Due to the tragic events in various parts of the world, some of which are related to the international crime of genocide, some relevant information may be useful.
Etymologically, the term "genocide" is a compound word from the Greek "γένος" and the Latin "cide" which means to kill.
The crime of "genocide", without, of course, having been officially characterized as such until the intervention of the UN, has its roots in ancient times and occurred several times in various places and on different occasions {e.g. Carthage, Rome, Milos, etc.}. But in more recent history, cases of genocide have also been recorded {e.g. Greeks of Asia Minor, Pontians, Armenians, Kurds, Indians, Blacks, Jews, etc.}. However, it was essentially after World War II that the problem was officially addressed by the international community and its treatment was institutionalized. But also during World War II, public opinion in certain countries, especially organizations dealing with human rights, experiencing the horror of this crime, had become aware of it, and it was reasonable with the establishment of the UN to seek the creation of an international institution for its prevention and punishment. Already in 1945, the 4 Great Powers agreed that the individuals responsible for the Nazi policy should be punished, in addition to other violations of International Law, etc., and for crimes against humanity committed against civilians before or during the War.
The initiative to highlight the crime of genocide by the international community and its institutional status by the UN was taken by the Jewish-Polish Prosecutor, Professor and Advisor to the US Department of Defense, Dr. Raphael Lemkin, who, after studying the Armenian, Pontic, etc. genocides, invented the mixed name in English, half Greek (geno=race), half Latin (cide=to kill), and managed, after the "holocaust" of the Jews by the Nazis, to convince human rights organizations to pressure the UN to draft and approve an international convention condemning the practice of genocide as a crime. Dr. himself Lemkin, who had unsuccessfully tried to convince the League of Nations Legal Council, succeeded a decade later in the UN. Regarding the term genocide, he stated that: "genocide is a new concept. To answer why genocide is a new crime we must examine whether it is based on specific elements of the crime, namely specific criminal intent, specific object, specific technique of execution, and, finally, specific consequences of the crime. The effects of genocide on a country where it is committed are devastating as genocide can be effectively committed in most cases by a government or with the help of the government and its immediate results are the destruction of the moral and legal machinery. Genocide causes immediate destruction in countries beyond those in which it is committed. It causes a violent and disorganized flight of masses of people seeking escape from the threat of death or persecution. Genocide is responsible for disrupting the demographic balance of populations throughout the world. " This is exactly what is happening today! And Churchill had stated about genocide that: "the world came face to face with a crime that has no name."
The first action within the UN framework towards the recognition and punishment of genocide was taken on 2 November 1946 when the representatives of India, Cuba and Panama requested the Secretary-General to include this issue in the Agenda of the General Assembly. Subsequently, the UN Economic and Social Council prepared a draft resolution (No. 96), which was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly, declaring genocide an international crime. The Council prepared a draft Convention on the crime of genocide, which, after being studied by a special committee of experts and amended by the Legal Committee, was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948 in Paris (it should be noted that on 10 December International Human Rights Day was established!) and entered into force on 12 January 1951 when the required number of states (20) ratified it. It should be noted that Greece, through its Delegation to the Third Committee of the General Assembly, strongly supported the Convention and voted in favour of it. Its contribution to the preparation of the text, with Professors Spyropoulos and Vallindas as Rapporteurs and drafters, was also significant.
According to the Convention, the term genocide means: “the commission of certain acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. The acts that constitute genocide are: “1) killing members of the group, 2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, 3) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, 4) imposing measures intended to prevent the birth of children within the group, 5) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Article 1 of the Convention states that “genocide is considered, in accordance with international law, an international crime whether committed in time of peace or war” and the UN Member States undertake the obligation to prevent and punish genocide”. Also, according to the Convention, the Member States are committed: “1) to enact the necessary laws with a view to implementing its provisions, in particular with regard to effective punishment, 2) to try persons accused of such crimes in the competent national courts, 3) to extradite such persons, given that acts of genocide are not considered political crimes”. Article IV of the Convention is an extremely important, radical text because it declares that: “those guilty of the crime of genocide shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”, and thus apportions responsibility to the individual and therefore no one can invoke as a pretext the “order from above”. The following acts are also considered punishable: 1) “conspiracy to commit genocide, 2) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, 3) attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide”.
It must be pointed out that the purpose of the General Assembly to create a separate Convention on genocide by making this crime prosecuted separately from other crimes, is due to the fact that genocide presented special characteristics, because according to the reasoning of the competent committee, genocide: "constitutes a denial of existence of entire human groups" and therefore: 1) the victim of the crime is a human group and is not a larger or smaller number of people affected for a particular reason (taking hostages), but a group as such, 2) it concerns the actual destruction of a group and not in restricting, mistreating or oppressing the group, 3) the destruction of the human group is the real purpose. In the case of foreign or civil war one side may inflict extremely heavy casualties on the other, but the purpose is to impose its will on the other side, not to destroy it. Also, according to the Nuremberg Charter, crimes against humanity cannot be punished unless they were committed in execution or in preparation for aggressive war. In contrast, General Assembly Resolution 96, which affirms that genocide is a crime under International Law which the civilized world condemns, does not place conditions or reservations on this declaration, and the Convention does not limit itself to recognizing the right of states to punish genocide, but compels them to do so. Furthermore, the Convention is not only concerned with the punishment of genocide, but also with its prevention. There is also an Office at the UN for the prevention and punishment of genocide.
In 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution “Responsibility to Protect” to address mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
The stance of the two Superpowers, the USA and the USSR, regarding the text of the Convention is noteworthy and characteristic. The first, while theoretically supporting the acceptance of the Convention, in practice ensured that certain points, such as the assignment of competences to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the validity of the Convention in non-independent territories, etc., were weakened. Also noteworthy is the fact that the USA ratified the Convention in November 1988, and this, according to experts, was because the policy and activities of certain governments of that country in the distant past regarding Indians, "blacks", etc., but also later in other cases, which may have the characteristics of genocide, had a inhibiting effect. The same applies to the case of the former. USSR, which also supported the Convention, but reacted regarding the competences of the International Court of Justice in The Hague fearing negative repercussions on the very sensitive issue of its national sovereignty. Moreover, the policy and activities of some leaders of the USSR (Stalin, etc.) regarding population groups in the countries of the Union during World War II and after, which may have the characteristics of genocide, are also known. The same applies to other countries with colonial or totalitarian regimes. The USSR protested because certain factors such as propaganda, which aims to provoke racial hatred, etc. was not included in the text, and particularly emphasized the “organic relationship of genocide with fascism, Nazism and other racist theories” and suggested the condemnation of, as it characterized, “cultural genocide”. Also, the omission of provision for “cultural genocide, “which is admittedly less obvious and brutal, but is broader and deeper as it erodes and is insidious, depriving an entire people of its culture and history”. However, “cultural genocide” was considered an abstract and vague concept and was rejected. The USA argued that this type of genocide should be examined in relation to the protection of minorities. However, with Greek intervention, the forcible transfer of children was readjusted to be considered an act of cultural genocide. The UK expressed the view that it was an illusion that such a convention would create a climate of security or reduce existing dangers, but supported it. Article 3 did not include preparatory acts to constitute genocide unless they were manifest. Furthermore, an attempt was considered sufficient evidence of genocide regardless of the result. As for incitement, it must be direct and public. The Soviet proposal to take measures against organizations as a means of preventing genocide was rejected by the USA on the grounds that this would give too much power to the central government. Most countries supported the text without reservations.
As far as some Great Powers are concerned, the reasonable conclusion is that their leaderships were guilty of the "crimes" of the past and wanted by all means to prevent the revival of nightmarish memories and the possible moral and political, but especially legal and economic, consequences. And this explains the pressure they exert on small countries to avoid raising the issue that bothers them, e.g. Turkey's genocides.
The statement of the Executive Secretary of the US Civil Rights Council, Mr. Patterson, is interesting, who said that: "and if we have not yet achieved the "government of the people" that the immortal Lincoln spoke of, there are victories that the united power of the people can win today". {This is indeed very timely and instructive for the American people themselves with what is happening in the same and in this great material power country}. In any case, the issue of genocide is huge and serious, with very subtle and sensitive aspects, especially how a crime is proven to be genocide. Of course, many times experts, as well as public opinion, know whether a crime is genocide, but proving it in court is indeed very difficult. And it is known from the Convention that when there is a disagreement regarding the jurisdiction of a court, recourse must be made to the International Court of Justice. With the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 1998 {International Conference in Rome} following the tragic developments in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc., the issue of genocide is simplified from a procedural point of view because it is now within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned Court if national courts fail. Parenthetically, it is worth mentioning the eloquent statement of UN Secretary-General Annan, before the end of his term, that “the genocide in Rwanda could have been prevented”. No comment!
However – and it is tragic – so far, of the 193 UN member states, only 45 have ratified it, while the rest have simply signed it or acceded to it! Notably, only 5 states have recognized the Pontic genocide plus 12 states in the USA, 4 in Australia and 10 in Canada. And only 29 states have recognized the Armenian genocide. No comment! However, unfortunately, the problem of genocide has also been caught in the tug of war of the interests of the powerful and thus, for understandable reasons, is downgraded or forgotten when it comes to small, weak countries, while, on the contrary, when it comes to political and strategic claims and entanglements of large countries, or small ones with powerful protectors, as in the case of the Balkans and the Middle East. East, then the issue acquires enormous dimensions, becoming the subject of political, etc. distortion and manipulation, so that, e.g., leaders in the Balkans, who defended the "Holy and Saints" of their Homeland, are dragged to the International Court of Justice as war criminals or "genocide" in order to justify the famous Latin saying "VAE VICTIS", while others remain unscathed. And the unacceptable behavior of the notorious CNN, which followed a policy of double standards, is well known and this demonstrates the enormous crypto-fascist ability of certain media to distort facts and disorient public opinion. In connection with other blatant cases of genocide, e.g. of the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Armenians by the Young Turks, of the Jews, Gypsies, etc. by the Nazis in World War II, Ukrainians, etc. by the Stalin regime, the Chinese for Tibet, but also other cases in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, it is understandable that, apparently due to external pressures, to which some leaders in small countries are vulnerable, there is no stable political will to deal with the issue effectively. On the contrary, some invest in genocides and this, among other things, highlights the extent of the decline of various leaderships!
In particular, regarding the mass massacres of the Greeks of Asia Minor by the Young Turks (my relevant article was published in "E" on April 25, 2002), according to all international data, they undoubtedly constitute genocide. And, unfortunately, it continues against the Kurds, Syrians, etc. who resist the new "Ottoman Empire" and other crypto-imperialist regimes. And, of course, it causes embarrassment, but also justified indignation, the fact that some individuals of fluid consciousness, for known-unknown reasons, distort historical data and talk about "overcrowding" and "ethnic cleansing". As for ethnic cleansing, which means the violent movement of populations (Ethnic cleansing), there is such -perhaps intentional- ambiguity that is troubling.
Certainly, however, the condemnation of such crimes today should not be taken as a condemnation of the current leaders and people of the country in which or from which these crimes were committed. Unless current leaders justify or distort them and wish to continue them, like the new-Sultan, who, among other neo-imperialist delusions, demanded - listen, listen - that the headquarters of the UN be moved to Istanbul! Well, he's challenging for obvious reasons. But, why do the other leaders of democratic countries tolerate such phenomena? Do they serve them? However, some other, commendable leaders of some countries have apologized for their country's "crimes" in the past and this shows their level of civilization and - most importantly - that the sufferings should be lessons so that the present and future generations do not again victims of a sick mentality because of which humanity has mourned many tens of millions of human souls apart from the rest of the tragic consequences. And as someone wise said: "the peoples who have not learned from their history are doomed to live it again". Besides, why not assume that the non-admission of past "sins" can reasonably be interpreted as an alibi for their forgiveness, but also for their continuation? Also, what is alienating, and troubling, and which can perhaps be interpreted in Freudian terms, is the sad fact that some regimes, whose people have been victims of genocide, have mutated into perpetrators because of their corruption in the extracorporeal tubes of the arrogance of power! What moral decay!
In conclusion, in summary, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which characterizes it as a crime against humanity, constitutes significant political, social, legal and cultural progress, a valuable weapon for the global community to confront such crimes. But, unfortunately, to a large extent, the Convention is ignored or deliberately violated, misinterpreted and distorted. If we carefully investigate the tragic events in M. East and especially in Syria, where the horrible crime of genocide is committed almost daily under the apathetic, indifferent or hypocritical gaze of the supposedly democratic leaderships of Great Powers, etc. Forces, we will see the extent of the decline: Weapons, oil, etc. energy, etc. Resources have become more valuable than people, and international society has transformed into an immense HUMAN MINE where some privileged, corrupt, inhumane circles, instead of coal, "mine" people and exploit them. What tragedy and decline! Really, how did the Jihadists appear? From virgin birth or from an unknown Galaxy? Or have we reached and not realized it the tragic limit of human existence, the terrible phenomenon of the mutation of people into monsters, into drakes or ORCs? Who and how recruits, funds, trains them to commit the most heinous crimes without mercy? And one of the tragic consequences is the refugee waves that were methodically caused and tend to overwhelm and destroy certain selected countries for strategic, economic, etc. reasons. expediencies. Why don't they solve the problem at its root - and they can - but instead invest in its perpetuation by the "Lords of the Rings", the substitutes of God on Earth? Has society returned to the tragically primitive and barbaric "Homo homini lupus est"? What HYBRID! And the UN, which can offer the solution, is being undermined by dark organized interests! Why is war not declared illegal as was proposed in 1928 in the League of Nations by the then Foreign Ministers of America and France, Kellogg-Briand, but was undermined by the industrial and commercial armaments establishment? Why is the notorious veto in the Security Council not abolished, which is a brake on decision-making for peace? Why is the famous Agenda for Peace of the late UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali not being implemented, which would have prevented the tragedies we are facing? Unfortunately, the "authorities" have become corrupt and sold out by the arrogance of power and are ruthlessly continuing their destructive course for humanity. Orwell was right when he prophesied that in our time war will be considered peace! Consider the Turkish genocidal military operation against the Kurds in Syria being called a "source of peace." Mercy! "Source of hell, yes!" Regarding our own attitude, that our Homeland has been a victim of genocide, it has been proven that when we behave with responsibility, meritocracy, transparency, seriousness (not seriousness) and coherence, without hesitations, which are dictated by foreign pressures or complexes of guilt and insecurity, as well as ignorance, irrelevance, incompetence, willful blindness, servitude and a divisive mentality, which is cultivated by partisans, para-partisans, etc. circuits of power-hungry and profit-hungry, then we can be optimistic, but optimistic realistically and competitively in order to proactively and effectively confront such terrible phenomena!
In closing, I would like to ask, purely theoretically, beyond the Convention, whether the following can be considered a form of implicit genocide: Deliberately induced displacement, food chain tampering, environmental pollution, nuclear testing and nuclear waste, the use of chemical and biological weapons, drug trafficking, social injustice, brainwashing with subculture and violence films, social exclusion, which is directed at specific groups of people resulting in suicides and birth prevention, the deliberate transmission of epidemic diseases? Should the Convention ultimately be revised to include some more modern forms of genocide because, with all the ridiculous and unthinkable things happening around us, the Convention may have become outdated in certain areas and needs to be enriched with new data? “Here is a bright field of glory” for the experts! Finally, let me ask: There are dozens of NGOs at the international level that deal with the issue of genocide. What have they achieved? Are they satisfied with the results, and if not, how do they react, what is the result? Why have certain powerful countries, supposedly “democratic”, not yet recognized the genocides against the Armenians, Pontians, etc.? Disappointing! “Quid Prodest? (“Who does it serve?”) the Latins asked!
Ultimately, the conclusion is that political will is absent. How is it possible to transport from one end of the world to the other, in a few days or weeks, all kinds of man-made war materials, and it is not possible to transport essential items and know-how to address the tragic and dramatic problems in many areas of the planet, and to establish peace? Obviously, as has been said, political will is absent. The reason is well known: power-mania, greed, etc. The end result, as we said before, Homo homini lupus! Wild men, if the term is valid. Given the paranoid, neo-imperialist actions of the new Sultan in Syria, some of which can be characterized as genocide, as well as those in the Cypriot EEZ, and with the criminal tolerance of the powerful, should we not be preparing for Armageddon? And if planet Earth is destroyed, it will not be the ozone hole that is to blame, but the "hole" in human consciousness, especially that of the powerful (if it exists).
photo Image license by freepik.com
