{Etymologically the term “genocide” – in English genocide– is a compound word from the Greek “genus” and the Latin “cide” meaning to kill.
Tthe crime of "genocide", without, of course, having been officially characterized as such until his intervention ΟΗΕ, has its roots in ancient times and happened several times in different places and on different occasions {eg. Cartagena, Rome, Milos etc.}.
But even in recent history, cases of genocide have been recorded {e.g. Greeks of Asia Minor, Pontians, Armenians, Kurds, Indians, Blacks, Jews etc.}. But, essentially, it was after World War II that the problem was officially addressed by the international community and its treatment institutionalized. But also during the Second World War, the public opinion of some countries, especially organizations that dealt with human rights, experiencing the horror of this crime, had become aware, and it was reasonable with the establishment of the UN to seek the creation of an international institution for the prevention and his punishment. As early as 1945 the 4 M. Powers agreed that those responsible for 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 of highlighting by the international community the crime of genocide and its institutional status by the UN was taken by the Jewish-Polish Prosecutor, Professor and Advisor to the Ministry of Defense of USA Dr. Raphael Lemkin, who, after studying the genocides of Armenians, Pontians, etc., invented in English the mixed name, half Greek (geno=genus), half Latin (cide=kill), and managed, after the "holocaust" of the Jews by the Nazis, to convince human rights protection organizations to put pressure on the UN to draw up and approve an international convention condemning the practice of genocide as a crime.
Dr. himself. Lemkin, who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the ICC Legal Council, managed to do so a decade later at the UN. Regarding the term genocide, he stated that: "genocide is a new concept. To answer why genocide is a new crime we must consider whether it is based on specific elements of a crime, that is, a specific criminal intent, a specific object, a specific technique of execution, and finally, specific consequences of the crime.
The effects of genocide in 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 effects are the destruction of the moral and legal machinery. Genocide causes immediate destruction in countries beyond those in which it is committed. It causes violent and disorganized flight of masses of people seeking escape from the threat of death or persecution. Genocide is responsible for disturbing the demographic balance of populations throughout the world." This is exactly what is happening today! Churchill had characteristically stated about the genocide that: "the world has come face to face with a crime that has no name".
The first action within the UN towards the recognition of the crime and punishment of genocide took place on 2 November 1946 when the representatives of India, Cuba and Panama asked the Secretary General to include this issue in the Agenda of the General Assembly. Subsequently, the Economic and Social Council of the UN elaborated a draft resolution (no. 96), unanimously voted by the General Assembly, by which genocide was declared 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 (notably, 10 December was established as International Genocide Day of Human Rights!) and entered into force on 12 January 1951 when the required number of states (20) ratified it. Notably, Greece, through its Delegation in the Third Committee of the Third Assembly, strongly supported the Convention and voted for it. Her contribution to the preparation of the text with Professors Ioannis Spyropoulos and Petros Vallindas as lecturers and editors was also important.
According to the Convention, the term genocide means: "the execution of certain acts with the intention of destroying - in whole or in part - a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such". And the actions that constitute genocide are: "1) the murder of members of the group, 2) the infliction of serious physical or mental harm on members of the group, 3) the intentional imposition on the group of living conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in total or in part, 4) the imposition of measures with the intention of preventing childbearing within the group, 5) the forcible transfer of children of the group to another group'. Article 1 of the Convention states that "genocide is, under International Law, an international crime whether committed in time of peace or war" and UN member states undertake to prevent and punish genocide.
Also, according to the Convention, the member states undertake: "1) to enact the necessary laws in order to implement its provisions, in particular with regard to effective punishment, 2) to try the persons accused of such crimes in the competent national courts , 3) to extradite these persons since 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 will be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals", and thus apportions the responsibility to the individual and therefore no one can be invoked as a pretext the "order from above". The following acts are also considered hellish: 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.
The attitude of the two Superpowers, the USA and the USSR, regarding the text of the Convention is noteworthy and characteristic. The first, while supporting, in theory, the acceptance of the Convention, in practice saw to it that certain points, such as the assignment of powers to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the validity of the Convention in non-independent areas, etc. to weaken. Also noteworthy is the fact that the USA ratified the Convention in November 1988 and this, according to experts, because the policy and activities of certain governments of this country in the distant past regarding Indians, "blacks" etc., but and later in other cases, which may have the characteristics of genocide, they had a restraining 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 effects on the very sensitive issue of its national sovereignty. Moreover, the policy and activities of some leaders of the USSR (Stalin et al.) regarding population groups in Union countries during WWII 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 incite racial hatred, etc. was not included in the text, and he particularly emphasized the "organic relationship of genocide with fascism, Nazism and other racist theories" and recommended the condemnation of what he called "cultural genocide". It also pointed out the omission of provision for "cultural genocide, "which is less obvious and brutal, but wider and deeper as it erodes and is insidious in depriving an entire people of its culture and history." China also criticized the omission of provision for "cultural genocide". But "cultural genocide" was seen as an abstract and vague concept and was rejected.
The US argued that this type of genocide should be considered in relation to the protection of minorities. However, with Greek intervention, the forcible movement of children (pedomazoma) was readjusted to be considered an act of cultural genocide. The U.K. expressed the view that it is an illusion that such a convention would create a climate of security or reduce existing risks, but supported it.
Article 3 did not include preparatory acts to amount to genocide unless they were obvious. Furthermore, the attempt was considered sufficient evidence of genocide regardless of the outcome. As for the motivation, it must be direct and public. The Soviet proposal to take action against organizations as a means of preventing genocide was rejected, particularly by the US, on the grounds that this would give too much power to the central administration. 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.
Interesting is the statement of the Executive Secretary of the US Council for Civil Rights, Mr. Patterson, who said that: "and if we have not yet achieved the 'government of the people' of which the immortal Lincoln spoke, yet there are victories which the united power of the people can win today". {This is indeed very topical and instructive for the American people themselves with what is happening in the same and also from this great country in terms of material strength}. Anyway, the issue of genocide is huge and serious, with very delicate and sensitive aspects, especially how a crime is proven to be indeed genocide.
Of course, many times the experts, as well as the public, know whether a crime is genocide, but proving it in a court of law is indeed very difficult. And it is known from the Convention that when there is a dispute about the jurisdiction of a court an appeal 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 above Court if national courts fail.
In 2005 the General Assembly adopted the decision "Responsibility for Protection" (Responsibility to Protect) to deal with crimes of genocide, war, ethnic cleansing and against humanity.
In parentheses, 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 - until now, of the 193 member states of the UN, only 45 have ratified it while the rest have simply signed or acceded to it! China and India have not signed while Russia has signed but not ratified and has withdrawn its signature. 35 states have not ratified while Israel, Sudan and the US have withdrawn their signature and are not participating. The ICC only has jurisdiction when the accused is a national of a member state or if the SA refers the matter to the ICC, which is independent unlike the International Court of Justice.
However, its Statute provides certain powers to the SA. To date the ICC has investigated 4 cases: Northern Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, and Barfour. He has indicted 14 people, 7 of whom remain at large, 2 have died and 5 are in custody. The latest conviction involved the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba, who was not only convicted of crimes against humanity, but also given a second trial for illegally trying to influence 14 witnesses.
Regarding current complaints about the war in Ukraine and Gaza, the following developments were observed: For the war in Ukraine, the European Parliament called on the EU to take all necessary measures to establish a Special Court to prosecute those responsible for Russia and Belarus for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. The ICC and Ukraine agreed on the operation of an ICC office in Ukraine and issued an arrest warrant for Putin.
Regarding the war in Gaza, South Africa appealed to the ICC accusing Israel of genocide and the ICC called on Israel to ensure that its armed forces do not commit genocide against Palestinians and the ICC Attorney General announced his intention to ask the ICC to issue a warrant against Netanyahu and Hamas.
In terms of past known genocides, only 5 states have recognized the Pontic genocide plus 12 states in the US, 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 powerful expediencies and thus, for understandable reasons, it is downplayed or forgotten when it comes to small, powerless countries, while, on the contrary, when it comes to political and strategic claims and entanglements of large countries, or small but with powerful patrons, as in the case of the Balkans and the Middle East, then the issue acquires enormous dimensions becoming an object of politics, etc. distortion and piracy, so that, e.g. leaders in the Balkans, who defended the "Saints and Loyalists" of their Homeland, to be dragged to the International Court of Justice as war criminals or "genocide" to vindicate the famous Latin saying "VAE VICTIS”, while others stay in the bulletproof area.
And the unacceptable behavior of the infamous is known CNN, which followed a policy of two standards and two stations, and this demonstrates the enormous crypto-fascist ability of some media to distort facts and disorient public opinion. In relation to other flagrant cases of genocide, e.g. of the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Armenians from the Young Turks, the Jews, Gypsies, etc. from the Nazis in WW2, the Ukrainians from 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, in which some leaders in small countries are vulnerable, there is no solid political will to address the issue effectively. On the contrary, some invest in genocides and this, among other things, highlights the extent of the decadence of various leaderships!
In particular, with regard to the mass massacres of the Greeks of Asia Minor by the Young Turks (my related article was published in "E" on April 25, 2002 and my interview on ERT 3), according to all international data they undoubtedly constitute genocide. And, unfortunately, it continues against the Kurds, Syrians, et al. who are resisting the new "Ottoman Empire" and other crypto-imperialist regimes.
And, of course, the fact that some people with a fluid conscience, for known or unknown reasons, distort historical data and talk about "overcrowding" and "ethnic cleansing" causes shyness, but also justified indignation. As much as γfor ethnic cleansing, which means the forcible displacement of populations (Ethnic cleansing) there is such - perhaps intentional - ambiguity that it is troubling.
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!
According to the International Association of Scholars IAGS-1994) which deals with the crime of genocide, in a resolution in 2007 expresses his conviction that "The Ottoman campaign against the Christian minorities between 1914 and 1923 constitutes genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, Pontians and Greeks of the East". They also call on the Government of Turkey to recognize the genocide against these populations, to formally apologize and to take timely and substantial measures for compensation. But, when there are people (sad, subservient and indentured servants) who, instead of criticizing and condemning the genocide of the Pontians and Greeks, rename it "overcrowding", what should outsiders say?
In conclusion, epigrammatically, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which characterizes it as a crime against humanity, is an important political, social, legal and cultural progress, a valuable weapon of the world community to deal with such crimes. But, unfortunately, to a large extent, the Convention is ignored or artificially violated, misinterpreted and falsified.
If we carefully investigate the tragic events in the Middle East and especially in Syria, where the horrific crime of genocide is committed almost daily under the apathetic, amused or hypocritical gaze of the supposedly democratic leaders of the Great and others. Powers, we will see the extent of the decline: Arms, oil, etc. energy etc. resources have become more valuable than people, and international society has mutated into a vast HUMAN RESOURCE where some privileged, corrupt, inhuman circuits instead of coal "mine" people and exploit them. What tragedy and decadence!
Really, how did the Jihadists, the Houthis, etc. appear? From parthenogenesis or from an unknown Galaxy? Or have we reached and not realized the tragic limit of the human condition, the terrible phenomenon of the mutation of people into monsters, draculas or ORK? Who and how recruits, subsidizes, trains, drugs 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 disintegrate certain selected countries for strategic, economic, etc. reasons. feasibility.
Why don't they solve the problem at its root - and they can - but invest in its perpetuation by the "lords of the rings", the substitutes of God on Earth? Society has returned to the tragically primitive and barbaric"Homo homini lupus is”? What hubris! And the UN, which can provide the solution, is being undermined by dark organized interests! Why is war not declared outlawed as it was proposed in 1928 in the League of Nations by the then Foreign Ministers of America and France Kellogg-Brian, but was undermined by the industrial and commercial arms establishment? Why is the infamous veto in the SA not removed, which is a brake on decision-making for peace?
Why is the famous Peace Guide not implemented (Events for Peace) of the late UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that would have prevented the tragedies we are facing? Unfortunately, the "authorities" have been corrupted, and fed up with the arrogance of power, and ruthlessly continue the destructive course for humanity. Orwell was justified in prophesying that in our time war will be considered peace! Consider the genocidal military operation by the Turks against the Kurds in Syria to have been called a "fountain of peace." Mercy! “Fountain of hell, yes!
As for our own attitude, that our Motherland has been a victim of genocide, it has been proven that when we behave with responsibility, meritocracy, transparency, seriousness (not seriousness) and sympathy, without wavering, dictated by foreign pressures or complexes of guilt and insecurity, as well and ignorance, indifference, incompetence, willful blindness, voluntarism and divisive mentality, cultivated by partisans, para-partisans, etc. circuits of authoritarianism and profiteering, then we can be optimistic, but optimistic realistically and competitively to proactively and effectively deal with such terrible phenomena! However, when a university professor and member of parliament characterizes the genocidal persecution of the Greeks of Smyrna et al. from the Turks "overcrowding", what advance can we expect?
In closing, I would like to ask, quite theoretically, apart from the Convention, whether the following can be considered a form of implicit genocide: Intentionally induced displacement, adulteration of the food chain, environmental pollution, nuclear testing and nuclear waste , the use of chemical and biological weapons, the drug trade, social injustice, brainwashing with subculture and violent films, social exclusion, targeting specific groups of people resulting in suicides and preventing births, the intentional transmission of epidemic diseases?
Maybe, after all, the Convention should be revised to include some more modern forms of genocide because, with all the ridiculous and unimaginable things happening around us, the Convention may have been outdated in some areas and needs to be enriched with new data? "Here is a field of brilliant glory" for the experts! Finally, let me ask: There are dozens of NGOs dealing with the issue of genocide at the international level. What have they achieved? Are they satisfied with the results, and if not how do they react, what is the result? Why some powerful countries, supposedly "democratic", have not yet recognized the genocides against the Armenians, Pontians, etc.? Disappointing! "{Quid Prodest? ("Who does he serve?") asked the Latinos!
Ultimately, the conclusion is that the 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 homicidal war materials, and it is not possible to transport basic necessities and know-how to deal with the tragic and dramatic problems in many areas of the planet , and establish peace? The political will is obviously absent, as has been said. The reason is well known: power mania, profiteering, etc.
The ending, as we said, Homo homini lupus! Inhumans, if the term is a cadet. On the occasion of 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 Republic of Cyprus and for the EEZ etc. the conversion of Hagia Sophia and other Churches into mosques, and with the cynical, criminal tolerance of the powerful, as well as the ongoing tragedies in Ukraine and Gaza, should we be preparing for Armageddon?
There is an axiom in International Relations that the present system of rigid competition (capitalist) cannot survive without rivals, enemies, because it provokes them, invents them, creates them. And according to authoritative journalistic information, the war in Ukraine generated, until 2023, 250 billion dollars for US weapons systems companies. People have lost their value in the face of profit and power mania. And the global indifference in red! Therefore, if planet Earth is destroyed, it will not be the ozone hole that is to blame, but the "hole" in human consciousness, especially the powerful (if any).—
