Looking Back, Moving Forward: An Interview with Roger Smith

Interview by Khatchig Mouradian
September 1, 2004
http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/interviews.htm

The best way to move forward is through looking backward, it is said. This might not be a good idea when you are driving a car, but whenever "backward" signifies turning your eyes toward the past, memory or history, this statement rings as true as any established cliché.

"The Armenian Genocide provides many clues to why contemporary genocide occurs, what its warning signs are, and thus offers some hope, that if the nations will act, genocide in the making can be prevented," says Professor Roger Smith in this interview. In a world plagued with genocide and ethnic cleansing, we, the human race, have often failed to look back, acknowledge our mistakes, learn from them, and hence move forward. Unfortunately, world leaders today are more interested in making history - no matter how twisted it comes out to be - than learning from it. "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history," said George Bernard Shaw.

According to Paul Valery, "History is the science of what never happens twice." Yes, probably Armenians will not be marched to the desert and slaughtered again. But as Armenians continue to reflect on the uprooting and the near extermination of their people in 1915, they cannot help but see the path that led humanity to the Holocaust, to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and most recently, Darfur.

"Perpetrators of genocide have learned from their own "study" of genocide that they can commit the crime under the cover of war, in the name of self-defense, will receive impunity, can deny that they committed genocide, and that the world will forget," says Roger Smith. The message is loud and clear. If you want to have the killing of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire acknowledged worldwide, if you want the millions of Jews and Gypsies slaughtered in Europe to rest in peace, then do something about
Darfur now! And act in a way so as to prove that Bernard Shaw was wrong and that Paul Valery was right.

Roger W. Smith is Professor Emeritus at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he taught courses in political philosophy and the comparative study of genocide. Educated at Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley, Smith has written widely on the nature, history, and the possibilities of preventing genocide. He has dealt, among other topics, with the roles of gender, denial, and the thirty-five year-long reluctance of the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention that was broken only in 1988. Smith has written the introduction to a recent edition of "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" (first published in 1918), a classic account of the Armenian Genocide. His other works include "Women and Genocide" and "Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide," both published in the journal Holocaust and Genocide studies in 1994 and 1995 respectively. One of Prof. Smith's most recent publications is "American Self-Interest and the Response to Genocide," published in The Chronicle of Higher Education on July 30, 2004. He is also the author of the entry on "Perpetrators" in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, which will be published in November 2004.

Professor Smith's public lectures have taken him to Armenia, Western Europe, Canada and to numerous prestigious universities across the United States. He has also given interviews to the Voice of America, the National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Public Broadcasting Service, participated in documentaries on genocide, and provided testimony before the US Congress.

Professor Smith is co-founder and past president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Currently, he is Program Director of the Zoryan Institute's Genocide and Human Rights Program in Toronto (Information about the course is available at www.zoryaninstitute.org ).

In this interview, he looks back at a century of Genocide.

Aztag- In an article published lately in the "Chronicle of Higher Education," you say: "Relatively small, well-organized lobbying groups are more likely to be effective in moving policy makers to act against genocide than broad, but somewhat amorphous public opinion." Citing, among others, the facts that public opinion doesn't have direct access to policy makers and that human-rights groups have the expertise to be persuasive.
How effective have human-rights groups dealing with this specific issue been when lobbying for a more assertive stance against genocides? Do you envisage a better strategy for a more effective functioning of such groups?

Roger Smith- Human rights groups in recent years have multiplied, but the effect on policy, whether in Bosnia or Rwanda, was not great. Budgets are small, agendas differ, and resources and efforts tend to be scattered. But mainly, they have run into the reluctance of the United States and other countries to take action to prevent, or end, genocide. But things change: Somalia cast a shadow over involvement in Rwanda; now the costs of not acting in Rwanda cast a shadow over Darfur. In the present climate, perhaps direct lobbying of decision-makers, whether in national governments or the
United Nations will be more productive. But human rights organizations must also create ways to lobby more effectively; this will require access to greater resources, but in some instances internal changes and change of focus; for example, away from individuals and toward policy and institutions. Some organizations (Amnesty International) have been oriented toward prisoners of conscience (that is individuals) rather than mass killing; Human Rights Watch has taken a different approach, concentrating on policy and institutions. Other organizations have been primarily concerned with providing relief, and have seen themselves as having to be neutral between perpetrators and victims (perhaps even removing such distinctions from their vocabulary). Fewer, but stronger, organizations might also be needed: effectiveness is not necessarily increased by a multiplicity of groups. Nevertheless, I believe that human rights organizations, unlike a somewhat amorphous public opinion, can help move policymakers to act against genocide.

Aztag- During the annual meeting of the institute for the Study of Genocide you said, referring to Samantha Power's Pulitzer prize book "A Problem from Hell": " My one concern for Power's book is that in a few years she will have to issue an updated edition, listing yet another genocide: one in which, yet again, the United States stood by."
What is your take on the West's reaction to the atrocities in Darfur? Do you think the chapter on Sudan will not differ from the previous ones?

Roger Smith- I am hopeful that Darfur may turn out differently, that the world's reaction may bring the killing and destruction to a close. But there are mixed signals: the US Congress calls what is taking place "genocide," but just what it proposes to do other than some kind of sanctions through the UN is not clear; on the other hand, the European Union says that genocide is not taking place in Darfur, and thus would not be in favor of active intervention. The UN Security Council has given a month's deadline to Sudan to show improvement; the African Union seems to more active than in the past, and various countries (including Rwanda) intend to place monitors in the region. But Sudan continues to maintain that no intervention is necessary, that the militias are outlaws, not proxies for the regime. It is hard to say what will happen next, but my guess is that no direct intervention will take place.

Aztag- In your testimony before the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights you said: "The Armenian case is the prototype for much of the Genocide that we have seen since 1945; it was territorial, driven by nationalism, and carried out with a relatively low level of technology." Can you please draw parallels between the Armenian Genocide and the other genocides in terms of territory, nationalism, and technology?

Roger Smith- Many scholars and the general public thought of the Holocaust as the model of genocide: they saw it as driven by racial ideology, that it was transnational, killing persons from all over Europe, and that it used a complicated technology to transport and kill in assembly line fashion millions of persons; by those standards, genocides that took place before or after the Holocaust tended to be described as "tragedies," but not genocide.

This had the effect of demeaning the victims of those genocides and blinding us to the ongoing nature of genocide in the 20th century. But most of the genocides that have taken place since 1945 do not fit the characteristics ascribed to the Holocaust. Whether it was Bangladesh, Burundi, Rwanda, or Bosnia, there was a pattern that the Holocaust did not illuminate to any extent: where the killing was largely territorial, the ideology was nationalism (Cambodia is different in this respect), and the technology employed was at a relatively low level (hoes, machetes, bullets, fire, death due to exposure, and starvation). Rather, the Armenian Genocide of 1915 was where the parallels could be found; indeed, it is the prototype for much of the genocide that has taken place since 1945 and is taking place now in Darfur. In addition to the elements already mentioned, there is the perpetrators claim that they were only defending themselves against revolutionaries and subversives; that what took place was civil war, not genocide. The Armenian Genocide provides many clues to why contemporary genocide occurs, what its warning signs are, and thus offers some hope, that if the nations will act, genocide in the making can be prevented.

Aztag- During a panel organized by the Zoryan Institute you said that "a precondition for reconciliation is a shared, accepted historical account." What do you think about the attempts to sidestep the issue of genocide in order to achieve reconciliation (for example TARC)? Do you think "a shared, accepted historical account" is achievable when the Turkish government continues the policy of denial and the education system in Turkey is bringing up generations with the same distorted view of history?

Roger Smith- I think that a precondition for reconciliation in any genocide is a shared, accepted historical account. But this is lacking with Turks and Armenians, both at the State level and the individual level. The issues have little to do with actual history: rather Turkish denial and the rewriting of history involve a defense of Turkish self-image and political concerns. A mythological history would have to be replaced; but identity has been built on this history; change would have disturbing effects, leading to confusion and questioning the very legitimacy of the state. But in the long term, this is the only way Turkey can master its past; the acknowledgment of the Genocide will, if it comes, coincide with a greater democratization of Turkey, and with a more open and pluralistic society. We will know that Turkey has come close to democracy when its citizens can openly discuss what was done in 1915 and how it has been denied and covered up for 90 years. The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) was an attempt to bypass a common version of history. Its very title tells us something: it contains "reconciliation," but not "truth." But ultimately, is not truth, acknowledgment, necessary if full reconciliation is to be possible? The commission was ill-conceived: it lacked legitimacy in how it came into being, and in terms of its members, who were hardly representative of the Armenian community. It was widely-viewed as a dodge, created by the State Department and the Turkish government to delay Congressional and international resolutions affirming the Genocide.

Partial steps toward reconciliation without public acknowledgment by Turkey of the genocide could happen: Japan has never accepted responsibility for its war guilt, yet enjoys good relations with the U.S. Some steps Turkey could take, but may not unless pressured by the European Union: diplomatic recognition of Armenia; opening borders; lift embargo against Armenia, allow for free development of Armenian culture within Turkey; allow for free public discussion of the Genocide; rescind its policy of educating its youth (Armenian included) in genocide denial; stop building monuments blaming Armenians for genocide; and abandon denial. But the issue of genocide would remain; until this is acknowledged, no full reconciliation is possible. It seems to me doubtful that Turkey will acknowledge the genocide. And what would follow if it did? Armenians are not of one mind about this. But for now, I think Armenians are right to look to public opinion in many countries and to seek affirmation of the Genocide by national and international bodies. Even the Pope has signed on.

Aztag- A New York Times book review mentions that there are 37,000 works on Nazism, 12,000 of which have appeared in the previous five years alone. The Armenian genocide, among others, is far less researched and documented and, adding insult to injury, the campaigns of denial force historians to dedicate much time and effort in order to falsify the claims of deniers and revisionists.

What are, in your opinion, the challenges facing historians dealing with the Armenian genocide a century after the fact?

Roger Smith- Although works on Nazism and the Holocaust continue to appear at a rapid pace, there is increasing awareness among scholars that the 20th century presented numerous other examples of human destructiveness There is now an effort to research the many other cases of genocide, and to put them in comparative perspective. What do the cases have in common? How do they differ? Why were they previously ignored? How has denial affected writing about them? What can genocides other than the Holocaust teach us about the dynamics of destruction, warning signs of genocide, and possible prevention?

The Armenian Genocide was well-known at the time it took place, but after the 1920s almost dropped from sight. When I began teaching about genocide some 20 years ago, there were few materials available on the Armenian Genocide that I could assign in class. That has changed greatly in the past few years; in fact, I am currently reviewing five books on the Genocide that were published last year alone. But much needs to be done: research completed, dissemination of the historical record, making the story of the Genocide available to a wide audience.

But there are special problems that face those who write about the Armenian Genocide. First, there are the linguistic skills needed. Then there is the fact that many of those who deal with the genocide spend more than half their time refuting the denial and falsification of the Turkish government and its accessories in academia and the foreign offices of the U.S., Israel, and Britain. There is also the problem of audience: outside the Armenian community, there has been little public interest in what took place 90 years ago. The Armenian example does not stand alone: how much do we hear about Pol Pot and his utopian experiment of only 25 years ago? To reach a broad audience and place the narrative of the first major genocide of the 20th century before the public may require that the story be incorporated into a larger, even universal, history. Several recent books, for example, have attempted to connect the history of the destruction with the rise of an international humanitarian movement in the United States. In this way, the Armenian case remains what it is; a crime against a particular people, but it also becomes part of a broader history. The challenge is to find additional ways in which such connections can be made.

Aztag- In a recent interview with Professor Ben Kiernan, I asked him about the importance of comparative genocide studies. Part of his answer was: "While perpetrators of genocide seem to have benefited from their own comparative analysis of the potential and possibilities for genocide in the modern era, the rest of humanity has failed as yet to learn lessons from the past that could lead to meaningful intervention in such catastrophes". What have we learned from the comparative study of genocides? How realistic is the belief that these studies will contribute in driving policy makers to actively oppose genocidal campaigns wherever they happen?

Roger Smith- I agree with Professor Kiernan that perpetrators of genocide have learned from their own "study" of genocide that they can commit the crime under the cover of war, in the name of self-defense, will receive impunity, can deny that they committed genocide, and that the world will forget. Even many of the techniques of destruction are transportable and easily available: concentration camps, deportations, destruction of food supplies.

Comparative genocide studies can help us understand the conditions under which mass violence, including genocide, is likely to take place; it can help identify warning signs of the impending violence; and it can suggest ways in which genocide can be prevented. But it will also, as discussed in my essay in The Chronicle, indicate the patterns of governmental inaction where genocide is concerned and the reasons for that. Thus, the problem of prevention of genocide is not simply a question of knowledge, but of political will. My own view is that the single most effective means to end the slaughter of so many millions is for states to expand their concept of national interest to include the prevention of genocide. The arguments for this are humanitarian, but also follow political realism: genocide frequently spawns regional wars, leads to the outflow of huge numbers of refugees (some 10 million from Bangladesh in 1971, millions from Rwanda and Darfur), the economic costs are far greater than the cost of early intervention. Whether scholars and human rights activists can persuade policy makers to redefine national interest is not clear, but it is a goal that should be high on their agenda.

There are many other things that I have learned from the comparative study of genocide: differences between ancient and modern genocide; the fact that genocide throughout most of its long history was committed almost exclusively by men, but that this began to change in the 20th century; the evolution of the technology of destruction, yet the reappearance of many of its "primitive" methods (fire, starvation, handheld weapons) in the contemporary period. I also learned that in ancient times rulers boasted of destroying whole groups: no denial for them. Indeed, they erected monuments so that their annihilation of whole groups would not be forgotten. And, yes, I learned much about human nature.

Aztag- You have taught courses on Genocide for 20 years. In what way have your approaches to teaching methods changed? In what way has the approach of students to the subject matter changed?

Roger Smith- My seminar on genocide had 15-20 advanced undergraduates and graduate students. The course was comparative in scope and dealt with the following questions: what is genocide? Why does it occur? Who is responsible? How can genocide be prevented? My approach was to involve the students as much as possible in discussion and to get them to confront the issues instead of just taking notice of them. Much of the discussion was on responses of students themselves: their assumptions about human nature, about how it is possible for anyone to commit genocide, about our responsibility as citizens, about our own stereotypes and prejudices. My own approach to the course did not change much over the years, but I added new material and we had to add new cases studies. But one had to guard against becoming "numb" after confronting so many cases of genocide over the years. I remember too that students worried that they would fall into either despair over their inability to prevent genocide, or, faced with so many examples of mass killing, throw up their hands and say about yet another genocide, "What's the big deal?"

I do think, though, that the students changed somewhat over time in how they responded. When I first started the course in 1981, the students were fixated on the horror of genocide and could not believe that anyone other than monsters could commit such acts. As we proceeded, they came to realize that ordinary men and women could do these terrible things. But the groups I had in the 1990s had greater awareness of the frequency of genocide; they grew up, so to speak, with Bosnia and Rwanda. Their focus was less on the horror and more on how they could prevent genocide, how they could become an active force for the protection of human rights.

I retired three years ago, and since there are still few scholars who work in the area of genocide studies, no one at my university has continued the course. On the other hand, the past three summers I have taught in the Zoryan Institute's Genocide and Human Rights University Program, a two week intensive course (9-5) at the University of Toronto. Again, this is a seminar, with about 22 students, who come from many different countries and ethnic groups. There are Armenians from Canada, Lebanon, Uruguay, the U.S.; Turks and Kurds from Turkey; students from Germany, France, the Netherlands, and several countries in Latin America. The students have found it a powerful experience: they bond closely, rid themselves (to a large extent) of misunderstandings, and, in many cases, leave the course determined to pursue further study in genocide studies. In its own way, on a small scale, the seminar contributes to dialogue, understanding, and maybe personal reconciliation. As one of the students said, "We became family."

"Aztag" Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: Aztag@inco.com.lb