INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE HELD IN BRAZIL

Armenian Weekly Staff
Mon, May 10 2010

Latin America’s largest university hosts international conference on
"The Prototype Genocide of Modern Times" in partnership with Zoryan
Institute and governments of the State of Sao Paulo and the Republic
of Armenia

Scholars from Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey
and the United States participated in an international conference,
the first of its kind in Brazil, on "The Prototype Genocide of Modern
Times," held at the University of Sao Paulo (USP), Brazil, April 22-24,
in commemoration of the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Opening panel (L to R): M. Tucci Carneiro, M. Florenzano, K.

Sarkissian, A. Harutyunyan, Dom V. Boghossian, Archbishop D. Karibian,
C. Lafer, M. Marcilio, E. Negrão, L. Yeghiazaryan.

The conference was co-organized by the University of Sao Paulo
Laboratory for the Study of Ethnicity Racism and Discrimination, the
State Government of Sao Paulo Secretary of Institutional Affairs,
the Consulate General in Sao Paulo representing the Government of
Armenia, and the Zoryan Institute.

The conference was opened by Prof. Dra. Maria Luiza Tucci
Carneiro, associate professor at the Department of History, USP,
and coordinator of the Laboratory for the Study of Ethnicity Racism
and Discrimination. She welcomed everyone and described the reasons
for the university’s partnership in this conference.

Prof. Dr. Celso Lafer, former Brazilian foreign and commerce minister,
professor of Philosophy of Law at USP and President of the Research
Foundation of the State of Sao Paulo, spoke strongly in affirming the
Armenian Genocide. He was followed by Prof. Dr. Dalmo de Abreu Dallari,
Emeritus, Faculty of Law of USP, and a jurist with the Permanent
Peoples’ Tribunal. He noted that the Verdict of the Tribunal’s
hearing in Paris in 1984 on the Armenian Genocide was key in the UN
Subcommission of Human Rights Report of 1985, affirming that the
World War I Armenian experience at the hands of the Ottoman Turks
was genocide.

K.M. Greg Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan Institute, in his
opening presentation of the academic portion of the conference,
explained the rationale for the theme, "the prototype of modern
genocide." He described the phenomenon, whereby a government turns
against an identifiable ethnic minority among its own citizens with
the intention of destroying them, as a perceived solution to its
political problems. This marked a change from the mass slaughter of
populations that occurred many times throughout history, associated
with war, imperialism and conquest. The Armenian Genocide is now widely
understood to be the "prototype" of modern genocide, as labelled by
Prof. Robert Melson, who first coined the term.

Sarkissian explained the meaning of April 24, which the beginning of
deportation and mass killings of the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek
population of the Ottoman Empire. He added, "The year 1915 was the
beginning of the Ottoman genocidal policy of ethnic cleansing and
massacres, which continues in Turkey today because of its official
state policy of denial." He noted that Prof. Roger W. Smith first
pointed out some years ago, and it is now recognized by scholars, that
denial is the last stage of genocide, since it continues to victimize
the survivors and their descendants. Noting that Brazil was among the
first countries to vote for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and sign the UN Genocide Convention in 1948, Sarkissian called upon
Brazil to be among those countries who refuse to be complicit in the
ongoing crime of genocide denial by officially recognizing it.

Prof. Steven L. Jacobs of the University of Alabama gave a
comprehensive explanation about Raphael Lemkin, the man who
conceptualized and coined the term "genocide." He pointed out
Lemkin’s obsession with the fact that there were no laws to punish
the mass killing of a whole people, such as the Armenians, by their
own government, Ottoman Turkey, even though there were laws for
punishing the killing of a single person. The 1921 trial in Berlin
for the assassination of Talat Pasha, one of the architects of the
Armenian Genocide, by Soghomon Tehlirian and his acquittal was a major
influence on Lemkin and his determination to secure international
support outlawing the crime of genocide through the United Nations.

Lemkin considered the Armenian case so important that it is the only
case in all of his papers where a full-length manuscript has been
written independently and accompanied by a shorter manuscript. In
that study he noted, "A strong parallel may be drawn between the
extermination of the Armenians by the Turks and the extermination of
the Jews by the Germans."

Dr. Sevane Garibian, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Law at the
University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, spoke on "The Armenian Genocide
and the Development of the Modern Concept of Crimes against Humanity."

She described the declaration of the Allied Powers on May 24, 1915,
which said, in essence, "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against
humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly …

that they will hold personally responsible … all the members of the
Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in
such massacres," and explained how this was a major event in bringing
the concept of "crimes against humanity" into modern international law.

Mr. Ragip Zarakolu, renowned human rights activist and publisher in
Turkey, spoke about "Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide." He
made insightful comments about the nature and motives of denial of
the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish State. He drew parallels with the
State’s problematic treatment of other subjects in the political and
social life of the country, specifically in relation to minorities and
their rights. For example, currently about 1,000 mid-level Kurdish
politicians are jailed, preventing them from running in the next
election. Zarakolu emphasized that the AKP, Turkey’s current ruling
party, has made some progress in adopting certain European standards
into Turkey’s constitution, under the pretext of democratization.

However, the gag order imposed on the Armenian Genocide issue,
coupled with the replacement of military hegemony in the country’s
institutions by a new hegemony of a police state, has raised fear
among Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslim minorities of the outbreak of mass
violence against them, just like the Armenians 95 years ago.

Prof. Dra. Maria Luiza Tucci Carneiro, of the USP, spoke about
"Brazil in Front of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the UN
Resolution." She analyzed Brazil’s political position-government,
press and Brazilian diplomats-since the Armenian Genocide until the
integration of the crime of genocide in International Law. Through
diplomatic documents and articles published by important Brazilian
newspapers, she related the multiple discourses about the Armenian
Genocide as prototype of the modern genocide, from 1915 to 1948. She
referred to historical archives that documented Armenian refugees
fleeing the Genocide and coming to Brazil. She explained how
politicians during the debate at the UN on the Genocide Convention
felt that issue did not concern them, stating, "Brazilian people are
homogeneous, made up of heterogeneous races. Therefore, the problem
of genocide does not concern us directly. It is a crime the common
Brazilian man cannot figure out, but it horrifies him anyway."

However, in 1956, Brazilian law accepted genocide as a crime, adopting
the same definition ratified by the UN Convention.

Prof. Emeritus Robert F. Melson of Purdue University discussed "The
Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of Modern Genocide,"
taking a comparative approach. He put forward the position that the
Armenian Genocide was not only the first total genocide of the 20th
century, but that it also served as the prototype for genocides that
came after. In particular, the Armenian Genocide approximates the
Holocaust, but at the same time, its territorial and national aspects,
which distinguish it from the Holocaust, make it an archetype for
ethnic and national genocide. In both the Armenian Genocide and the
Holocaust, a deliberate attempt was made by the government of the day
to destroy an ethno-religious community of ancient provenance. When
comparing the two cases, a pattern becomes apparent. This pattern
shows some differences, however, and it is those differences that
link the Armenian Genocide not only to the Holocaust but also to
later instances of that crime.

Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian, director of genocide research at the Zoryan
Institute, analyzed "The Armenian Genocide as a Dual Problem of
National and International Law." He described first the elements of
the Armenian Genocide within Turkish national law after the end of
WWI. These include the charge of crimes against humanity by the Allied
Powers, the post-war debates in the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies and
Senate about what had happened to the Armenians, and the Military
Tribunal and Courts Martial, which prosecuted the perpetrators of
"crimes against the Armenians." Within international law, he pointed
out that principles arising out the Armenian case are found in the
Nuremberg charter and in the UN Genocide Convention, and in comparison
with the Eichmann case, the principle of state succession. Thus,
Turkey is responsible for acts committed by the Ottoman State.

Prof. Dr. Marcio Seligmann-Silva, lecturer of literary theory at the
University of Campinas in Sao Paulo and researcher at the National
Council of Technological and Scientific Development, spoke on "The
Armenian Genocide and the Question of Evil Memory in the XX Century."

He dealt with the question of the necessity of bearing witness after
genocide as a way to give meaning to the event and to allow for the
progression from victim to citizen with rights, including the right
to sue in court those responsible for the genocide. Bearing witness
is often confronted with denial. Nevertheless, it is a process that
encompasses individual, collective and national trauma and allows
the victim to work through the envisaging of justice, truth and the
reconstruction of the person and of post-genocide societies. The
Armenian Genocide occupies a key position in the history of genocides
and of denial. As an example of extreme genocide denial, it argues
for the necessity of bearing witness.

Prof. Emeritus Roger W. Smith of the College of William and Mary,
and also chairman of the academic board of directors of the Zoryan
Institute, spoke on "Remembrance and Denial." Without remembrance of
past examples of genocide, there would be no sense of urgency in the
present, no perceived need to prevent future atrocities. We would
cut ourselves off from the knowledge of the causes and sequences of
genocide, knowledge that might help prevent other peoples from being
subjected to this crime against humanity. Denial of genocide has become
the universal strategy of perpetrators. Those who initiate or otherwise
participate in genocide typically deny that the events took place,
that they bear any responsibility for the destruction, or that the
term "genocide" is applicable to what occurred. Denial, unchecked,
turns politically imposed death into a "non-event." The Armenian
Genocide, in fact, illuminates with special clarity the dangers
inherent in the political manipulation of truth through distortion,
denial, intimidation, and economic blackmail. No other regime has
gone to such extreme lengths to deny that a massive genocide took
place as Turkey. That democratic governments (the United States,
Great Britain, and Israel) have supported Turkey in that effort,
raises significant questions about governmental accountability and
the role of citizenship in a world in which truth increasingly comes
in two forms – "official" and "alleged."

Prof. Khatchik Der Ghougassian teaches international relations
at the University of San Andres in Buenos Aires and is a Visiting
Adjunct Professor at the American University of Armenia. He analyzed
the complexities of "The Armenian Genocide and international power
relations." In the 19th century, the European Powers utilized the
struggle for the rights of the non-Muslim minorities as one of their
pretexts for involvement in the Ottoman Empire. After the start of
World War I, the Allied Powers made the first international attempt
at humanitarian intervention by warning the Young Turk leaders that
they would be called to account for their wholesale massacre of
Turkey’s Armenian population. After the post-WWI peace negotiations,
Armenia dropped from the international agenda until 1965, 50 years
after the Genocide, when Armenians around the world began to revive
the world’s attention and conscience on that injustice. The Armenian
Genocide has come increasingly on the world stage as an issue in the
United Nations, as a subject of official recognition by national and
international governments and official bodies, and even as an issue
for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. He discussed the place
of the Armenian Genocide in Armenia’s foreign policy and suggested
how it could be employed more effectively.

Prof. Herbert Hirsch, professor of government and public affairs at
Virginia Commonwealth University, explored "The Lessons of the Armenian
Genocide for the Prevention of Genocide." Within the last ten years,
at least four major international and national prescriptions have
appeared outlining the mechanisms necessary to prevent genocide.

Hirsch analyzed their strengths, weaknesses, confirming that
action lags behind academic forums. This is because the overriding
principles in international relations are state sovereignty and
national interest. The study of the genocides of the 20th century
has suggested to analysts certain models for the prevention of
genocide. These include humanitarian intervention, protection of
civilians, peacemaking, and punishment of the perpetrators. This
has led to calls for creating an early warning system which would
alert the public and exert pressure on nations or groups to stop
atrocities, and the creation of a UN Rapid Reaction force. Each of
these has its shortcomings that limit freedom of action, to monitor,
follow prescription, and establish rules of engagement while doing
no harm, and including the ability to build. The adoption of the
Responsibility to Protect has been a step in the right direction,
but this has not been effective because of the lack of political
will. Hirsch explored the sources of this lack of political will.

Prof. Dr. Anita Novinsky, historian and lecturer of the department of
history and president of the Laboratory of Studies on Intolerance, USP,
spoke on "Education for Life." She described the profound questions
philosophers and theoreticians have wrestled with in modern times
regarding how man can commit such violence against fellow humans. In
the words of Theodor Adorno, the fight against war and aggression will
be in vain if we do not change our educational systems. We can find
the reasons of the genocides in the 20th century in the resurrection
of aggressive nationalisms. She described how perpetrators of genocide
are formed during their childhood years, and proposed the need for
an educational system that teaches the value and the sanctity of
human life.

The Zoryan Institute is the parent organization of the International
Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, which runs an annual,
accredited university program on the subject and is co-publisher
of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal in
partnership with the International Association of Genocide Scholars
and the University of Toronto Press. It is the first non-profit,
international center devoted to the research and documentation of
contemporary issues with a focus on Genocide, Diaspora and Armenia.

For more information please contact the Zoryan Institute by email
zoryan@zoryaninstitute.org or telephone (416) 250-9807.