned to settle in their ancestral homeland, where they now endure socio-economic discrimination and struggle to claim property and, not least of all, respect.
The Soviet regime conceded the falsity of the mass collaboration charges in 1967, after decades of discursive cleansing in which little mention of the Crimean Tatar ethnonym was made in print media. But the concession which in fact undermined the Crimean Tatars right of return to their homeland by emphasizing their rootedness in Central Asia was made quietly and received little to no attention in Moscow, Kyiv, or Crimea itself. As a result, many Russian and Ukrainian residents of Crimea continue to see the Tatars as traitors more or less deserving of their punishment, while others on the fringe argue that Stalin was in fact too lenient and should have eliminated the Crimean Tatar nation entirely. On July 8, 2006, for example, such extremists assaulted a group of Crimean Tatar demonstrators in Ba?asaray peacefully protesting the use of the grounds of their Azizler (holy [or dear] ones) cemetery as a commercial bazaar. (The bazaar has since been closed.) Before throwing rocks and overturning cars, these thugs confronted the Crimean Tatar protestors with placards reading "chemodan, vokzal, Baku" (suitcase, train station, Baku), at once evoking the deportation as a painful memory and casting it as a threatening potentiality. (Video of this event can be found at http://5tv.com.ua/newsline/231/0/29409/.)
The efforts on the part of Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv to attend to the needs of the Crimean Tatars since 1991 have been commendable at times, but much more needs to be done, particularly by the Crimean parliament. Local authorities have been resistant to Crimean Tatar requests to reclaim property, restore the cultural and religious institutions dismantled by Soviet authorities, and recognize Crimean Tatar (alongside Ukrainian and Russian) as an official language of Crimea. Some parliamentarians on the peninsula have even intimated, outrageously, that the Crimean Tatars who have conducted their quest for justice over the past 60 years peacefully, with dignity harbor ties with Islamic terrorists.
As Lutfi Osman explained to me at the Rebirth of Crimea Foundation in Bagasaray (www.rcf.crimea.ua), the situation is exacerbated by history textbooks that devote little attention to the Crimean Tatar tragedy. Making restitution for Stalins ethnocide and bringing justice to the Crimean Tatar people therefore rely in part on the more concerted efforts of historians and scholars from the Black Sea region and around the world to facilitate the important work of historical reconciliation. We need to do our part to help put Stalins legacy in Crimeas collective rearview.
But then I noticed a portrait of Stalin prominently placed in the trucks windshield. It seemed to escape the notice of the monks, who likely would have found disturbing the makeshift homage to a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of clerics. But the portrait was not directed at them in any case. In Ba?asaray, the portrait was a message meant for the Crimean Tatars, an indigenous Muslim people who continue to return to the peninsula from the exile in Central Asia that Stalin brutally imposed on them at the end of World War II. It was, in effect, a call for a new deportation.
In the middle of the night on May 18, 1944, one month after the Red Army regained Crimea from German occupation, most of the ancestors of these Crimean Tatar returnees were given mere minutes to collect their belongings, ordered from their homes at gunpoint, and herded onto the cattle carts of waiting trains by thousands of NKVD officers. This ethnic cleansing came at the order of Stalin, who wished the Black Sea peninsula purged of so-called agents and resident spies of the Germans. Despite the fact that hundreds of Crimean Tatar soldiers had won medals for their valor in the Red Army in World War II, the Crimean Tatars were accused of mass collaboration with Nazi occupiers and deported eastward along with Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians in an event remembered in the Crimean Tatar language as Srgn (The Exile). Of the approximately 200,000 deportees, half are believed to have died over the course of the 2,000 mile journey to Central Asia from lack of water and food and vicious treatment by the NKVD. After their arrival, hundreds more perished from hunger, exposure, and disease in spetsposeleniye (special settlement camps). Only in recent years have the descendents of these deportees returned to settle in their ancestral homeland, where they now endure socio-economic discrimination and struggle to claim property and, not least of all, respect.
The Soviet regime conceded the falsity of the mass collaboration charges in 1967, after decades of discursive cleansing in which little mention of the Crimean Tatar ethnonym was made in print media. But the concession which in fact undermined the Crimean Tatars right of return to their homeland by emphasizing their rootedness in Central Asia was made quietly and received little to no attention in Moscow, Kyiv, or Crimea itself. As a result, many Russian and Ukrainian residents of Crimea continue to see the Tatars as traitors more or less deserving of their punishment, while others on the fringe argue that Stalin was in fact too lenient and should have eliminated the Crimean Tatar nation entirely. On July 8, 2006, for example, such extremists assaulted a group of Crimean Tatar demonstrators in Ba?asaray peacefully protesting the use of the grounds of their Azizler (holy [or dear] ones) cemetery as a commercial bazaar. (The bazaar has since been closed.) Before throwing rocks and overturning cars, these thugs confronted the Crimean Tatar protestors with placards reading "chemodan, vokzal, Baku" (suitcase, train station, Baku), at once evoking the deportation as a painful memory and casting it as a threatening potentiality. (Video of this event can be found at http://5tv.com.ua/newsline/231/0/29409/.)
The efforts on the part of Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv to attend to the needs of the Crimean Tatars since 1991 have been commendable at times, but much more needs to be done, particularly by the Crimean parliament. Local authorities have been resistant to Crimean Tatar requests to reclaim property, restore the cultural and religious institutions dismantled by Soviet authorities, and recognize Crimean Tatar (alongside Ukrainian and Russian) as an official language of Crimea. Some parliamentarians on the peninsula have even intimated, outrageously, that the Crimean Tatars who have conducted their quest for justice over the past 60 years peacefully, with dignity harbor ties with Islamic terrorists.
As Lutfi Osman explained to me at the Rebirth of Crimea Foundation in Bagasaray (www.rcf.crimea.ua), the situation is exacerbated by history textbooks that devote little attention to the Crimean Tatar tragedy. Making restitution for Stalins ethnocide and bringing justice to the Crimean Tatar people therefore rely in part on the more concerted efforts of historians and scholars from the Black Sea region and around the world to facilitate the important work of historical reconciliation. We need to do our part to help put Stalins legacy in Crimeas collective rearview.
While Robert Musil may have written that the most remarkable thing about monuments is that no one notices them, this is not the case during times of political unrest or when there is a perceived (or desired) rupture in historical time. The creation (or destruction) of memorials and monuments is always intimately bound up in power relations, and battles over history, identity, and authority are often played out in the memorial landscape of a country.
This is the case that we are currently seeing in Estonia. A Soviet-era World War II memorial has been the symbolic source of diplomatic tensions between Estonia and Russia for months. The attempted removal of this memorial just over a month ago sparked violent protests on the streets that killed at least one person and severely disrupted diplomatic relations between Estonia and Russia. Estonia gained independence from Russia in 1991 and has been a member of both NATO and the EU since 2004. The monument was erected by Russians in 1947 to commemorate the end of World War II and Russias victory over Nazi Germany. The desire to remove the monument was, as the New York Times reported, seen by Russia and Estonians of Russian descent as blasphemous and even tantamount to the glorification of Nazism.
Estonias increasing integration into the EU and alignment with Western Europe and also the proposed American missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic has allowed Russia to use the fate of the monument as a proxy for broader grievances with the United States and NATO generally. (New York Times April 28). As Russias parliament called for the severing of relations or the imposition of sanctions on Estonia, thousands of people began launching what is now being called the first full cyber war on Estonia. (New York Times article May 29th) The attacks began on April 26 and have since grown in intensity. Well-organized plans for attacks on May 9th, Russians Victory Day (celebrating the end of World War II) were carried out, increasing internet traffic flow in Estonia to over 1000 times its normal rate and shutting down government and financial sites. While the attacks have come from as far as the US and Vietnam, it is widely believed in Estonia to be an assault by the Russian government.
The political appropriations of memorials and commemorative dates show how intimately memorials are tied to power relations and the symbolic presentation of a countrys national narrative (even in this case, where the memorial stands in a different country). Why is this particular monument the source of such controversy? Internal debates, such as the Russian-speaking ethnic minorities place in Estonia certainly play a role. On another scale, it surely has a lot to do with Russias intention to assert what as seen as its moral victory in World War II and also justify their long-time presence in their former territory. Many Estonians wish to symbolically sever their countrys ties with its former occupier as they move ever closer to the New Europe. One of the most time-honored ways of doing this is to dismantle memorial sites belonging to the old regime.
This particular case makes strikingly evident the fact that the memory and narratives of both the Second World War and the Cold War still carry enormous significance in the politics of history and memorialization today.
Report from May 29, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/technology/29estonia.html?pagewanted=1&hp
This is the case that we are currently seeing in Estonia. A Soviet-era World War II memorial has been the symbolic source of diplomatic tensions between Estonia and Russia for months. The attempted removal of this memorial just over a month ago sparked violent protests on the streets that killed at least one person and severely disrupted diplomatic relations between Estonia and Russia. Estonia gained independence from Russia in 1991 and has been a member of both NATO and the EU since 2004. The monument was erected by Russians in 1947 to commemorate the end of World War II and Russias victory over Nazi Germany. The desire to remove the monument was, as the New York Times reported, seen by Russia and Estonians of Russian descent as blasphemous and even tantamount to the glorification of Nazism.
Estonias increasing integration into the EU and alignment with Western Europe and also the proposed American missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic has allowed Russia to use the fate of the monument as a proxy for broader grievances with the United States and NATO generally. (New York Times April 28). As Russias parliament called for the severing of relations or the imposition of sanctions on Estonia, thousands of people began launching what is now being called the first full cyber war on Estonia. (New York Times article May 29th) The attacks began on April 26 and have since grown in intensity. Well-organized plans for attacks on May 9th, Russians Victory Day (celebrating the end of World War II) were carried out, increasing internet traffic flow in Estonia to over 1000 times its normal rate and shutting down government and financial sites. While the attacks have come from as far as the US and Vietnam, it is widely believed in Estonia to be an assault by the Russian government.
The political appropriations of memorials and commemorative dates show how intimately memorials are tied to power relations and the symbolic presentation of a countrys national narrative (even in this case, where the memorial stands in a different country). Why is this particular monument the source of such controversy? Internal debates, such as the Russian-speaking ethnic minorities place in Estonia certainly play a role. On another scale, it surely has a lot to do with Russias intention to assert what as seen as its moral victory in World War II and also justify their long-time presence in their former territory. Many Estonians wish to symbolically sever their countrys ties with its former occupier as they move ever closer to the New Europe. One of the most time-honored ways of doing this is to dismantle memorial sites belonging to the old regime.
This particular case makes strikingly evident the fact that the memory and narratives of both the Second World War and the Cold War still carry enormous significance in the politics of history and memorialization today.
Report from May 29, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/technology/29estonia.html?pagewanted=1&hp
An article appeared recently in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (15 March 2007) on the occasion of German Chancellor Andrea Merkels planned visit to Poland and in light of the increasing tension between the two countries regarding historical issues. The author of this article, a professor of Polish and Ukrainian studies at the European University Viadrina, wrote: For many years, misunderstandings and accusations have plagued the relationship between Germany and Poland The effects of these misunderstandings and accusations function on a number of levels, from high politics to handball matches (as was the example in the article). While it is of course important to combat problems on all levels (including dispelling simple myths and stereotypes about Polish car thieves) in order to help normalize relations between Germans and Poles, there are very serious historical issues which need to be confronted if the long and arduous process of reconciliation begun in the nineties between the two countries is to continue.
The author of the article feels that at this point the escalating situation threatens not only the political relationship between Germany and Poland, but also the future of EU integration and the creation of a European Constitution as well. The fact that many of the new member states in the European Union are not only seen but are also treated as second class citizens just adds fuel to the still-smoldering embers that remain in the ashes of World War II causing old problems to flare in the face of new ones. But this is not surprising as many scholars have long argued that the debates over history and memory between the old member states of the EU and the acceding ones needed to be thoroughly played out before the new members joined the Union where the fraternal atmosphere of the bodies of the EU would make it more difficult to negotiate these histories. The illusion that these problems would somehow dissipate with increasing European integration has proven false. Quite to the contrary, the old issues seem not to be fading with the passing of time, but to be taking on new forms and growing in importance.
In both Germany and Poland, (as well as elsewhere in Europe) historical themes are being used as ammunition in political campaigns, bringing battles of history and memory into the arena of politics where contentious issues have an even greater chance of being distorted and manipulated to serve political purposes. A politicians flippant use of past instances of injustice or violence as accusatory and pejorative cannon fodder leads only to the proliferation of many of the same myths historians and other academics have long been trying to dispel. Not only are these myths being perpetuated by the politicians, but political rallying cries for confessions of guilt for past crimes obscure the fact that so many of these past crimes have been and are currently being dealt with by academics in the respective country. The author of the article points out for example that many German politicians are currently calling on Poland to admit the unjust way the ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland even though Polish historians have long been working under this premise. This particular issue is much too complex to discuss here, but its presence in political discourse and the discussion about Polish-German relations in general shows the ever-increasing gap between the academic and political realms when it comes to the shared histories of countries in Europe today.
The author of the article feels that at this point the escalating situation threatens not only the political relationship between Germany and Poland, but also the future of EU integration and the creation of a European Constitution as well. The fact that many of the new member states in the European Union are not only seen but are also treated as second class citizens just adds fuel to the still-smoldering embers that remain in the ashes of World War II causing old problems to flare in the face of new ones. But this is not surprising as many scholars have long argued that the debates over history and memory between the old member states of the EU and the acceding ones needed to be thoroughly played out before the new members joined the Union where the fraternal atmosphere of the bodies of the EU would make it more difficult to negotiate these histories. The illusion that these problems would somehow dissipate with increasing European integration has proven false. Quite to the contrary, the old issues seem not to be fading with the passing of time, but to be taking on new forms and growing in importance.
In both Germany and Poland, (as well as elsewhere in Europe) historical themes are being used as ammunition in political campaigns, bringing battles of history and memory into the arena of politics where contentious issues have an even greater chance of being distorted and manipulated to serve political purposes. A politicians flippant use of past instances of injustice or violence as accusatory and pejorative cannon fodder leads only to the proliferation of many of the same myths historians and other academics have long been trying to dispel. Not only are these myths being perpetuated by the politicians, but political rallying cries for confessions of guilt for past crimes obscure the fact that so many of these past crimes have been and are currently being dealt with by academics in the respective country. The author of the article points out for example that many German politicians are currently calling on Poland to admit the unjust way the ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland even though Polish historians have long been working under this premise. This particular issue is much too complex to discuss here, but its presence in political discourse and the discussion about Polish-German relations in general shows the ever-increasing gap between the academic and political realms when it comes to the shared histories of countries in Europe today.
An interesting article in the New York Times of May 5, 2006, entitled, "In French Bid, Immigrants Son Battles Reputation as Anti-Immigrant," sheds light on one of the more polarizing figures of immigration in France. Nicolas Sarkozy, who is running for president this term has had a track record of stern, conservative political motions (a la Rudy Giuliani), and was universally reviled--and was an outright instigator of the riots that followed--by immigrant communities in France last year when he labeled the immigrants who were causing problems in the outskirts of the city "scum."
It's certainly easy to dislike Sarkozy.
But this article does well to point out that Sarkozy himself is an immigrant, and that his gestures toward the immigrant communities have not been as hard-line conservative as they immediately appear. The article states: "His record includes a number of efforts to improve the status of members of the countrys minorities, most of whom are Muslim. He encouraged the creation of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, which gave Islam a voice in France. He appointed the first prefect in France who is both foreign-born and Muslim. He has even argued for relaxing rules that restrict government support for building mosques." He even does something that his Socialist opponent does not: he supports affirmative action.
This record notwithstanding, immigrants have promised to riot in the streets if Sarkozy is elected. There is an extremely tenuous balance in France between Muslims and Christians, and it is one that is not made easier by the quick-tempered reactions by anyone who even associates passingly with either side. But it does make one wonder, too, how productive it would be for a man who--in spite of all the good he may want to do--has the potential to make judgments quickly, forcefully and without deliberation. Even if he himself at some level identifies with them. One thing is sure: France wants a new direction. The question is how much and how quickly--and this is exactly what we should be concerned about.
It's certainly easy to dislike Sarkozy.
But this article does well to point out that Sarkozy himself is an immigrant, and that his gestures toward the immigrant communities have not been as hard-line conservative as they immediately appear. The article states: "His record includes a number of efforts to improve the status of members of the countrys minorities, most of whom are Muslim. He encouraged the creation of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, which gave Islam a voice in France. He appointed the first prefect in France who is both foreign-born and Muslim. He has even argued for relaxing rules that restrict government support for building mosques." He even does something that his Socialist opponent does not: he supports affirmative action.
This record notwithstanding, immigrants have promised to riot in the streets if Sarkozy is elected. There is an extremely tenuous balance in France between Muslims and Christians, and it is one that is not made easier by the quick-tempered reactions by anyone who even associates passingly with either side. But it does make one wonder, too, how productive it would be for a man who--in spite of all the good he may want to do--has the potential to make judgments quickly, forcefully and without deliberation. Even if he himself at some level identifies with them. One thing is sure: France wants a new direction. The question is how much and how quickly--and this is exactly what we should be concerned about.
One of the positive effects of the growing tendency toward the universalization of Holocaust themes is the increasing recognition of other injustices based on racism, xenophobia and civil rights abuses. For example, it seems that it has recently become difficult to speak of the historical injustices committed against Jews in Germany without in the same breath also recognizing contemporary injustices committed against minorities, particularly Turks, in Germany today. However, when this equation is flipped and the specter of the Jewish past in Germany is evoked as political and moral capital to be used to fight contemporary injustice against minority groups in Germany today it becomes much more problematic. While these connections are certainly more imagined than historical, they are nonetheless shaping the nature of Turkish-Jewish relations in Germany (and abroad) as well as affecting the politics of integration and inclusion in Germany. While a growing awareness of contemporary injustice is of course something positive, when certain parallels are drawn between the situation of the Jews in Germany in the past and the Turks in Germany in more recent years, tensions rise and the potential for political and emotional fallout becomes high.
As one of the few scholars who work on the (albeit limited) interactions between Turks and Jews in Germany, Jeffrey M. Peck raises many of the complex issues regarding these groups in his recently published book Being Jewish In the New Germany (2006). In the chapter specifically covering this topic he writes: In fact, to many Germans, the Turks have become the new Jews (p.90). He then explores what this statement means through a discussion of the parallels and complexities of the Turkish-Jewish, Turkish-German, and German-Jewish relationships in Germany. While Peck for the most part objectively explores these relationships from historical and sociological perspectives, it is obvious that as the Turkish Question and the Jewish Question in Germany become more intimately intertwined in academic scholarship and popular media, problems arise that are potentially damaging to either or both groups. A recent example of a counter-productive coupling of the Turkish/Jewish Questions was at the otherwise productive conference entitled Immigration and Cultural Exchange German Jewish Presences in the U.S. and Post Cold War Germany sponsored jointly by NYU and the Leo Baeck Institute (March 25-27, 2007).
The final panel of the conference was entitled Jewish, Turkish, German: Cross-Cultural Perspectives and was intended to be a forum to expand the themes present in the conference to encompass another minority group and to foster collaboration between people working on issues of immigration and integration in Europe and the United States. The panel was selected and chaired by Almut Wieland-Karimi from the Fredrich Ebert Foundation and included the journalist Cem Sey, anthropologist Koser Akcapar, and sociologists Ge Yurdakul and Michael Bodemann. Each speaker presented, along with his or her own intended topic, many of the difficulties of attempting to broach this topic, especially in such a homogenous forum.
Most of the scholars on the panel quickly admitted that they knew absolutely nothing about Jews before being invited to the conference, and were strained to quickly find some sort of connection to talk about; an issue which led to bizarre (and for many members of the mostly Jewish audience offensive) historical and contemporary comparisons between Turks and Jews. These ranged from the direct comparison of the Turkish situation in Germany today to that of the Jews in 1938, to declarations of current Turkish solidarity with Jews because the Jews are being attacked by Palestinian terrorists while the Turks are being attacked by Kurdish terrorists as well as many other less-than-academic comments. The Turkish-Armenian issue was also never mentioned, which caused some members of the audience to immediately discredit the speakers and the other issues that had been raised. A full discussion of the panel is not possible here, but it is worth mentioning that the thread that seemed to run through each lecture was how the Turkish community in Germany directly instrumentalizes the Holocaust and the shared Jewish-Turkish narrative of injustice to achieve political goals a blatantly taboo subject for most members of the audience but a candid declaration by the speakers.
The nature of this forum seemed to force the ahistorical comparison of victimhood and suffering of two very different groups, something Peck explicitly warns against in his book. In the context of the Turkish trend to compare the violent acts committed against Turks in Germany between 1989 and 1992 with Kristallnacht (and even the entire Holocaust) Peck wrote simply, When comparisons are taken out of context, they threaten to overshadow the injustices of both historical epochs. (p.105). This threat became a reality during this final panel of the conference. If it had been done differently, it could have been the perfect platform to increase the highly prestigious audiences awareness of the difficult situation for Turks currently living in Germany. It could have created the unique opportunity to explore potential routes of cooperation in scholarship and/or society between Turks and Jews. It could have possibly even begun to forge some sort of solidarity between the American and German Jews (and other scholars and students present) and the Turks who are currently working on difficult historical and contemporary issues in a post-9-11 atmosphere that weighs so heavily on JewishMuslim (and American-Muslim) relations in general and is often hostile to collaboration and scholarship on such subjects. Instead, it proved the danger inherent in attempts to instrumentalize shared narratives of injustice, suffering, and victimhood instead of proving the possibilities that could come from such attempts.
As one of the few scholars who work on the (albeit limited) interactions between Turks and Jews in Germany, Jeffrey M. Peck raises many of the complex issues regarding these groups in his recently published book Being Jewish In the New Germany (2006). In the chapter specifically covering this topic he writes: In fact, to many Germans, the Turks have become the new Jews (p.90). He then explores what this statement means through a discussion of the parallels and complexities of the Turkish-Jewish, Turkish-German, and German-Jewish relationships in Germany. While Peck for the most part objectively explores these relationships from historical and sociological perspectives, it is obvious that as the Turkish Question and the Jewish Question in Germany become more intimately intertwined in academic scholarship and popular media, problems arise that are potentially damaging to either or both groups. A recent example of a counter-productive coupling of the Turkish/Jewish Questions was at the otherwise productive conference entitled Immigration and Cultural Exchange German Jewish Presences in the U.S. and Post Cold War Germany sponsored jointly by NYU and the Leo Baeck Institute (March 25-27, 2007).
The final panel of the conference was entitled Jewish, Turkish, German: Cross-Cultural Perspectives and was intended to be a forum to expand the themes present in the conference to encompass another minority group and to foster collaboration between people working on issues of immigration and integration in Europe and the United States. The panel was selected and chaired by Almut Wieland-Karimi from the Fredrich Ebert Foundation and included the journalist Cem Sey, anthropologist Koser Akcapar, and sociologists Ge Yurdakul and Michael Bodemann. Each speaker presented, along with his or her own intended topic, many of the difficulties of attempting to broach this topic, especially in such a homogenous forum.
Most of the scholars on the panel quickly admitted that they knew absolutely nothing about Jews before being invited to the conference, and were strained to quickly find some sort of connection to talk about; an issue which led to bizarre (and for many members of the mostly Jewish audience offensive) historical and contemporary comparisons between Turks and Jews. These ranged from the direct comparison of the Turkish situation in Germany today to that of the Jews in 1938, to declarations of current Turkish solidarity with Jews because the Jews are being attacked by Palestinian terrorists while the Turks are being attacked by Kurdish terrorists as well as many other less-than-academic comments. The Turkish-Armenian issue was also never mentioned, which caused some members of the audience to immediately discredit the speakers and the other issues that had been raised. A full discussion of the panel is not possible here, but it is worth mentioning that the thread that seemed to run through each lecture was how the Turkish community in Germany directly instrumentalizes the Holocaust and the shared Jewish-Turkish narrative of injustice to achieve political goals a blatantly taboo subject for most members of the audience but a candid declaration by the speakers.
The nature of this forum seemed to force the ahistorical comparison of victimhood and suffering of two very different groups, something Peck explicitly warns against in his book. In the context of the Turkish trend to compare the violent acts committed against Turks in Germany between 1989 and 1992 with Kristallnacht (and even the entire Holocaust) Peck wrote simply, When comparisons are taken out of context, they threaten to overshadow the injustices of both historical epochs. (p.105). This threat became a reality during this final panel of the conference. If it had been done differently, it could have been the perfect platform to increase the highly prestigious audiences awareness of the difficult situation for Turks currently living in Germany. It could have created the unique opportunity to explore potential routes of cooperation in scholarship and/or society between Turks and Jews. It could have possibly even begun to forge some sort of solidarity between the American and German Jews (and other scholars and students present) and the Turks who are currently working on difficult historical and contemporary issues in a post-9-11 atmosphere that weighs so heavily on JewishMuslim (and American-Muslim) relations in general and is often hostile to collaboration and scholarship on such subjects. Instead, it proved the danger inherent in attempts to instrumentalize shared narratives of injustice, suffering, and victimhood instead of proving the possibilities that could come from such attempts.
This week marks the 60th anniversary of Akcja Wisla (Operation Vistula), the Polish Armys forced resettlement of the Ukrainian, Boiko, and Lemko peoples (numbering nearly 150,000) from southeastern Poland to the so-called Ziemie Odzyskane (Recovered Territories) of northwestern Poland after World War II. While primarily intended to suppress the Ukrans'ka Povstans'ka Armiia (Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA), which was waging war with the Polish communist government in 1947, Akcja Wisla had the broader aim of subjecting the Ukrainian, Boiko, and Lemko populations to a campaign of assimilation by dispersal. In this respect, as Philipp Ther recently remarked at a presentation at Columbia University, it appears to have been modeled on the Soviet deportations of the Chechens and Crimean Tatars (among many others) to Central Asia.
Like the massacres at Poryck/Pavlivka (where hundreds of Poles were killed at the hands of the UPA in 1943) and at Pawlokoma (where hundreds of Ukrainians were killed at the hands of the Polish Armija Krajowa [Home Army, or AK] in 1945), the legacy of Akcja Wisla continues to rouse considerable controversy and emotion among Poles and Ukrainians today. To their credit, both Warsaw and Kyiv have made significant overtures in recent years toward a historical reckoning of these events: in 2002, for example, Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski expressed regret over Akcja Wisla and called for its unequivocal condemnation. Yet while such gestures are indicative of healthy bilateral relations between the Polish and Ukrainian governments, it has been recognized that much more work needs to be done to promote reconciliation on the popular level in both countries particularly in the border regions where memories of the tragedies of the 20th century have been prone to provoke mutual hostility.
Remarkably, a huge step in this direction was made less than two weeks ago, when the UEFA Executive Committee defied predictions and selected Poland and Ukraine as joint hosts of the 2012 European Football Championship. Poles and Ukrainians everywhere rejoiced in the decision, taking to the streets in euphoria and seizing on the occasion to highlight the brighter chapters of their entangled histories. In a month marking a difficult historical milestone, it was truly heartening to see a new, positive one being set for Poland and Ukraine. As Polish Football Association chairman Michal Listkiewicz remarked, The friendship between our nations has a very long history. This big tournament will be an important milestone in the history of our two Slavic nations.
Like the massacres at Poryck/Pavlivka (where hundreds of Poles were killed at the hands of the UPA in 1943) and at Pawlokoma (where hundreds of Ukrainians were killed at the hands of the Polish Armija Krajowa [Home Army, or AK] in 1945), the legacy of Akcja Wisla continues to rouse considerable controversy and emotion among Poles and Ukrainians today. To their credit, both Warsaw and Kyiv have made significant overtures in recent years toward a historical reckoning of these events: in 2002, for example, Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski expressed regret over Akcja Wisla and called for its unequivocal condemnation. Yet while such gestures are indicative of healthy bilateral relations between the Polish and Ukrainian governments, it has been recognized that much more work needs to be done to promote reconciliation on the popular level in both countries particularly in the border regions where memories of the tragedies of the 20th century have been prone to provoke mutual hostility.
Remarkably, a huge step in this direction was made less than two weeks ago, when the UEFA Executive Committee defied predictions and selected Poland and Ukraine as joint hosts of the 2012 European Football Championship. Poles and Ukrainians everywhere rejoiced in the decision, taking to the streets in euphoria and seizing on the occasion to highlight the brighter chapters of their entangled histories. In a month marking a difficult historical milestone, it was truly heartening to see a new, positive one being set for Poland and Ukraine. As Polish Football Association chairman Michal Listkiewicz remarked, The friendship between our nations has a very long history. This big tournament will be an important milestone in the history of our two Slavic nations.
PRESS RELEASE Mass Grave Investigation in Mardin Province 23-24 April 2007
Between April 23-24, 2007, the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation will initiate discussions about a possible investigation of a mass grave in the Mardin Province. The proposed investigation will seek to clarify conflicting claims about the origins of the mass grave through a forensic and historical investigation that will continue until the autumn of 2007 when a joint expert opinion will be issued.
Background: In October 2006 villagers in Kuru village of Nusaybin district, in southeastern Turkeys Mardin province disclosed that they had found a mass grave in a cave near their village. Some local reporters published articles including photographs of the site stating that the grave contained remains of Armenians, and was similar to other grave sites from this era. The authorities of the Mardin province launched their own investigation and concluded that the remains were from Roman times. The new investigation by the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation will seek to clarify these conflicting claims through a collaborative investigation.
This proposed joint investigation of the Mardin mass grave will be led by Professor Yusuf Halao?lu, president of the Turkish Historical Society, and Professor David Gaunt of Sdertrn University College in Sweden who is the project director for the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation at the Salzburg Seminar.
The initial meeting in Mardin on April 23-24, 2007 will include an inspection of the mass gravesite in Kuru village of Nusaybin district. The aim of this visit is to make a preliminary survey to establish whether the site is suitable for a future interdisciplinary investigation by forensic medical experts, archaeologists, physical anthropologists and historians. If such a determination is made, forensic experts will be engaged to assist the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in their work.
For more information contact:
Professor Yusuf Halao?lu, President, Turkish Historical Institute Email: bilgi@ttk.org.tr
Professor David Gaunt, Professor of History, Sdertrn University College Email: david.gaunt@sh.se
Between April 23-24, 2007, the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation will initiate discussions about a possible investigation of a mass grave in the Mardin Province. The proposed investigation will seek to clarify conflicting claims about the origins of the mass grave through a forensic and historical investigation that will continue until the autumn of 2007 when a joint expert opinion will be issued.
Background: In October 2006 villagers in Kuru village of Nusaybin district, in southeastern Turkeys Mardin province disclosed that they had found a mass grave in a cave near their village. Some local reporters published articles including photographs of the site stating that the grave contained remains of Armenians, and was similar to other grave sites from this era. The authorities of the Mardin province launched their own investigation and concluded that the remains were from Roman times. The new investigation by the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation will seek to clarify these conflicting claims through a collaborative investigation.
This proposed joint investigation of the Mardin mass grave will be led by Professor Yusuf Halao?lu, president of the Turkish Historical Society, and Professor David Gaunt of Sdertrn University College in Sweden who is the project director for the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation at the Salzburg Seminar.
The initial meeting in Mardin on April 23-24, 2007 will include an inspection of the mass gravesite in Kuru village of Nusaybin district. The aim of this visit is to make a preliminary survey to establish whether the site is suitable for a future interdisciplinary investigation by forensic medical experts, archaeologists, physical anthropologists and historians. If such a determination is made, forensic experts will be engaged to assist the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in their work.
For more information contact:
Professor Yusuf Halao?lu, President, Turkish Historical Institute Email: bilgi@ttk.org.tr
Professor David Gaunt, Professor of History, Sdertrn University College Email: david.gaunt@sh.se
the following is a report on David Gaunt attempt to investigate mass grave in Turkey. David Gaunt is Project Director for the IHJR.
Truth of mass grave eludes Swedish professor Friday, April 27, 2007
ONUR BURAK BELL? ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
An investigation to clarify conflicting claims about the origins of a mass grave found near the city of Mardin last year in Turkey's southeast ended in disappointment this week as historians traded accusations and a Swedish expert denounced the excavation as an expensive picnic.
The grave first came to light last October when villagers in the district of Nusayb?n reported that they had found a mass grave near the village of Kuru. Turkish historians insisted that the grave dated back to Roman times while some Westerners claimed it could be a mass burial site of Armenians, killed around 1915 in a series of massacres that remain the subject of red hot controversy today.
After the weekly news magazine Nokta published photos of the site and international news agencies picked up the story, Sweden's Soderton University demanded an investigation.
Refusing collaboration:
Professor David Gaunt of Soderton, accompanied by Yusuf Halao?lu, the President of the Turkish Association of Historians (TTK), arrived at the burial site together last Tuesday, April 24. The date is a symbolic day for Armenians who commemorate genocide on that day, a characterization disputed by most Turkish and many international scholars.
On examining the grave, Gaunt refused to collaborate with the Turkish historians. It had been tampered with since it was first uncovered, making it impossible to conclusively establish its origins or the circumstances of the human remains.
I have some photos of the grave, dating back to October, when it was first found, Gaunt told the Turkish Daily News yesterday. But the place I saw was totally different from the photos."If proving that the grave is not evidence of Armenian claims, it should have had serious protection, he said. However, it is full of mud.My impression is that this grave is one in which no scientific research can be carried out. The grave has undergone numerous changes so it is unrecognizable," he said.
Soil sample conflict:
The Turkish Association's Halao?lu, however, said in response that no bones were removed from the place and that the change was due to natural factors such as rain. Gaunt in turn rejected that explanation, saying if indeed scientific standards of protection were used then it could not have been affected by rain or anything else."The aim of this visit was to make a preliminary survey to establish whether the site is suitable for interdisciplinary investigations in the future by forensic medical experts, archaeologists, physical anthropologists and historians. If such a decision was taken, forensic experts would be engaged to assist the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in their work.Noting that Roman pantheons have their own entrance, which was closed in the grave, Halao?lu emphasized that the grave represents a typical Roman burial site.
It could not be a site, in his view, of alleged Armenian victims at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. He also chastised Gaunt for flippancy, saying if he is sincere about investigating genocide claims, he should have taken soil samples that could prove the history of the bones. He also recalled that Turkey has made an official proposal to Armenia to set up a joint commission of historians to study such disputed events and all sides should conduct their work impartially.Such impartiality is now impossible, an angry Gaunt argued: They gave me a shovel to dig and get some soil and some little bones, which were impossible to work on and reach any scientific conclusion. It is an archeological site. The process should continue slowly and gently, he said That was when I realized it was impossible to reach any scientific conclusion. Why should I get soil samples? What happened to those bones that are the real source for forensic research?"It could well be a Roman grave, he said, but the point was to examine the remains of 38 bodies there and that is now difficult if not impossible."Our intention was to understand how they got there, but I have heard that they were removed. I cannot accept the claim that mud filled the grave naturally," Gaunt explained.
Understanding the exact date:
David Gaunt also said it is scientifically impossible to understand the exact date from the bones. "It is not possible to say the exact date with scientific and chemical examinations. One can only merge the scientific outcomes with the stories of the local people. Then maybe one may have an answer close to reality.
Sait Y?ld?z, a Syriac local of Mardin, said Halao?lu accused him of manipulating reality and misinforming the media. Y?ld?z was at the site with Gaunt and Halao?lu the first time they went into the grave. "I was carrying the photographs taken at that time," Y?ld?z said. "A villager came to me, looked at the photos and confirmed that the grave looked like this the first time he discovered it," he added, explaining that villager was the one who first found the grave and reported it to the authorities.
The Swedish professor expressed his disillusionment, describing what happened as childish.
This is the most expensive picnic I have ever attended," concluded the professor.
Emre al??kan contributed to this story.
2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Truth of mass grave eludes Swedish professor Friday, April 27, 2007
ONUR BURAK BELL? ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
An investigation to clarify conflicting claims about the origins of a mass grave found near the city of Mardin last year in Turkey's southeast ended in disappointment this week as historians traded accusations and a Swedish expert denounced the excavation as an expensive picnic.
The grave first came to light last October when villagers in the district of Nusayb?n reported that they had found a mass grave near the village of Kuru. Turkish historians insisted that the grave dated back to Roman times while some Westerners claimed it could be a mass burial site of Armenians, killed around 1915 in a series of massacres that remain the subject of red hot controversy today.
After the weekly news magazine Nokta published photos of the site and international news agencies picked up the story, Sweden's Soderton University demanded an investigation.
Refusing collaboration:
Professor David Gaunt of Soderton, accompanied by Yusuf Halao?lu, the President of the Turkish Association of Historians (TTK), arrived at the burial site together last Tuesday, April 24. The date is a symbolic day for Armenians who commemorate genocide on that day, a characterization disputed by most Turkish and many international scholars.
On examining the grave, Gaunt refused to collaborate with the Turkish historians. It had been tampered with since it was first uncovered, making it impossible to conclusively establish its origins or the circumstances of the human remains.
I have some photos of the grave, dating back to October, when it was first found, Gaunt told the Turkish Daily News yesterday. But the place I saw was totally different from the photos."If proving that the grave is not evidence of Armenian claims, it should have had serious protection, he said. However, it is full of mud.My impression is that this grave is one in which no scientific research can be carried out. The grave has undergone numerous changes so it is unrecognizable," he said.
Soil sample conflict:
The Turkish Association's Halao?lu, however, said in response that no bones were removed from the place and that the change was due to natural factors such as rain. Gaunt in turn rejected that explanation, saying if indeed scientific standards of protection were used then it could not have been affected by rain or anything else."The aim of this visit was to make a preliminary survey to establish whether the site is suitable for interdisciplinary investigations in the future by forensic medical experts, archaeologists, physical anthropologists and historians. If such a decision was taken, forensic experts would be engaged to assist the Turkish Historical Society and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in their work.Noting that Roman pantheons have their own entrance, which was closed in the grave, Halao?lu emphasized that the grave represents a typical Roman burial site.
It could not be a site, in his view, of alleged Armenian victims at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. He also chastised Gaunt for flippancy, saying if he is sincere about investigating genocide claims, he should have taken soil samples that could prove the history of the bones. He also recalled that Turkey has made an official proposal to Armenia to set up a joint commission of historians to study such disputed events and all sides should conduct their work impartially.Such impartiality is now impossible, an angry Gaunt argued: They gave me a shovel to dig and get some soil and some little bones, which were impossible to work on and reach any scientific conclusion. It is an archeological site. The process should continue slowly and gently, he said That was when I realized it was impossible to reach any scientific conclusion. Why should I get soil samples? What happened to those bones that are the real source for forensic research?"It could well be a Roman grave, he said, but the point was to examine the remains of 38 bodies there and that is now difficult if not impossible."Our intention was to understand how they got there, but I have heard that they were removed. I cannot accept the claim that mud filled the grave naturally," Gaunt explained.
Understanding the exact date:
David Gaunt also said it is scientifically impossible to understand the exact date from the bones. "It is not possible to say the exact date with scientific and chemical examinations. One can only merge the scientific outcomes with the stories of the local people. Then maybe one may have an answer close to reality.
Sait Y?ld?z, a Syriac local of Mardin, said Halao?lu accused him of manipulating reality and misinforming the media. Y?ld?z was at the site with Gaunt and Halao?lu the first time they went into the grave. "I was carrying the photographs taken at that time," Y?ld?z said. "A villager came to me, looked at the photos and confirmed that the grave looked like this the first time he discovered it," he added, explaining that villager was the one who first found the grave and reported it to the authorities.
The Swedish professor expressed his disillusionment, describing what happened as childish.
This is the most expensive picnic I have ever attended," concluded the professor.
Emre al??kan contributed to this story.
2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
A bevy of articles in The Times of London reported today on recent upheaval in Turkey.
One article reports on a number of protests that have sprung up in Turkey as the presidential election draws near. Turks are afraid that there may be a "secret" agenda to overturn Turkey's almost 90-year secular state:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1657904.ece
Two others--reminders of recent news--from November 29, and December 10, 2006, describe Turkey's slow-to-halted entry into the European Union.
Interestingly, 90 percent of Turks practice Sunni Islam, but the Turkish state remains secular--priding itself on what is now almost 90 years of separation between religion and the state. But it will be curious to see what happens as Turkey continues to make a bid to enter into the EU, especially with the recent antagonism toward Islam in Europe. Surely, Turkey won't be rejected for long, as it has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. However, it is precisely over the issue of the (refused) trade with Cyprus that Turkey's application for entry into the EU has halted.
What to watch for in the next months and years will be the tension that develops as Turkey grows into one of Europe's economic superpowers, while remaining overwhelmingly Muslim, and with its continuing debate over the issue of Cyprus, and Turkey's rejection from the EU. (Turkey refuses to recognize Cyprus, while Cyprus itself has already gained entry into the EU.) We should all remain highly aware of the clash of both the religious, historic and economic factors between Turkey and the rest of Europe--and especially alert toward the attitudes of the European leadership with regards to Turkey and Cyprus as Turkey continues to apply for entry into the EU.
One article reports on a number of protests that have sprung up in Turkey as the presidential election draws near. Turks are afraid that there may be a "secret" agenda to overturn Turkey's almost 90-year secular state:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1657904.ece
Two others--reminders of recent news--from November 29, and December 10, 2006, describe Turkey's slow-to-halted entry into the European Union.
Interestingly, 90 percent of Turks practice Sunni Islam, but the Turkish state remains secular--priding itself on what is now almost 90 years of separation between religion and the state. But it will be curious to see what happens as Turkey continues to make a bid to enter into the EU, especially with the recent antagonism toward Islam in Europe. Surely, Turkey won't be rejected for long, as it has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. However, it is precisely over the issue of the (refused) trade with Cyprus that Turkey's application for entry into the EU has halted.
What to watch for in the next months and years will be the tension that develops as Turkey grows into one of Europe's economic superpowers, while remaining overwhelmingly Muslim, and with its continuing debate over the issue of Cyprus, and Turkey's rejection from the EU. (Turkey refuses to recognize Cyprus, while Cyprus itself has already gained entry into the EU.) We should all remain highly aware of the clash of both the religious, historic and economic factors between Turkey and the rest of Europe--and especially alert toward the attitudes of the European leadership with regards to Turkey and Cyprus as Turkey continues to apply for entry into the EU.
Recently, a debate has emerged in New York about a proposal to grant honorary citizenship to Anne Frank. (Read the full article in the New York Times.) It is a proposal that was made public a few years ago on the occasion of Anne Franks 75th birthday, but was not passed. A congressman from Long Island, Christopher Bodkin, hopes that by honoring Frank now, the U.S. government can atone for having denied the Frank family entry to the country before their deportation to the concentration camps.
On one side of the debate, Bodkin and his supporters hope to use the recent release of Otto Franks letters showing his desperate attempt to obtain a U.S. visa to leave Holland, in order to give Anne Frank in death what her father sought for her in life. It would be to highlight and admit the mistakes that the U.S. government made during the build up of the second world war.
The detractors of the measure do not oppose this admission of guilt, but see the proposal rather as pointless. On the one hand, they say that Frank wanted to be Dutch, and that her citizenship belongs to the Dutch. Or even that she didnt want to be a citizen of any country, and that an honorary citizenship anywhere seems arbitrary. On the other hand, some find the initiative pointlessDeborah E. Lipstadt, the director of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University, finds it too easy. The way this country turned its back on Jewish refugees in that period is a blot on our country. Nothing will change that. After all of the work and agony that so many people went through, an initiative like this, according to Lipstadt, would be like erasing the past.
But what this proposal should highlight more than anything, is the difficulty that citizenship itself caused for all of the Jews who were deported during the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt notes in her seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, that it was the inability of the state to protect Jewsprecisely because Jews did not belong to the statethat allowed them to be purged en masse with relatively little opposition. The dream of cosmopolitanismthat all men were created equal and that our human connection to one another would overrride our citizenship to any particular statewas shattered by what happened under totalitarian regimes. And so began the Zionist drive to create a Jewish state that would protect all Jews by granting them membership to a state. And all of the complications that followed.
Anne Frank is a reminder, and a good one, of the complications of citizenship. We tend to think that the problems of the Holocaust are behind us, that we learned from what happened and that we will never forget. But immigrants always feel the lingering complications of the problems of citizenship most acutely, especially illegal immigrants who feed into viscious work cycles, and governments who turn a blind eye because they need cheap labor. These non-citizenswho often pay taxesare not protected under the law, and so, as has happened many times in our countrys history, they can quickly be hunted down and purged from the country in a mass exodus. Not to mention be denied health care, average living and working standards, and education.
But illegal immigration seems like an even cut-and-dry issue when compared to the complications that are raised as we become more global. When Americans, for example, outsource their labor to India, or send their own employees to work in Mumbai. Who protects these workersboth Indian and American? The host country? The home country? The corporation? We have seen relatively few skirmishes in this regard, but it is surely only a matter of time. What about the tourist who was caned in southeast asia a decade or so ago? Inadvertently making cultural mistakes and subject to the host countrys laws and punishments. In comparison to the practical gold rush out of the United States as companies have outsourced their labor, we have done little in the years that have passed to understand how these cultural conflicts arise, and what should be done as global markets expand to even even more far-flung locations.
Anne Frank should raise our consciousness again of the often inadvertent effects of citizenship and non-citizenship. If anything, her story, and the thousands like hers, should cause us to reflect on the subtle and extremely complex issues that arise when people with different cultural lives and histories interact. And there is no more pressing a time to understand these issues than now, as we rely on labor, capital and investments made in places that we will never claim as our own, and who will never claim us, either, as their citizens.
On one side of the debate, Bodkin and his supporters hope to use the recent release of Otto Franks letters showing his desperate attempt to obtain a U.S. visa to leave Holland, in order to give Anne Frank in death what her father sought for her in life. It would be to highlight and admit the mistakes that the U.S. government made during the build up of the second world war.
The detractors of the measure do not oppose this admission of guilt, but see the proposal rather as pointless. On the one hand, they say that Frank wanted to be Dutch, and that her citizenship belongs to the Dutch. Or even that she didnt want to be a citizen of any country, and that an honorary citizenship anywhere seems arbitrary. On the other hand, some find the initiative pointlessDeborah E. Lipstadt, the director of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University, finds it too easy. The way this country turned its back on Jewish refugees in that period is a blot on our country. Nothing will change that. After all of the work and agony that so many people went through, an initiative like this, according to Lipstadt, would be like erasing the past.
But what this proposal should highlight more than anything, is the difficulty that citizenship itself caused for all of the Jews who were deported during the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt notes in her seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, that it was the inability of the state to protect Jewsprecisely because Jews did not belong to the statethat allowed them to be purged en masse with relatively little opposition. The dream of cosmopolitanismthat all men were created equal and that our human connection to one another would overrride our citizenship to any particular statewas shattered by what happened under totalitarian regimes. And so began the Zionist drive to create a Jewish state that would protect all Jews by granting them membership to a state. And all of the complications that followed.
Anne Frank is a reminder, and a good one, of the complications of citizenship. We tend to think that the problems of the Holocaust are behind us, that we learned from what happened and that we will never forget. But immigrants always feel the lingering complications of the problems of citizenship most acutely, especially illegal immigrants who feed into viscious work cycles, and governments who turn a blind eye because they need cheap labor. These non-citizenswho often pay taxesare not protected under the law, and so, as has happened many times in our countrys history, they can quickly be hunted down and purged from the country in a mass exodus. Not to mention be denied health care, average living and working standards, and education.
But illegal immigration seems like an even cut-and-dry issue when compared to the complications that are raised as we become more global. When Americans, for example, outsource their labor to India, or send their own employees to work in Mumbai. Who protects these workersboth Indian and American? The host country? The home country? The corporation? We have seen relatively few skirmishes in this regard, but it is surely only a matter of time. What about the tourist who was caned in southeast asia a decade or so ago? Inadvertently making cultural mistakes and subject to the host countrys laws and punishments. In comparison to the practical gold rush out of the United States as companies have outsourced their labor, we have done little in the years that have passed to understand how these cultural conflicts arise, and what should be done as global markets expand to even even more far-flung locations.
Anne Frank should raise our consciousness again of the often inadvertent effects of citizenship and non-citizenship. If anything, her story, and the thousands like hers, should cause us to reflect on the subtle and extremely complex issues that arise when people with different cultural lives and histories interact. And there is no more pressing a time to understand these issues than now, as we rely on labor, capital and investments made in places that we will never claim as our own, and who will never claim us, either, as their citizens.
In the wake of the tragic murder of the Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink, an outspoken (and long-persecuted) advocate of historical reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian communities, a number of cities across Turkey witnessed a moving sight: thousands taking to the streets to decry Dinks death, many with banners reading Hepimiz ermeniyiz or We are all Armenians. For a country in which Ataturks dictum Ne mutlu Turkum diyene (Happy is he who calls himself a Turk) appears virtually everywhere, even etched into massive hillsides in prominent Kurdish and Armenian areas in eastern Anatolia, this expression of solidarity constitutes a critical moment. Will Turkeys leaders seize upon it and begin the hard work of facing up to the Armenian genocide and normalizing relations with the Armenian state? Or will criticism from abroad allow them to perpetuate the status quo by resorting to the defensive politics of national pride? All eyes are on the US Congress in this regard, some of whose members hope to bring to the floor by April 24 a resolution recognizing the mass slaughter of Armenians in WWI as genocide. Backers of the resolution include Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
While the violence in Iraq still rages, a handful of American commentators are already thinking about reconciliation and peace.
In The New York Times Magazine (11/26/2006), writer David Rieff argues that Vietnam offers important lessons for the current war and suggests some reasons for hope. Reporting on President Bushs recent trip to Vietnam for the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic cooperation organization, Rieff notes, Thirty years after the end of a war that left Vietnam in ruins and America in turmoil and confusion, the issues left overaccounting for the missing in action, reuniting families, and even paying compensation for Agent Orange-induced maladiesare far less central to U.S.-Vietnamese relations than issues of trade and investment. Indeed, America is now Vietnams biggest trade partner, and the exchange of goods (by some measures) has nearly trebled in the last five years alone. Rieff concludes from this, Even the most deep-seated enmities can evaporate over time. He adds: There is no iron law of history that says that bad relations between America and the Islamic world, and even between the United States and radical Shiite groups like the one led by the militant cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, are fated to continue this way indefinitely and immutably. Of course politics enter the picture, too, as Rieff pushes for near-term disengagement on the part of the U.S. military. Peace will not come easily or even soon, but American forces must withdraw, Rieff reckons, if we are ever to begin down that road.
Does the comparison (Vietnam v. Iraq) which Rieff develops have merit? Although the Cold War context entailed its own complexities, the conflict of civilizations (Rieffs assessment) currently being waged in Iraq does not exhibit the same neat, bi-lateral character. In other words, fostering peace in the Middle East is by now, no longer a question of merely improving U.S.-Iraqi relations. That is only one dimension among many others. Also, does premature discussion of reconciliation not somehow magnify the wounds which parties to the conflict have suffered? Can the proposition of peace deepen resentment in the short-term? It is tempting for some to look thirty years down the road for reassurance, but what does this perspective do to the conflict while blood is freshly spilled? Does anyone living through the violence really believe that one day this will be only a bump in the road? One might answer Rieff with something like the pragmatism of piety, i.e., the usefulness of not looking past the wounds which are presently opened.
Full-text for the piece by Rieff is available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26wwln_lede.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
While Rieffs short essay begs the question of etiquette and timing, it is noteworthy reconciliation has already entered into the current debate on Iraq. Five years ago, few would have predicted that the apology equation in Iraq would have highlighted American misdeeds and failures, but a recent essay in Harpers by George McGovern and William Polk (October 2006, The Way Out of War) shows us how things have changed. Adapted from their forthcoming book, Out of Iraq, the piece by McGovern and Polk offers a detailed plan for immediate withdrawal. The two authors suggest that leaving Iraq is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. And while the costs of withdrawal are considerable, they maintain, they pale in comparison to the costs of continued engagement. According to one of the studies they cite, the costs of staying in Iraq for another four years: $1 trillion.
This kind of cost analysis would be mostly unremarkable except for the attention the authors pay to the anticipated costs of reconciliation. According to McGovern and Polk, the Americans will have to make a whole range of reparations if they want to salvage any of the moral authority they once enjoyed. These payments would cover reconstruction costs for damaged property and infrastructure, the dismantling and demolition of American installations (i.e., no long term bases), the refurbishment of cultural patrimony and new initiatives to protect what is left of the same, new engineering projects (after voiding contracts entered into with American firms) to repair/rebuild the petroleum and energy sectors, compensation for civilian deaths and casualties, compensation for the victims of torture and extrajudicial imprisonment, funds for the training of civil society professionals, a new public health system, etc. Total costs for the proposed programs equal roughly $17.5 billion, which, as the authors note, represents immense savings as compared to the anticipated costs of continued engagement. More valuable, they venture, are the savings to be measured in what otherwise are likely to be large numbers of shattered bodies and lost lives. This extends both to Iraqis and Americans, the latter having fought for meager pay and with inadequate equipment.
Most remarkable, however, is the authors last proposal, which costs nothing at all. [W]e should find a way to express our condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapacitated, or killed in recent years. Expanding on this, the authors add:
This may seem a difficult gesture to many Americans. It may strike them as weak, or as a slur on our patriotism. Americans do not like to admit that they may have done wrong. We take comfort in the notion that whatever the mistakes of the war and occupation, we have done Iraq a great service by ridding it of Saddam Husseins dictatorship. Perhaps we have, but in the process many peoples lives have been disrupted, damaged, or senselessly ended. A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship. It would be a gesture without cost but of immense and everlasting valueand would do more to assuage the sense of hurt in the world than all of the actions above.
Of course, the call for apology has not yet entered into the American mainstream. This comes from the fringes, and probably the authors underestimate the resistance which such a call would encounter were it to be raised from anywhere but the highest echelons of power (unlikely). But it is impressive, nonetheless, that we can entertain such a notion, even on the pages of a lefty-academic publication like Harpers. While many are convinced that the go big, go long, or get out calculus is more or less true, McGovern and Polk have gone a long way toward envisioning what getting out might entail and what it might cost and what it might salvage. The fact that apology and reconciliation have made it into the debate on Iraq in this particular configuration is both interesting and encouraging. Maybe it is overly optimistic? The reference to friendship seems both premature and pan-Glossian. But the equation of peace with payback here is important nevertheless.
In The New York Times Magazine (11/26/2006), writer David Rieff argues that Vietnam offers important lessons for the current war and suggests some reasons for hope. Reporting on President Bushs recent trip to Vietnam for the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic cooperation organization, Rieff notes, Thirty years after the end of a war that left Vietnam in ruins and America in turmoil and confusion, the issues left overaccounting for the missing in action, reuniting families, and even paying compensation for Agent Orange-induced maladiesare far less central to U.S.-Vietnamese relations than issues of trade and investment. Indeed, America is now Vietnams biggest trade partner, and the exchange of goods (by some measures) has nearly trebled in the last five years alone. Rieff concludes from this, Even the most deep-seated enmities can evaporate over time. He adds: There is no iron law of history that says that bad relations between America and the Islamic world, and even between the United States and radical Shiite groups like the one led by the militant cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, are fated to continue this way indefinitely and immutably. Of course politics enter the picture, too, as Rieff pushes for near-term disengagement on the part of the U.S. military. Peace will not come easily or even soon, but American forces must withdraw, Rieff reckons, if we are ever to begin down that road.
Does the comparison (Vietnam v. Iraq) which Rieff develops have merit? Although the Cold War context entailed its own complexities, the conflict of civilizations (Rieffs assessment) currently being waged in Iraq does not exhibit the same neat, bi-lateral character. In other words, fostering peace in the Middle East is by now, no longer a question of merely improving U.S.-Iraqi relations. That is only one dimension among many others. Also, does premature discussion of reconciliation not somehow magnify the wounds which parties to the conflict have suffered? Can the proposition of peace deepen resentment in the short-term? It is tempting for some to look thirty years down the road for reassurance, but what does this perspective do to the conflict while blood is freshly spilled? Does anyone living through the violence really believe that one day this will be only a bump in the road? One might answer Rieff with something like the pragmatism of piety, i.e., the usefulness of not looking past the wounds which are presently opened.
Full-text for the piece by Rieff is available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26wwln_lede.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
While Rieffs short essay begs the question of etiquette and timing, it is noteworthy reconciliation has already entered into the current debate on Iraq. Five years ago, few would have predicted that the apology equation in Iraq would have highlighted American misdeeds and failures, but a recent essay in Harpers by George McGovern and William Polk (October 2006, The Way Out of War) shows us how things have changed. Adapted from their forthcoming book, Out of Iraq, the piece by McGovern and Polk offers a detailed plan for immediate withdrawal. The two authors suggest that leaving Iraq is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. And while the costs of withdrawal are considerable, they maintain, they pale in comparison to the costs of continued engagement. According to one of the studies they cite, the costs of staying in Iraq for another four years: $1 trillion.
This kind of cost analysis would be mostly unremarkable except for the attention the authors pay to the anticipated costs of reconciliation. According to McGovern and Polk, the Americans will have to make a whole range of reparations if they want to salvage any of the moral authority they once enjoyed. These payments would cover reconstruction costs for damaged property and infrastructure, the dismantling and demolition of American installations (i.e., no long term bases), the refurbishment of cultural patrimony and new initiatives to protect what is left of the same, new engineering projects (after voiding contracts entered into with American firms) to repair/rebuild the petroleum and energy sectors, compensation for civilian deaths and casualties, compensation for the victims of torture and extrajudicial imprisonment, funds for the training of civil society professionals, a new public health system, etc. Total costs for the proposed programs equal roughly $17.5 billion, which, as the authors note, represents immense savings as compared to the anticipated costs of continued engagement. More valuable, they venture, are the savings to be measured in what otherwise are likely to be large numbers of shattered bodies and lost lives. This extends both to Iraqis and Americans, the latter having fought for meager pay and with inadequate equipment.
Most remarkable, however, is the authors last proposal, which costs nothing at all. [W]e should find a way to express our condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapacitated, or killed in recent years. Expanding on this, the authors add:
This may seem a difficult gesture to many Americans. It may strike them as weak, or as a slur on our patriotism. Americans do not like to admit that they may have done wrong. We take comfort in the notion that whatever the mistakes of the war and occupation, we have done Iraq a great service by ridding it of Saddam Husseins dictatorship. Perhaps we have, but in the process many peoples lives have been disrupted, damaged, or senselessly ended. A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship. It would be a gesture without cost but of immense and everlasting valueand would do more to assuage the sense of hurt in the world than all of the actions above.
Of course, the call for apology has not yet entered into the American mainstream. This comes from the fringes, and probably the authors underestimate the resistance which such a call would encounter were it to be raised from anywhere but the highest echelons of power (unlikely). But it is impressive, nonetheless, that we can entertain such a notion, even on the pages of a lefty-academic publication like Harpers. While many are convinced that the go big, go long, or get out calculus is more or less true, McGovern and Polk have gone a long way toward envisioning what getting out might entail and what it might cost and what it might salvage. The fact that apology and reconciliation have made it into the debate on Iraq in this particular configuration is both interesting and encouraging. Maybe it is overly optimistic? The reference to friendship seems both premature and pan-Glossian. But the equation of peace with payback here is important nevertheless.
