The Ugly

Good people get passed over for a variety of honors all the time. So, does it make any difference at all that Mahatma Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt got passed over, despite their many accomplishments? Gandhi managed to gain Indian independence without a violent war against an imperialist power. Roosevelt worked tirelessly for women's rights and children. Then she co-authored the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their accomplishments are their accomplishments. Nobody can take that away from them. However, shouldn't their work be celebrated and used as an inspiration for others who may follow in their footsteps? And wouldn't the Nobel Peace Prize (the most prestigious award for peace) be the fitting tribute to their life work (plus it does not hurt to get the $$$$)? Please post a response by Wednesday, May 29.

The Good

Now that we have looked at the accomplishments of Mother Teresa (1979 winner) and Jody Williams (1997 winner), assess their impact on peace. Did they deserve it? Mother Teresa is a role model for the world. But does helping the sick, needy, and hungry of Calcutta really get us closer to world peace? She may temporarily alleviate suffering and give some hope to people, but it does not come close to solving the issues of conflict in the world. Jody Williams managed to organized several groups to get a treaty banning landmines, but there are so many other weapons and weapons systems that are just as deadly or more deadly (think nuclear bombs, drone strikes, automatic guns, etc.) that are not banned. Does this really get us to stop the violence of war? Shouldn't political leaders who hold real political power (Clausewitz) be the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize? After all, they are the ones who can really stop wars! Please post your comments by Tuesday, May 28.

The Bad

After we finish covering Yasser Arafat (1994 winner) and Henry Kissinger (1973 winner), explain if they are deserving winners. Arafat was a terrorist, ordering the murder of innocents. Kissinger ordered the bombing of Cambodia, which directly impacts the genocide that occurred there. However Arafat began a peace process with Israel that while not complete may lead to peace and stability in that volatile region. Kissinger helped to negotiate the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War. We are all complex beings; sometimes we do good things, and other times we fail. Do the good things they accomplished outweigh their less-than-noble past? Please respond by Thursday, May 23.

Why We Must Remember, part 2

Consider the following: Andrew VORKINK Former World Bank Country Manager for Turkey Professor of International Law at the Bogaziçi University andrew.vorkink@boun.edu.tr RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS NOT PERMITTED Under international law, retroactive application of criminal laws is not permitted as a general principle. Thus the Genocide Convention applies from when it came into force and not for past acts. Accordingly the Convention cannot be used to bring cases which occurred during World War II, let alone earlier. Further, as the first major case involving a claim that a state committed genocide shows – the case brought by Bosnia against Serbia in the International Court of Justice and decided in February 2007, the burden of proof that there were both killings and intent to destroy a group as a group, is very high. Even with enormous amounts of evidence and testimony in the Bosnia case, the International Court of Justice did not find that the government of Serbia was responsible for genocide in planning or carrying out killings in Bosnia in the 1990's, although the court found it should have done more to stop the killings taking place. The international legal situation is thus clear – genocide as a crime exists from 1948 onwards, both intent to destroy a group and actual killings must be proven and that proof is hard to establish when a state is accused. Switching from the legal to the moral issue, is there a case to be made that genocide can be applied to historical acts even if it cannot be legally applied retroactively? In my view, the answer to this is no, not unless the historical situation is so clear and so close to when genocide became a crime that there is no mistaking the acts as qualifying as genocide from a moral view. The Holocaust against the Jews in World War II, which gave rise to the concept of genocide, meets these criteria. But once we start going further back in history, where does it end? This is where double standards become very obvious. Countries which are willing to classify historical acts in other countries as genocide yet are not willing to recognize acts within their own borders as even crimes - let alone genocide - from a moral and not legal view, are using double standards which undercut their own credibility. Once we start going backwards from the Holocaust, … shall we include the atrocities at Nanking by the Japanese against the Chinese as genocide? … Shall we declare that the killings and starvation of Africans in the Belgian Congo under King Leopold were genocide? … Shall the United States declare that slavery of blacks and treatment of Native Americans in the United States in the 1800's were genocide? And who should make such determinations? Unlike today where there are impartial courts to hear charges of genocide by individuals – such as in the tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda or in the International Criminal Court, or by states in the International Court of Justice, who look at the evidence to decide cases from the past? Surely political bodies cannot be expected to be impartial and decide, nor can they sit as judges of evidence, let alone history. Should Parliaments of other countries decide what happened in another country? If the French Parliament passed a resolution declaring that the treatment of Native Americans in the United States was genocide, would such a resolution be acceptable to the U.S. Congress and American people? Absolutely not – the reaction would be outrage and rightfully so. So when we look back at what happened in 1915, we should not make a judgment because one side lobbies hard in favor of a label and the other lobbies against it or because a declaration would be inconvenient due to current events. Instead we should decide whether it makes sense to use such a politically explosive term as genocide at all for events in history before genocide came into existence. We cannot do it legally and we should not do it morally. Please respond to Andrew Vorkink by Friday, May 3

Comrade Duch

Please go Cambodia: A Quest For Justice and view the video (26 minutes). Comment on an appropriate punishment for Duch. Consider how sincere his apology was for his crimes. He even felt what his defense attorney asked for was not enough. He believes he deserves punishments for his terrible crimes. He has already served 11 years and at his first penalty trial, he was given 35 years with 19 years to serve (last year the U.N. tribunal lengthened his sentence to life in prison). He is a 69 year-old man. He will not commit crimes of this nature again. He poses no threat to humanity. Was he also a victim of the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia and its maniacal leader, Pol Pot? He and his family was threatened by the extremism of the regime. Should we have some sympathy for his predicament? On the other hand, someone must be held accountable for these awful murders - 2,000,000!! Explain why life in prison is appropriate or too harsh. Please post by Wednesday, May 1.

Why we must remember

We have viewed Grandma's Tattoo, read the iWitness testimonies of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, heard and seen the accounts of victims of the Holocaust. We have also discussed the reasons for commemorating these tragic and horrific deeds. Three years ago, Peter Kougasian said, "...we see that genocide recognition is not an issue of merely academic interest, one that might nicely be delegated to distinguished panels of historians. Recognition of the Armenian genocide is a vital, front-burner issue of human rights affecting the liberties and even survival of real people in the world today." Explain why you believe or do not believe recognition of genocide is a "human rights" issue. Please respond by Monday, April 29.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bush Doctrine

WMDs! WMDs! WMDs! And English Prime Minister Tony Blair tells us, "The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." President Bush tells the nation at West Point in June, 2002 that "...Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties and then systematically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long... Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge." As we go through the Bush Administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, consider the main elements of the argument. Iraq and Saddam had WMDs and the capability to use them quickly to strike the west. Additionally, we have the right due to the Bush Doctrine's idea that pre-emptive warfare is just. Post a comment on both issues. Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S. and the world? Is the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare and the creation of friendly democratic government around the world a "just cause" for war? Please post by Tuesday, March 19.