Wednesday February 10, 2010
Experts from Ireland, Turkey, UK and US confer in Minnesota
Minneapolis – The University of St. Thomas School of Law, as part of
its “unique mission of integrating faith and reason in the search for
truth through a focus on morality and social justice,” co-organized
an international conference, in partnership with the International
Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A Division of the
Zoryan Institute), to examine “The Armenian Genocide within the
Framework of National and International Law.”
The conference took place on February 5th, 2010, in Minneapolis, in
conjunction with the Cafesjian Family Foundation and the Ohanessian
Endowment Fund for Justice and Peace Studies of the Minneapolis
Foundation.
John M. Sandy, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law and Public Policy
of the University of St. Thomas, stated, “When I first heard about the
Armenian Genocide from a fellow passenger on a flight to Los Angeles,
and learned the enormity of it, I was shocked that I had not come
across this major historical event in my education up to that time. I
embarked on research on this subject, and the more I learned, the
more astonished I became that this was not taught as part of American
history in WWI, and the more I felt there was a great deal still to
be researched, especially from a legal perspective. Thus, the idea
of holding a conference for the purpose of preparing a special issue
of the university’s Journal of Law and Public Policy came to be.”
Prof. Robert J. Delahunty of the Law School, who served as moderator,
reaffirmed the university’s position that the conference proceeds from
the understanding that the Armenian Genocide is an established fact.
One of the reasons for this position is that the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, the world’s foremost body of
researchers in the field of genocide studies, has unanimously affirmed
that “it is indisputable that the Armenian Genocide is proven history.”
Mark L. Movsesian, Professor of Contract Law at St. John’s University,
described how the reform movement (Tanzimat) intended to provide
equality for the non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire in the
19th century, failed. This was because the ruling elite and society
at large could not accept it. The resentment was twofold, a) the
reforms broke the covenant between the superior protector group,
Muslims, and the subservient, protected groups, non-Muslim; and b)
they felt the reforms were imposed by the European Powers and were
considered outside interference. This helped make the mass violence
of the Hamidian massacres possible, in which some 200,000 Armenians
were killed. It can also be seen as a precursor to the Genocide,
because the mass killings went unpunished.
Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian, Director of Genocide Research at the Zoryan
Institute, an expert in history and international law, described
the significance of the Allied Powers’ declaration on May 24, 1915,
that they would punish those responsible for “these new crimes of
Turkey against humanity and civilization.” This set a precedent in the
development of international law on crimes against humanity. He then
described how the national law of the Ottoman Empire, particularly
the Military Tribunals, dealt with the Armenian mass killings by
prosecuting those crimes immediately after WWI.
William A. Schabas, Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at
the National University of Ireland, Galway, and currently President
of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, addressed
the subject of “The Retroactive Applicability of the UN Genocide
Convention to the Armenian Genocide.” He affirmed that what happened
to the Armenians in 1915 can properly be termed genocide, and that the
actions of the Ottoman Government constituted the crime of genocide.
Prosecution for this crime is not likely, however, as there are no
longer individuals alive to prosecute. There is evidence that crimes
against humanity were already recognized under international law in
1915, and by logical extension this should also apply to genocide. The
Turkish State, as the inheritor of the Ottoman regime, might also be
held responsible for the atrocities perpetrated in 1915, provided a
suitable forum can be found for such litigation.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, one of Britain’s leading human rights lawyers,
submitted a video recording of his speech, “Politics, Government, and
the Armenian Genocide in the United Kingdom.” Robertson discussed in
particular his expose of how the British Foreign Office suppressed
information and misled Parliament on the truth of the Armenian
Genocide, affecting British foreign policy greatly and resulting in
Britain’s stance of not recognizing the Genocide, but merely calling it
a tragedy. This position is at odds with the position of the British
government at the time of the Armenian Genocide, when they called
it a crime against humanity and civilization. Robertson’s research
into this discrepancy shows that the current position of the British
government is driven by political and commercial interests.
Eren Keskin, an award-winning Turkish human rights attorney,
participated by telephone from Turkey. She spoke forcefully about the
Armenian Genocide and the importance of Turkey’s apologizing for it.
She explained the militaristic foundation of the Turkish Republic,
the continuity of the military mindset of 1915 and that of the Turkish
State today. This militaristic mindset causes the Turkish state to
suppress dissent and punish what it considers insults to Turkishness.
Ms. Keskin spoke movingly about the threats and abuse she has endured
personally as an advocate for human rights in Turkey.
Mark C. Fleming is a partner in the Boston office of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. He prepared an amicus curiae brief on the
appeal in the Griswold v. Driscoll case, in which the Massachusetts
Board of Education was being sued, based on the First Amendment, to
allow “contra-genocide” materials on a list of suggested educational
resources for teaching the Armenian Genocide. Initially the case was
dismissed and Massachusetts was free to list the resources of its
choosing, but the case is now under appeal.
Roger W. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Government at the College of
William and Mary, spoke on the legal and philosophical aspects of laws
penalizing genocide denial. While genocide denial is dangerous and
continues the victimization of the target group, he said, preventing
free speech in such cases has its own, serious, negative consequences.
Ziya Meral, a Turkish researcher, writer, and Ph.D. candidate in
Political Science at Cambridge University, as discussant for the
conference, masterfully commented on numerous issues that were raised
by the other speakers. He spoke about the need for the people of
Turkey to accept the reality of the Armenian Genocide and said that
only Turkish society had the power to change Turkey’s policy of denial.
The papers from this conference will be published in the summer issue
of the university’s Journal of Law and Public Policy. Through this
publication, it is hoped that awareness among policymakers will be
raised to strengthen the legal framework, so that all cases of genocide
are treated with justice and that politics or economic interest do
not obstruct the application of the law nationally or internationally.
The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute) is dedicated to the study and
dissemination of knowledge regarding the phenomenon of genocide in
all of its aspects to create an awareness of it as an ongoing scourge
and promote the necessity of preventing it.
Leave a Reply