Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
Popular content
Today's Top News
If Our Friends Do It, It Is Not Genocide
The Genocide Prevention Task Force was unveiled at the National Press Club this morning.
The task force is being co-chair by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
It's being convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace.
In addition to Cohen and Albright, its members include: John Danforth, Tom Daschle, Stuart Eizenstat, Michael Gerson, Dan Glickman, Jack Kemp, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Tom Pickering, Julia Taft, Vin Weber, and Anthony Zinni.
"The world agrees that genocide is unacceptable and yet genocide and mass killings continue," Albright said. "Our challenge is to match words to deeds and stop allowing the unacceptable. That task - simple on the surface - is in fact one of the most persistent puzzles of our times. We have a duty to find the answer before the vow of 'never again' is once again betrayed."
"We are convinced that the U.S. government can and must do better in preventing genocide - a crime that threatens not only our values but our national interests," Cohen said.
But after the opening remarks, Cohen and Albright hit a buzz saw of skeptical questioning from reporters in the First Amendment Room.
"How do you reconcile your work in trying to build a moral American consensus against genocide when just very recently each of you signed letters urging America not to recognize the Armenian genocide?" a reporter asked Cohen and Albright.
"This mission is about the future," Albright answered. "We want to look at ways to try and prevent genocide and mass killing. That is the purpose of this task force. The former Secretaries of State recognized that terrible things happened to the Armenians and tragedies. The letter was primarily about whether this was the appropriate time to raise the issue."
"The fact is that all of us who signed were concerned about the level of killings and the human suffering that took place between 1915 and 1923," Cohen said. "There was also a very deliberate decision to say that we are engaged in warfare at the moment. We have our sons and daughters who are at risk. And we felt that to have the resolution brought might result in reactions on the part of the Turkish government that could place our sons and daughters in greater jeopardy. It was a very practical decision that was made. This was not to say that we overlooked what took place in the past. We are saying - at this point forward, what do we do? How do we marshal public opinion? How do we marshal political action? How do we generate the will to take action in a society that has been reluctant to do so in the past? It involves multiple levels of complexity."
"If we are saying that this isn't the right time to acknowledge this genocide, does that mean that you are arguing that for political expedience purposes, we are not going to be taking action on nor should we take action on future genocides because of what are perceived to be U.S. interests?" another reporter asked.
"We are saying there are no absolutes in this," Cohen answered. "We are going to try and set forth a set of principles that will serve as a guide. And hopefully that guide will allow political leadership in this country and elsewhere. This is not something where the United States is advocating unilateral action. We are talking about the United States taking a lead to help shape public opinion - certainly domestically but also internationally. And this will involve multiple considerations, multiple political factors that have to be taken into account. We hope this endeavor will be successful in pursuing mass killings and genocide in the future."
"I also do think that it is important to recognize that even if terrible things happened in the past, they do not need to happen in the future," Albright said. "And that is what this is about. In no way does it put the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on anybody's behavior. On the contrary. It is to examine people's behavior. It is very important for us to move forward."
"It sounds as if you are both saying - if our friends do it, it is not genocide," said another reporter. "And if our enemies do it, it is genocide. A professor at the University of Haifa, Ilan Pappe, has written recently that he believes there is genocide ongoing in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. But you folks wouldn't agree with that because Israel is our friend and we couldn't say that about Israel. Secretary Cohen, you say - we can't say that about Turkey and the Armenian genocide because our boys and girls are in harm's way. If you are going to define genocide by who does it, not by what it is, your task force is in trouble."
"I don't know that even the UN has declared that genocide occurred in the Armenian situation," Cohen said. "We are trying to look forward rather than backwards. On the issue of whether genocide is taking place in the West Bank and Gaza - certainly that will be part of [what] the task force [is] looking at."
"Yes, there is an element of pragmatism," Cohen said. "If someone else's son or daughter is in harm's way, that is a factor that I as an American citizen and as a former Secretary of Defense would have to take into account. And would. And I think anyone serving public office necessarily has to have a set factors to take into account. It is not absolute. This will not be a document that says - this is when the line is crossed, this is the action that will be taken. These are going to be guidelines. They themselves will serve a valuable purpose. It will help to at least raise the issue to a level of both domestic and international concern - hopefully stirring action. That is our goal."
"When you are in the government, and you have to make very tough decisions, you have to look at the overall picture," Albright said. "Otherwise, we are not going to get off the ground. These are very, very hard issues. I would definitely not accept your definition - if friends do it, it's okay, and if enemies do it, it is not. I find that just an unacceptable premise. This task force is going to set forth guidelines for practical action by the United States government. Which is why we want to present this by the end of next year."
"You can have all kinds of emotional arguments why something is wrong and then you never get it off the ground," she said. "You ultimately have to take practical action. That is what is happening in the United States. We are not going to get ourselves into emotional appeals. Because that is not going to work. We are interested in practical steps."
"The experience of the Armenians does indeed conform with the UN Convention," another reporter shot back at Cohen. "In fact, Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of the genocide is the final stage of the genocide. The two of you have personally worked toward ascertaining that the United States government does not take a stand recognizing the Armenian genocide. This is of course based on real, practical political considerations, that you mentioned. However, taking on this new role, how can you reconcile your positions and the U.S. foreign policy? How can you provide credibility that your recommendations will be of use to the United States in its foreign policy and will not be words on a piece of paper that will be acceptable but the US will not follow up on?"
"You talk about political expediency," Cohen responded. "As Secretary of Defense, I had responsibility for every man and woman who was serving in our armed forces. And yes, I would have to take into account whether or not I was placing them in greater jeopardy in order to make a declaration for something that happened back between 1915 and 1923. I would have to weigh that. And frankly, I think the former Secretaries of Defense - Republicans and Democrats alike - all came to the same conclusion. We could not put our men and women in greater danger under these circumstances. Does that mean that we are not in a position to look forward and say - here are some of the things that happened in the past, here are some of the things we did not do in the past, here is something that needs to be done in the future? There is no absolute right or wrong. It's not all black and white. We are going to have to take these into account. You as a private citizen will be in a position to say - here is a document issued by this esteemed group. What do you Mr. President, what do you Mr. Secretary, intend to do about the atrocities currently taking place in x-country? Are your abdicating your moral leadership, abdicating the U.S. responsibility to lead? To gather and galvanize international support to do something - disinvestment in that particular country, condemning the leadership of that country? Having dealt with ethnic cleansing in the past, to take that experience, as well as what took place in Armenia, as well as what took place in Rwanda, now in Darfur, and say - this is how we have to lead on this issue."
"It's important to recognize what we said in the letter," Albright said. "While we were secretaries, we recognized that mass killings and forced exile had taken place, and we also said that the U.S. policy has been all along for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia on this particular issue. I do think that one of the things that this task force will ultimately recommend is that the parties to the problem have to acknowledge what happened. That is part of the issue. There is not one answer to fit all. This task force is about the future - about preventing genocide."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

25 Comments so far
Show AllWhat about our own little genocide here in Amerika when we wiped out the natives?
Why is that country our friend again since it spies on us, extracts billions of our tax dollars, bribes are politicans and our backing of them causes resentment throughout the Arab world?
bandido November 21st, 2007 12:59 pm
Oops! you missed a few! There are still many "native" Americans here. Shall we keep on with the same old complaints forever?
Done is done, feel bad about it.........and not speaking personally to you at all, but everybody that keeps talking about the bad things we/they/all of us did.........the endless cry for a nationwide "Mia Culpa" about this or that, serves no purpose.
The need for a national "Mia Culpa" serves a purpose when there never has been one. The lack of recognition/formal apology for the attrocities of the past are related to those of the present.
The attitudes towards Native Americans and Africans during the 15th-19th c. fed into the attitudes that led to the Monroe Doctrine. For example, the US' use of slavery as a mode of production led to its unease with an independent Haiti in 1790, and it's eventual interference in that island's affairs for the next century plus.
When I hear/read that sort of "what's done is done" nonsense, I often think... when have those wrongs ever been rectified? Freedom from slavery (or civil rights) is not rectifying. It is like punching a person repeatedly and thinking that everything should be OK with him when you stop punching him! All the while ignoring his wounds.
This is one more American myth created by the perpetrators of genocide. The world remembers the statement of Albright when the reality of scores of deaths of innocent Iraqi children due to the imperial and inhuman economic sanctions was brought to her notice. She said that it was worth paying a price for democracy (read: American democracy). These criminals claim that they want to take a lead role against genocide. Ironically, they do not want to acknowledge that the US IS FOUNDED ON THE GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS, and its genocidal activities in South and Central America, Africa, Middle East, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia.........
In a way this article is published in an appropriate time, where the entire America is celebrating the GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS as the THANKSGIVING DAY. A country that celebrates the GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS as a DAY OF THANKSGIVING AND FEASTING, INASTEAD OF A DAY OF MOURNING, REPENTANCE, AND FASTING, what else can one expect from Americans like Albright and Cohen, except defining "genocide" on the basis of who does it and its beneficial value to the US, instead of what it is.
"It's being convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace."
Have the latter two organizations been on sabbatical for the last seven years? Diplomacy/Peace? I've almost forgotten what they mean! Are they still in Webter's Dictionary or is Webster's just a "goddamned piece of paper" too?
Albright sure has chutzpah coming out against genocide after what she presided over in the 90's, where the sanctions against Iraq are estimated by the UN to have caused the deaths of 60,000 children under 5 years old per month for years - a total of some 700,000 - and this is over and above the rate that would normally have been expected. Add in other children and adults and the total goes to between 1-1.5 million in a country of 25 million. If this isn't genocide what is? Oops, forgot, can't be worried about the past now can we. The world once again will be appalled by American hypocrisy.
These people need to go back to college, and try to remember what they learned in courses in logic, linguistics and semantics, history and how to critically interpret various versions of it, before they pontificate about requirements of being "pragmatic".
I'm flabbergasted. First of all, I'm impressed that some reporters actually brought up the hypocrisy of all of this concern about genocide. Albright is most famous for drumming up the case for war on Yugoslavia-- on the basis of a fake genocide-- while rationalizing the Iraqi holocaust that she helped to engineer. The existence of the Holocaust museum on American soil (commemorating genocide carried out by others thousands of miles away, while ignoring our own travesties) and its faux "Committee of Conscience" screams out hypocrisy.
Second, I'm enormously impressed that these reporters actually cited relevant facts of history to make their case. I wish we had the names of these people so I could call them up to congratulate them. They should all get some kind of special Merit Badge for Speaking Truth to Power. They forced these Mandarins to admit--openly and literally-- that "political expediency" trumps Crimes Against Humanity.
And yet it makes me wonder. It makes my head spin, actually. They really know this history, don't they? They really see the hypocrisy, don't they? So, why don't these voices of reasoned skepticism ever emerge from the mainstream press? Where are these people doing when there is a White House Press Conference?
Cohen- There is no absolute right or wrong. It is not all black and white- I see. Genocide is somtimes grey and perhaps, just possible may, be OK. It's OK to use grey words, phrases, and labels to describe mass migration, famine, water, and resorce wars that land on your doorstep as the worlds population doubles and doubles again. It's progress through preservation; kill those that upset thine.
This is from another board:
Let me begin by stating that thousands of years before the "official" Thanksgiving Day was proclaimed by Governor Winthrop of the Massachussetts Bay Colony in 1637, North American Indigenous people across the continent had celebrated seasons of Thanksgiving. "Thanksgiving" is a very ancient concept to American Indian nations.
The big problem with the American Thanksgiving holiday is its false association with American Indian people. The infamous "Indians and pilgrims" myth. It is good to celebrate Thanksgiving, to be thankful for your blessings. It is not good to distort history, to falsely portray the origin of this holiday and lie about the truth of its actual inception.
Here are some accurate historical facts about the true origin of this American holiday that may interest
you..............................
"Thanksgiving" did not begin as a great loving relationship between the pilgrims and the Wampanoag, Pequot and Narragansett people. In fact, in October of 1621 when the "pilgrim" survivors of their first winter in Turtle Island sat down to share the first unofficial "Thanksgiving" meal, the Indians who were there were not even invited!
There was no turkey, squash, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie. A few days before this alleged feast took place, a company of "pilgrims" led by Miles Standish actively sought the head of a local Indian leader, and an 11 foot high wall was erected around the entire Plymouth settlement for the very purpose of keeping Indians out!
Officially, the holiday we know as"Thanksgiving" actually came into existence in the year 1637. Governor Winthrop of the Massachussetts Bay Colony proclaimed this first official day of Thanksgiving and feasting to celebrate the return of the colony's men who had arrived safely from what is now Mystic, Connecticut.
They had gone there to participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot men, women and children, and Mr. Winthrop decided to dedicate an official day of thanksgiving complete with a feast to "give thanks" for their great "victory" –
As hard as it may be to conceive, this is the actual origin of our current Thanksgiving Day holiday. Many American Indian people these days do not observe this holiday, for obvious reasons. I see nothing wrong with gathering with family to give thanks to whatever or whoever and sharing a meal.
I do, however, hope that Americans as a whole will one day acknowledge the true origin of this holiday, and remember the pain, loss, and agony of the Indigenous people who suffered at the hands of the so-called "pilgrims". It is my hope that children's plays about "the first Thanksgiving", complete with Indians and pilgrims chumming at the dinner table, will someday be a thing of the past.
Why perpetuate a lie? Let us face the truths of the past, and give thanks that we are learning to love one another for the rich human diversity we share.
The Americans are committing genocide in Iraq at this very moment. They have already killed over a million Iraqis in this war, plus 1.5 million with sanctions. By the time they are finally defeated in Iraq they will have more than likely killed 4-5 million. These people are sickening. They have no conscience at all.
What the hell!
This is the same Madeleine Albright that is quoted below:
Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."
COMMENT:
In 1991 the US Defense Intelligence Agency postulated that if the US destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq of such as the water supply, sewage, and electrical plants, thousands people would die, most of them children. The US government, armed with the knowledge that thousands of children would die, went ahead and destroyed such essential infrastructure - a war crime according to the Geneva Accords. Then the US prevented materials to repair the infrastructure destroyed by US bombs from getting into Iraq, the US bombed the plant that was the primary producer of medicines for Iraq, and the US prevented Iraq from importing medicines that could have saved the lives of the children that were dying because of the US bombings. All this in an attempt to get Iraq to change their government. That is genocide.
That is genocide by Geneva Accords and the dictionary definition (Merriam Webster III). And the genocide isn't in the past: it continues to this day as water and sewage plants remain unrepaired, as electricity is still unreliable, as hospitals still lack for adequate supplies, as medicines are still unavailable to many, as children and the elderly continue to die from these shortages, all because the US is still attempting to impose a government of its choosing over the Iraqi people. It is genocide continuing right now. Started by Republicans, continued by Democrats, and on-going right now because of both Democrats and Republicans.
Oh, yeah: and because the great complacent masses of American citizen consumer addicts sit back and let "their" government murder for profit. While a street thug may murder some one or two for their wallets, the US government is a mass murderer murdering millions of innocent people for the huge profit of a few, and low prices for the many.
By supporting and defending the genocide, Madeleine Albright is herself an accomplice in the crime of genocide.
Thomas More, how come we never hear "what's done is done" regarding the Jewish Holocaust? I've got to correct you regarding the "many" Native-Americans still alive: Compared to the number there were when the imperialist dominant society came here, there are barely any full-bloods left. Many Caucasians claim to be part Native, usually "Cherokee," to get free health care -- which is 95% inferior -- or other so-called benefits.
Let's not forget the tragic Iraqi genocide which started when George H.W. Bush gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade Kuwait until now, the genocide which is occurring under his son's dictatorship.
"The Genocide Prevention Task Force was unveiled at the National Press Club this morning.
The task force is being co-chair by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen."
It's like having Goebbels and Himmler heading up a war crimes tribunal... Yowzers. Is there no end to American hypocrisy?
Besides which, sweeping previous genocides under the rug does absolutely nothing to prevent future ones. In point of fact, it gives the perpetrators an out.
"Who, after all, speaks today of the annhilation of the Armenians?" - Adolf Hitler
I'm impressed by this task force's membership list of superannuated plutocrats and well-regarded senior statespersons. Ms. Albright's accomplishments have already been repeatedly noted. And let's not forget John Danforth's pious and unremitting sponsorship of Clarence "Lawn Jockey" Thomas for appointment to the Supreme Court, which demonstrates Danforth's profound dedication to social justice and the rule of law.
It's all very encouraging, although I think the article obscures a vital point. The impeccable membership roster gives away the game: the Genocide Prevention Task Force's mission is obviously to combat Genocide Prevention, not achieve it. Minor detail-- but important, I think.
And I'm a little disappointed to find Henry Kissinger's name missing from the participants mentioned in the report.
The sooner Henry's on board, the better. We all know that he brings a buttload of altruistic and humanitarian street cred to the table.
Perhaps we could all agree that pointing fingers in regard to genocide, without acknowledging our own history, reveals either hypocrisy or wilful blindness to our collective contribution to this hideous practice.
I am not suggesting that any country who has committed genocide must forgo its right to speak against it. Rather that as human beings, our condemnation would resonate more authentically if it was made in the context of accepting the collective responsibility for past "sins" and a commitment to raising the consciousness of all the human family in the process. We can do this by example---by affirming life in all of it's complexity and diversity, celebrating our inter-connectedness and inter-relatedness.
When the mistaken concept of "the other" is replaced by ONENESS, we will have made a huge leap forward as human beings.
""The fact is that all of us who signed were concerned about the level of killings and the human suffering that took place between 1915 and 1923,"
This, from a Cohen? With Albright at his side...?
ROF...LMAO...!
Yeah...where is Henry? And Olmert?
[Crypto-Jewish young-Turks were behind that planned-genocide of Armenians to begin-with (no doubt bankrolled by the Rothschild's and their-ilk, who were also behind most-every 'genocide' since the mid-1800's -- if not-before -- and 'Yes', that includes the Holocaust/'big-one'...which was a 'burnt-offering' of Jews who "turned-away" from that all-important 'Third-Temple', as Moshe Dayan liked to call-it...).]
I stopped reading this horse shit about a third of the way down. The corporatocracy just keeps all of these buffoons from Albright to Zinni around for a good laugh. They have absolutely no credibility with anybody. Anyone with any knowledge at all who finds themself in their vicinity just bursts out laughing at the very sight of them and moves on over to the canape platter.
fresh1 said:
"They really know this history, don't they? They really see the hypocrisy, don't they? So, why don't these voices of reasoned skepticism ever emerge from the mainstream press?"
Do they really know this history? The "establishment" who ever they are just keep on with their same old song and the voices heard by most on common dreams are locked out. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee make out they have differences whilst they serve the same money masters. They dare not allow the truth to contaminate their two headed money party.
Leaving aside the fact that Albright is a war criminal, I see no mention of the genocide against Palestinians.
Though our aggression in Iraq qualifies more as mass murder than intentional genocide, the contamination of that country with DU, and chemical weapons makes it a genocidal policy as well.
Two questions:
-Where were these reporters with their tough questions in the lead up to the Iraq invasion?
-Instead of setting up a whole new ineffectual international bureaucracy, why doesn't the US simply join the International Criminal Court and give it original jurisdiction in war crimes and/or genocide cases?
Hi WmC,
Answers for you:
- Reporters are paid by how well they follow their bosses direction
- Investigating stories that are on a "blackballed' list will get one fired
- Justice is hardly desired when the gov't in question is the perpetrator
- Providing the facts of the real situation is tantamount to proving ourselves (our gov't) is a w ar cri min al
Namaste
Jaded Prole... you said, "Leaving aside the fact that Albright is a war criminal, I see no mention of the genocide against Palestinians."
Um... that's because there is no genocide against the Palestinians. Not be any stretch of the imagination, especially considering you don't see Iraq as such. Israel's policy has always been to limit Palestinian civilian casualties as much as possible, and if you compare the amount of collateral damage in Iraq to Palestine, you'll see that it is true.
When you casually term everything genocidal when you really mean brutal or even criminal, you dilute the meaning of the word.