Writing Life

This shocking state of affairs comes from Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai. In a statement today he said (quoting from the Guardian article):

“The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,” Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defence minister, told army radio.

Shoah is the Hebrew word normally reserved to refer to the Jewish Holocaust. It is rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi extermination of Jews during the second world war, and many Israelis are loath to countenance its use to describe other events.

The BBC noted that many of Mr. Vilnai’s colleagues have distanced themselves from this atrocious statement.

His words are disgusting on so many levels. Saying that a genocide on the magnitude of the Shoah is warranted is a violation of human decency. Genocide is never a valid policy or military option. After the Congo, Armenia, the Holocaust (Shoah), Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur, to openly suggest another mass slaughter of a people is the inner chamber of the heart of darkness.

Further, to say that the Palestinians are bringing it upon themselves is an insult to those who have been massacred in previous onslaughts and an attempt to move the blame from the small subset of Palestinian killers and terrorists and place it upon the entire Palestinian community. This reeks of racism and hatred on such a scale. Collective punishment is illegal under Israeli and international law. It does not belong among the civilized nations of the world.

I would hope that Mr. Vilnai is removed from his position in the Defense Ministry and that the government quickly and firmly denounces his statement.

For more, see the BBC and Guardian stories.

A Dutch delegation visited the U.S. prison in Cuba and then Washington had a confrontation with U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA 12), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee. Lantos, you might remember, recently derided fellow House members who spoke up for a Congressional resolution on the Armenian genocide. A genocide survivor himself, from the Holocaust, it seemed a very surprising stance at the time.

It appears he seems to like this spotlight. In response to the Dutch parliamentary delegation’s call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, Lantos complained that “Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay.” Lantos then demanded the Dutch keep their NATA troops in Afghanistan. To bolster his stance, he spewed out a whoper:

“You have to help us, because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany.”

Oh yeah, that’ll tell ‘em Tom. That pretty much shut down any discussion. So much for our enlightened leader of Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives. While alienating most of the delegation, Lantos found himself in close agreement with one of its members on the Guantanamo issue. Lantos hasn’t called for closing this stain on America’s international reputation. In this, he was joined by far right Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders:

“Let’s not forget we are in a state of war — not only the United States but also my country — with Islamic terrorists. I think we could only learn from Guantanamo.”

Nice company you’re keeping, Tom.

Children and dead foreigners from long ago.

The SCHIP veto override failed and now Democratic leaders in the House are caving to Administration and war-hungry realists who don’t want Turkey called to account for committing genocide against Armenians in the early 20th Century. For more, see National Journal’s The Gate.

We scream it from the pulpit, broadcast it over the radio, and stump it on the campaign trail: genocide is bad and we must never forget and never allow it to happen again. Though, it seems that if there’s some personal interest at stake, then, hold your horses, let’s not get all up in arms about something. Especially if it’s not something going on right now. Moreover, it really seems to be okay to ignore or downplay ongoing genocide if it’s somewhere where the people’s skin is darker, their bank accounts empty, or their natural resources scant, plundered, or exhausted.

Today, the House Foreign Affairs committee passed a resolution condemning the massacre of Armenians by Turks and the Ottoman Empire during the World War I period. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA 12), a vociferous Holocaust survivor, said that “We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people … against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price than they are currently paying.” I wonder if he’d say that about a Congressional Resolution recognizing the Holocaust? Or voicing concern about the Genocide in Darfur? As a matter of fact, Rep. Lantos and Candidate Bush (prior to the 2000 election) both supported calling these early 20th Century killings genocide. Now, their running from their conscience and conviction due to the fact that the US needs Turkey right now to prosecute Iraq war (and maybe an Iran war). Turkey is also a longtime ally and member of NATO, and is also trying to get into the European Union.

What bothers me is that it appears we have classes of genocide. There are the ones we always talk about and never waver on. There are those we sometimes support unless it’s in our short-term national interests to wobble a little. Then there are those we don’t care about that much. Finally, there are those we never talk about (e.g. the one that began with the person we celebrated as a federal holiday this past Monday). Genocide is genocide, plain and simple. One isn’t better, more noteworthy, more deserving than another. Innocent human beings are or were slaughtered in large numbers for no reason other than simple human hate. We’ve got to stand firm and not waver. Never again must have a solid foundation that doesn’t crack during short-term tremors. If it doesn’t, then let’s just stop using the phrase and shed what little humanity we’ve clothed ourselves in over the last 10,000 years.

Today’s Boston Globe editorial on the five years of the Darfur (Sudan) genocide struck a nerve in me. I first worked this issue for a foreign policy NGO in DC back in 2004, and continued working it until 2007. The genocide is still going on and we still have government leaders and UN diplomats making photo op visits and “inquiry tours.” WTF!

Does the world not care because the situation pits one group of poor, dark-skinned Muslims against another group of dark-skinned Muslims? Are nations standing by the sidelines due to Sudan’s vast oil reserves? Can the UN do anything? And by the UN I mean the member states of the United Nations since the UN is a group of nations, not a supranational body? The UN passes philosophically-sound and morally-profound policies like the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” but fails to carry through on such lofty goals when presented with a perfect situation in which to try it out.

We all know the story of “never forget.” It’s conveniently pulled out after a genocide. We saw it after the Holocaust; we heard it after the Killing Fields, we spoke it after Rwanda and I’m sure we’ll be rambling after Darfur. Individually, we can’t stop this genocide. Collectively, maybe we can move our government to do something and do something now. This Administration was one of the first to call Darfur a genocide, when other nations turned their eyes away. But rhetoric doesn’t help a displaced family, nor a child whose parents were slaughtered, nor un-burn a village. We need action and the best way to achieve that is a constant barrage at the local, state and national level to create movement. If you don’t want to get involved now, why not put aside a $10 or $20 bill and donate it to the Darfur Genocide Remembrance Memorial, which I’m sure will be coming in the near future, after it’s all over.

Bush is fond of saying “your either with us or your with them.” Them usually refers to terrorists, though these days it might mean the American people since Americans seem to be with the Democratic Congress and not the poll and scandal ravaged current occupant of the White House.

Getting back to my original thought, it now appears that Bush means that he’s with the terrorists. Jeffrey Smith writes in today’s Washington Post that a controversial Cambodian police chief has been granted a visa to come to the U.S. for counterterrorism meetings at the FBI. Last year, this police chief’s visa application was denied. It was denied because he had connections with trafficking in people, which is illegal and which is a practice that the US is a strong supporter of stopping. He also was involved in using police power to disrupt (sometimes with grenades) peaceful protests. This year, his visa for the US was approved.

Why the change? Has the shadow of trafficking in human beings been shattered by the sunlight of truth? No, it turns out Police Chief Lundy helped arrest some Muslim terrorists in Cambodia. Now he’s a freedom-fighting, democracy-loving trafficker in human beings. We, I mean the Bush Administration, loves these kinds of fellows. Round up the usual suspects and all is forgotten and forgiven.

A common thought among DC and NY human rights groups is that a similar sudden blind eye syndrome is at work in the case of the genocide in Darfur. The US has a strong partnership with the Sudanese government to fight terrorism, so it’s willing to not push too hard to stop a genocide. But that’s another story, even though you can read about it in the same article. Same US State Department, different country, different criminal. We’re like 7-11, open 24/7 and serving everyone.

The US continues to do this, that is preach freedom, democracy, human rights and all the other feel-good stuff and then goes and practices something entirely different. Support for dictators (Mubarak in Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan), supporting human rights violators (Bashir in Sudan, Police Chief Lundy in Cambodia), Saddam Hussein in Iraq (in the 1980s when he was our ally), Batista in Cuba, the Shah in Iran, etc. The list goes on and on. So, it’s no wonder that a poll released today by PIPA shows that 10 out of 15 countries don’t beleive the US can be trusted to act responsibly.

No sanctions yet, let’s talk some more. Four years into the violence in Darfur, which many have labeled genocide, the newly installed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon wants to hold off on sanctions being sought by the US and Britain against the Sudanese government. Ban wants to talk with Sudan more to see if he can get some UN peacekeepers into Darfur. These negotiations have been going on for years and Sudan always dangles the possibility then reneges as soon as there’s a real possibility that peacekeepers or troops will be deployed.

A strong supporter of Bush’s war on terror, Sudan has often avoided too much pressure from the US. But, with world and US opinion clamoring for something to be done, the US is finally trying to implement something.

Why the fuss? At its World Summit in September 2005, the UN ratified a Canadian concept called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). R2P says that no state can hide behind the concept of sovereignty while it conducts, or pemits, widespread harm to its population. Additionally, it implies that other nations cannot turn a blind eye when these events occur beyond their borders.

In 1994, the US, UN and world stood by while approximately 800,000 were slaughtered in Rwanda. Then head of UN peacekeeping, Annan did nothing, even when his own general (Canadian Dallaire) on the ground in Kigali told him months before of what was about to unfold. Since February 2003, the world has stood by and watched the violence cascade out of control. According to the Save Darfur coalition, approximately 400,000 have been killed and two million have been displaced. Ban wants to talk some more. So much for R2P. So much for Never Again. So much for Ban. So much for Darfuris.

You should read Alma Guillermoprieto’s article about the death of one of the survivors of the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador from 1981. I remember reading Guillermoprieto’s books on Latin America and being drawn into human rights and policy issues affecting that part of the world. This piece is worth reading to keep the memory of this atrocity alive, when the El Salvadoran government slaughtered approximately 900 civilians in an anti-guerrilla campaign. Dismissed by the Reagan Administration, which supported the government, as propaganda, writers like Guillermoprieto helped shed some light on what really happened.

A second reason to read this piece is to inform the recent public debate about Iraq. Several reports have said that what is needed in Iraq is to apply the El Salvador option. This strategy would pull out most American troops and replace them with military advisors. Holding up American involvement in El Salvador as anything but something to be shunned is disgusting and spits on the graves of those who died in massacres like El Mozote.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 6th of this year, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Pace responded to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about this issue. Sen. Graham asked “Will we have enough to meet the counterinsurgency doctrine of General Petraeus?”. Gen. Pace responded, “In pure math terms, no, sir. In terms of what is needed on the ground to get the job done, yes, sir, meaning that their talk about 50 to 1 or whatever it is to — to 1 that you need to quell a generic insurgency — we helped in El Salvador with 55, and that turned out the way we wanted it to.” That turned out the way we wanted it to???

For more articles on the U.S.’s idea of adopting a potentially genocidal model in Iraq, see the LA Times and the Guardian.