What, will these hands ne'er be clean?

By Capt. Fogg

There's a lesson to be learned from the trial of Guatemala's former dictator Efrian Rios Montt, ‘a man of great personal integrity . . . totally dedicated to democracy’ said Ronald Reagan, surprised upon visiting him in Honduras that Central America was composed of several countries. But few Americans will care or will even be aware that at long last he's been found guilty of genocide and war crimes.

The things that went on in Guatemala  were gruesome, horrifying and heart-breaking but I don't have the stomach to relate even part of it.  You can read about it here and if you do, if you can tear yourself away from Boston Bomber stories, School shooting stories' da scores' and Cleveland sex slaves long enough, perhaps you'll take a further moment to meditate and perhaps agonize over the part our country, always howling about freedom as if we invented it, played in yet another sordid and brutal horror.

Yes, Rios Montt is a monster like so many Latin American monsters in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere, all of whom were supported by the Land of the Free and even placed in power by violent  US assistance.  Rios Montt whose  squads were supported and advised by and trained by the Reagan administration, wasn't a Communist you see and that's what counts and so it didn't matter that he raped, tortured, brutalized attempted to murder an entire ethnicity because they were better off dead than Red. better off dead than getting in the way of  the very few and very rich. Red of course means looking for some hero to improve life from the hopeless, unchanging, grinding, disease ridden, starvation and poverty Central American Kleptocracy needs in order to provide a most excellent life for people like Rios Montt and his generals.


Read more »

Craziest Republican of the Day: Jeff Duncan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republicans never fail to prop up their ideological extremism with the most ridiculous, uh, arguments:

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) warned in a Facebook post on Thursday that a national gun registry would be similar to a database used by the ruling Hutu tribe in Rwanda in the 1990s to locate and slaughter members of an opposing tribe in a genocide that killed up to 1 million people.

*****

"The 2nd Amendment is (or should be) equal to the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment and all of the others," Duncan said in his Facebook post. "Ask yourselves why it is under attack? Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives?"

Duncan then likened it to a tribal registry in Rwanda.



"Read about the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes," he continued. "Read that all Tutsi tribe members were required to register their address with the Hutu government and that this database was used to locate Tutsi for slaughter at the hands of the Hutu."

Duncan wrote that since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda, "the killers could go door to door, slaughtering the Tutsis."

He wrote that each Rwandan "had an identity card that labeled them Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa."

Duncan accused Democrats of "preying on the fears" of citizens.

Yes, that's right, this blithering idiot said that a gun registry would lead to genocide, as if the situation in the U.S. is the same as the one in Rwanda, with one tribe plotting to wipe out another and carrying out horrific mass murder. And he's accusing Democrats of "preying" on fear? Please.

You want fearmongering? There's no fucking gun registry, and there won't be one. It's just right-wing paranoia, stirred up by the NRA and other gun nuts to terrify, and mobilize, their followers against any and all gun control.

I'd say Duncan is engaging in such cynical exploitation himself, but he appears to be far too stupid for that -- and so crazy he actually seems to believe the shit he's spewing.

France calls Turkey's mass murder of Armenians what it was: genocide

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Via twitter: 

French Senate votes to criminalize any public denial of what new law calls Ottoman Empire's #genocide of Armenians. (link)

-- CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk)

I'm not big on efforts to stifle free speech, even when the speech in question is a lie, but at least France has the guts to stand up to Turkey and its decades-long campaign of revisionism / denialism.

Genocide is genocide. Period.

Now why the hell won't the U.S. stop kowtowing to Turkey and being an accomplice to its blatant dishonesty and abject refusal to account for its ugly past?

When you can't call genocide genocide, even when geopolitical demands are strong (and, yes, we would prefer Turkey be friend, not foe), you simply don't have much moral standing to your name.

**********

I've written about his issue numerous times already -- critical of both Bush and Obama. Check out:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007)

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010);

-- Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Apr. 2010); and

-- Turkish delight: House fails to vote on Armenian genocide resolution (Dec. 2010).

Turkish delight: House fails to vote on Armenian genocide resolution

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The "Lame Duck" Congress did a great deal, yes, but unfortunately it did not pass -- and did not even vote on -- a resolution by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) recognizing the 1915-17 massacre of about 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks for what it was: genocide.

As you may know, Turkey, along with its agents in the U.S. (including the Congressional Turkish Caucus), has waged a massive campaign to revise history and silence anyone who would dare call it genocide. That word, it seems, is just too much -- even if it's absolutely the right word to use.

This campaign has been waged around the world, but in the U.S. what Turkey wants it to block Congress from passing any such resolution and the president from saying genocide. So much so that it has threatened diplomatic reprisals.

Various resolutions have made their way out of committee in recent years, but thus far no resolution has been passed. And Obama has thus far refrained from saying genocide.

The pressure from Turkey and the concern over U.S.-Turkish relations have no doubt trumped any other considerations. In this case, as The Hill reports, "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent Obama a letter Monday asking him to prevent the vote, warning that it could damage ties between the two countries." Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also pressured Hillary Clinton.

I have written about this issue -- the Armenian genocide and the failure to recognize it as such -- a few times already:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007)

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010); and

-- Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Apr. 2010).

What happened was genocide. What is going on now, almost a century later, is still a despicable cover-up. I repeat what I wrote in the third of the posts listed above:

While I suspect that Obama [and Nancy Pelosi, too, who refused to bring Schiff's resolution to a vote] knows full well that it was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?

Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S. and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives), but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America? Please.

Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the Turks to go fuck themselves.

Diplomatically, of course.

Just call it genocide. And stop helping Turkey get away with it.

Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I appreciate the fact, reported by Laura Rozen, that President Obama used the proper Armenian term, Meds Yeghern (or "Great Catastrophe"), when referring today to the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, which took place between 1915 and 1917, but it is telling that he refused to call it what it was: genocide.

"On this solemn day of remembrance, we pause to recall that ninety-five years ago one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century began," Obama said in a statement. "In that dark moment of history, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire."

"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed," he said. "It is in all of our interest to see the achievement a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

"The Meds Yeghern is a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people, and we must keep its memory alive in honor of those who were murdered and so that we do not repeat the grave mistakes of the past," Obama said.

Yes, it was "one of the worst atrocities" of the last century. Yes, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed. Yes, it was "a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people." Yes, "we must keep its memory alive."

But that's not good enough. As Laura explains:

Obama's use of Meds Yeghern "is an elegant dodge to avoid using the 'g-word' -- but the substance of what he states about what happened gives no comfort to those who cling to the Turkish official version," says Harvard University's Andras Riedlmayer. "1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and massacred or marched to their death. Despite the passive construction, that assumes intentionality."

Nevertheless, such nuance was not appreciated by the Armenian American lobby group, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which rapped Obama for "disgraceful capitulation to Turkey's threats" and of "offering euphemisms and evasive terminology to characterize this crime against humanity," in a press release Saturday.

I have written about this issue a couple of times:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007); and

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010).

I was critical of Bush, but I've been critical of Obama, too:

I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations, which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.

For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that is truly appalling.

In other words, while I suspect that Obama knows full well that it was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?

Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S. and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives), but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America? Please.

Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the Turks to go fuck themselves. Diplomatically, of course.

Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It was a close vote, 23-22, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday, if I may quote the NYT, "to condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians early in the last century, defying a last-minute plea from the Obama administration to forgo a vote that seemed sure to offend Turkey and jeopardize delicate efforts at Turkish-Armenian reconciliation."

It's a vote I applaud enthusiastically. And not for the first time. Here's what I wrote back in October 2007:

What happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1917 was genocide -- an estimated 1.5 million killed, a brutal and systematic process of deportation and slaughter aimed at wiping out the Armenian population -- but you wouldn't know it if you got your history from the Turks, who committed the genocide (now known as the Armenian Genocide, or Holocaust), or from their present-day apologists in the Bush Administration, from Bush and Rice and Gates, the Holocaust deniers who sit at the top of the U.S. government. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution last week, calling what happened to the Armenians what it was, genocide, but the deniers wanted none of it.

I wouldn't describe Obama and those in his administration as deniers, but they're certainly doing much the same thing the previous administration did, namely, refusing to acknowledge publicly that what happened in Armenia was genocide, and all because of those ever-so-delicate, ever-so-important American-Turkish relations, which apparently couldn't survive an admission of truth.

For its part, Turkey has been waging a decades-long campaign to deny the genocide, a shameful refusal not just to take responsibility for one of the most horrendous massacres in history but even to admit that it really happened. And its reaction when challenged, this time as always, suggests a level of collective national immaturity that is truly appalling. In response to the House vote -- which, again, was just yesterday -- the Turkish ambassador to Washington was recalled and the Turking prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, issued the following statement: "We condemn this bill that denounces the Turkish nation of a crime that it has not committed."

Well, it did, whether it wants to admit it or not.

And while I understand the desire to maintain close and friendly relations with Turkey, a valuable ally, there is simply no excuse for the U.S. government, whether it's Bush or Obama in the White House, to play along with, and to lend credence to, such a lie. It might as well deny that slavery ever happened.

Besides, the Turks are bluffing. Do they really want to cut off ties with America? Hardly. They need America, just like they need the West generally, and it's about time their denials were puncutured and they were held to account for one of the darkest events of the last century.

Thankfully, 23 members of the U.S. House of Representatives agree. Not thankfully, there are far too many, including at the highest levels of the government, who are in cahoots with the Turks.

Reflections on Obama's Cairo Speech

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I was extremely busy yesterday and didn't end up posting my planned reaction to Obama's speech (focusing instead on Randy Johnson late last night). I will get to it today, and I'm sure I'll reference the speech in many future posts. (Actually, keep reading. This post has grown, as I've been writing it, to include some of my high-level thoughts on the speech, as well as on Obama's foreign policy. I'll leave the specifics for another time.)

In the meantime, make sure to check out Carl's excellent post. I agree with his very positive assessment. Yes, America has "truly rejoined the world community as a leader and a beacon."

And, as usual, I'm with Creature: "Reminds me of why I supported him in the first place. It feels good to be proud again."

I have been deeply disappointed with Obama's overly pragmatic (to put it nicely) approach to foreign policy thus far. In particular, I am disappointed with his emphasis on stability over democracy and human rights, notably with respect to China, Saudi Arabia, and other appalling regimes.

As well, like the editors of TNR, I have been "extraordinarily disappointed" with Obama's apparent inaction over the ongoing tragedy and catastrophe in Darfur. I was also disgusted over his refusal to call what the Turks did to the Armenians "genocide," as he promised during the campaign he would, preferring instead the word "slaughter," a less meaningful term (and one much closer to Turkish propaganda/revisionism).

But.

Yesterday's speech was magnificent. The right, predictably, has been ripping it to shreds according to their own ideological prejudices, but it was respectful, forceful, sensible, principled, and indicative of a new chapter in U.S. relations with the rest of the world in general and with the Muslim world in particular:

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

This, perhaps, is the essence of the "Obama Doctrine": a pragmatic approach to the realization of idealistic but fully realizable goals; an emphasis on what unites us, not what divides us; toleration of and respect for others; an attempt to build bridges across cultures and forge lasting connections to sustain a lasting peace; an understanding that we're all in this together, no matter who we are, no matter where we live, no matter what god or gods we do or do not pray to.

Matthew Arnold, one of my heroes, wrote back in the 19th Century about striving to achieve our "best self," both individually and collectively, notably though the acquisition and celebration of humanistic culture. In Obama, I still believe, Americans have chosen a president who genuinely believes in the possibility of America's best self -- and who wants America to strive towards that noble goal, a "perfect union."

America is waiting. The world is watching. And it is time to put words into action.

Around the World: Darfur/Sudan, the United Kingdom, France, Iran, and Turkey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's our latest ATW round-up -- all very interesting stories, make sure to check them out:

1) Darfur/Sudan: Darfur's Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the leading anti-government rebel group, is taking the fight directly to Khartoum. JEM is supported by Chad and is now much stronger than it was just a few years ago.

"If the international community fail to act... we will go to Khartoum and topple the regime ourselves -- we are quite capable of that,” said Ahmed Hussein, a spokesman for the group and a member of its Executive Leadership Office. I realize that there is a lot of blame to go around in Darfur and Sudan, and that JEM is not without its faults, but it is hard not to support any effort that seeks to bring down the thugocracy of President Omar al-Bashir.

2) United Kingdom: A group called the Real IRA has claimed responsibility for the recent attack on Britain's Massereene military base. Two soldiers were killed in the attack: "The soldiers are the first to be murdered in Northern Ireland since Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was killed by an IRA sniper in 1997."

In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown had this to say: "I think the whole country is shocked and outraged at the evil and cowardly attacks on soldiers serving their country. We will do everything in our power to make sure that Northern Ireland is safe and secure and I assure you we will bring these murderers to justice. No murderer will be able to derail a peace process that has the support of the great majority of Northern Ireland." Like Blair, Brown can sound a lot like Bush in his depiction of the world as the struggle between good and evil. Regardless, he is right to stand firm against such terrorism.

3) France: Oenophiles of the world unite! In Givry, a small village in Burgundy, just south of Dijon, residents are fighting back against a new industrial waste facility that threatens their centuries-old traditions, not to mention their famous wine.

"The source of the Givry winemakers' outrage, which has driven them into the courts, is a small problem in terms of the number of people it affects. The population in the village, where the church steeple is still the tallest structure around, is 3,600. But it is part of a broader struggle throughout France, the struggle to balance tradition and modernization, that goes deep into the country's soul and is proving more challenging as the years go by." I don't know much about the specifics, but my inclination, in this case, is to side with the old against the new.

4) Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmad(man)inejad has apparently been the target of a shoe-throwing attack in the Iranian city of Urmia. He deserves far worse.

Meanwhile, Iran has tested a new missile. I have long been in support of high-level diplomacy with between the U.S. and Iran, and I generally reject the warmongering rhetoric of the neocons and their ilk, but Iran is evidently asking for trouble with its military posturing.

5) Turkey: The Turks are still in denial over the Armenian genocide, to the extent that they know anything about it at all. It is state policy to deny, deny, deny -- and, where possible, not to mention it at all. But there are positive signs that the truth is spreading. Make sure to read this, especially if you don't know much about what happened.

Genocide and chaos in the Congo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Please check out Michael Kavanagh's "Five Million Dead and Counting" at Slate, a reporter's account of the ongoing civil war and atrocities in North Kivu, an eastern province of the Congo:

There are now more than 1 million displaced people scattered throughout the province. In the last 10 years of fighting, more than 5 million people have died in the Congolese conflict -- mostly civilians who haven't had access to enough food or health care because of the fighting. And let's be clear: That's 5 million and counting.

Essentially, the civil war in the Congo is an extension of the civil war and genocide in Rwanda, with -- if I may simplify -- Congolese Tutsi rebels, led by Laurent Nkunda and backed by Rwanda's Tutsi-led government, in battle against the Congolese government and Rwandan Hutus in the Congo: "And the early returns look like displacement, starvation, rape, murder, and terror." (According to the International Rescue Committee, "[c]onflict and humanitarian crisis in [the Congo] have taken the lives of 5.4 million people since 1988 and continue to leave as many as 45,000 dead every month.")

There is a good deal of blame to go around, with brutality on both sides, but Kavanagh also points out the failure of the international community -- the U.N., the E.U., the U.S., and the A.U. -- to respond in any meaningful way to the crisis.

Make sure to read the whole thing. We all need to pay more attention to Africa -- and to what's going on in the Congo (it's not just Darfur that's suffering). And not just when Bono or Bob Geldof or John le Carré tell us to.

War criminal and mass murderer arrested in Serbia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the NYT:

Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted war criminals for his part in the massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995, was arrested Monday in a raid in Serbia that ended a 13-year hunt.

And now it is time for justice in The Hague. And for Karadzic to spend the rest of his days in custody. Nothing will make up for what he did, but at least, and at long last, he has been found. And will be found guilty. Which is better than nothing.

Why did she lie?

By Edward Copeland

One of the biggest questions left unanswered after Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton's easily debunked nonsense about sniper fire in Bosnia is why she would make such a fib that could be uncovered at such rapid speed? Writing in Slate last week, professional misanthrope Christopher Hitchens may have hit upon the answer. Granted, I usually think the worst of Hillary and her motives, but this one I find even more appalling because if it's true it means that she wasn't lying just to boost her own foreign policy credentials but also in part to cover her complicity in delaying the Bosnian peace process in the 1990s costing thousands of people their lives as a result.

Hitchens reminds his readers of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promise of ending the genocide in Bosnia, something he sat on his hands about for most of his first term. By the time Hillary took her trip in March 1996, things were finally getting under control, but according to an account in the book For Love of Politics by Sally Bedell Smith, the delay was directly attributable to Hillary's insistence on stalling.

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

Yes, Hillary, according to this account, thought a little more ethnic cleansing was OK if it meant her health plan might have a clearer path to success. Of course, in 2008, the U.S. still has an awful health care system and thousands of Europeans still mourn their dead.

Hitchens also cites two personal instances as further evidence as to the why behind the sell out of Bosnia for Hillary care.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

Hillary Clinton may be more despicable than I ever gave her credit for.

Dith Pran (1942-2008)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Dith Pran, the NYT photojournalist portrayed in The Killing Fields, died today at the age of 65.

-- NYT obituary
-- Wikipedia entry
-- The Killing Fields
-- Holocaust Awareness Project

He was a truly remarkable man.

Around the world: Serbia, Sudan, Kenya, Cuba, Switzerland, and Germany

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait, you mean there are things going on in the world other than the presidential primaries in the U.S.? Sure, and here are some stories you might find interesting:

1) Serbia: The (deputy) leader of the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radicals, Tomislav Nikolic, defied the polls and beat the incumbent, President Boris Tadic, in the first round of that country's two-round presidential election, 39 to 35. Nikolic and the Radicals are anti-European, pro-Russian, and basically pan-Slavic nationalists. They oppose independence for Kosovo. And their leader, Vojislav Seselj, is currently on trial in The Hague. If you're wondering, no, many Serbs haven't learned anything from their country's recent (and historical) travails. For some background, see here.

2) Sudan: One of the leaders of the genocidal Janjaweed militia in Darfur has been appointed to a high-ranking position in the Khartoum government. Hmmmm.

3) Kenya: It seems that some of the appalling violence that has rocked that country since its corrupt and contested presidential election was both "premeditated and organized," with both government and opposition elements stirring up ethnic hatred even before the vote. "It wasn't like people just woke up and started fighting each other," said Dan Juma, the acting deputy director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. "It was organized." More echoes of Rwanda.

4) Cuba: Cubans went to the polls yesterday to "elect" 614 deputies to the National Assembly. Actually, there were a total of 614 candidates for 614 seats -- all ran unopposed. Fidel Castro was one of them. Good times.

5) Switzerland: One of the country's national foods is under attack from the E.U. It's called cervalat, it's a type of sausage, and it's made with cow intestine imported from Brazil. "Swiss butchers produce 160 million cervalet sausages per year, which works out to about 21 links per person." That's a lot of intestine. The E.U. imposed the ban a couple of years ago on the grounds that Brazilian beef intestines could carry mad cow disease, but Swiss stockpiles are just now running low. And the Swiss are pissed, not least because the European soccer championship is being held there this summer. "Switzerland has surrendered itself in the case of our national sausage to technocrats in Brussels, of all people," wrote one newspaper. "I simply cannot imagine Switzerland without the original cervelat," said one member of parliament. "We cannot stand for this," said one chef, "We have to fight for our sausage!" (Note that Jim Hacker brilliantly played the British sausage card against European technocrats on his way to #10.) By the way, the intestines are just the casing, but it seems that to the Swiss no substitute will do. I think we need to ask Clinton and Obama about this.

6) Germany: A prominent German historian has likened Tom Cruise's performance on that Scientology recruitment video to the propagandistic style of Joseph Goebbels. And he's right, to a point. It's not that Scientology is akin to Nazism in all ways -- and, as much as I dislike Scientology, I would hesitate to make such a comparison -- just that propaganda is propaganda, which is to say, all propaganda, and particularly all cult of personality propaganda in support of quasi-religious cults, is similar. There is, in my view, no good reason why Scientology should be taken seriously or even treated as softly as it is in and by the media. It is a cult of lies, and it should be laughed at, repudiated, and, where possible, exposed for the massive fraud it is.

Killing field justice

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Earlier this year I wrote about the tribunal set up in Cambodia to examine the genocidal crimes committed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge three decades ago and to bring the perpetrators, those still alive, to justice -- see here and here.

Even though the government was committed to it, or seemed to be, "procedural differences" threatened to sink the process. The issue had to do with differences between international legal standards and local law.

But, thankfully, the tribunal is up and running, differences overcome. And it is, it seems, working well:

Police and security guards from Cambodia's "Killing Fields" tribunal arrested former Khmer Rouge foreign minister Ieng Sary on Monday, the third Pol Pot henchman to be taken into custody by the UN-backed court.

His wife, Khieu Thirith, another leading member of the Khmer Rouge, was arrested with him, a tribunal spokesman said after the couple had been ferried from their plush Phnom Penh villa in a police convoy with sirens blazing.

They would be questioned by investigating judges in an initial appearance later on Monday, he said. The pair would be charged, the spokesman added without specifying the charges or when they would be brought.

*****

He and Khieu Thirith were the third and fourth to be arrested after years of delays since the $56-million tribunal got off the ground in earnest this year.

Kaing Guek Eav -- commonly known as Duch -- is a former schoolteacher who ran the notorious S-21, or Tuol Sleng, interrogation and torture centre at a former Phnom Penh high school. He has been charged with crimes against humanity.

So has "Brother Number Two" Nuon Chea, who is also accused of war crimes.

While Nuon Chea has proclaimed his innocence, Duch, in interviews with Western reporters, has confessed to his role in the mass killings and is expected to be a key witness against other senior regime figures.

Let us hope that justice is finally brought to bear on those who turned Cambodia into a bloodbath.

The coming war in Kurdistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times:

Turkey’s Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to authorize sending troops into northern Iraq to confront Kurdish rebels in hide-outs there, sending an angry message to the Baghdad government and its Washington sponsor. But Turkey, a member of NATO, made it clear that it would not immediately carry out the resolution.

The 507-to-19 vote was the culmination of months of frustration here with the United States, which has criticized Kurdish rebels who attack Turkey from Iraq but has failed to get its Kurdish allies in Iraq to act against them. President Bush on Wednesday reiterated American wishes for a diplomatic solution.

The vote to authorize sending troops, which Turkish officials say gives them up to a year to take action, was, in essence, a blunt request for the United States to acknowledge Turkey’s status as an important ally in a troubled and complex region.

Some will argue that this is precisely why Congress shouldn't proceed with the Armenian Genocide resolution -- that is, to maintain good relations with Turkey -- but this was going to happen anyway, tension and conflict in the region dating back to well before the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

A diplomatic solution is, of course, desirable, but that would likely require the U.S. to put pressure both on friendly Kurds in the north of Iraq and on the inept Maliki government in Baghdad, as well as for Maliki to work closely both with Turkey and with his own Kurdish allies. Even then, though, one wonders if a peaceful resolution is possible, given the strident communist-nationalist aims (and violent means) of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The establishment of an independent and sovereign Kurdistan could blunt those aims, and could be the main component of a peaceful resolution, but it seems unlikely that the PKK would agree to the terms of such an arrangement.

Regardless, although Turkey may take no immediate military action, the situation in Iraq could soon get a lot messier -- and a lot more bloody.

Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1917 was genocide -- an estimated 1.5 million killed, a brutal and systematic process of deportation and slaughter aimed at wiping out the Armenian population -- but you wouldn't know it if you got your history from the Turks, who committed the genocide (now known as the Armenian Genocide, or Holocaust), or from their present-day apologists in the Bush Administration, from Bush and Rice and Gates, the Holocaust deniers who sit at the top of the U.S. government. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution last week, calling what happened to the Armenians what it was, genocide, but the deniers wanted none of it:

A House committee voted late this afternoon to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey in World War I as an act of genocide, rebuffing an intense campaign by the White House and warnings from Turkey’s government that the vote would gravely strain relations with the United States.

The vote by the House Foreign Relations Committee was nonbinding and so largely symbolic, but its consequences could reach far beyond bilateral relations and spill into the war in Iraq.

Turkish officials and lawmakers warned that if the resolution is approved by the full House, they would reconsider supporting the American war effort, which includes permission to ship essential supplies through Turkey and northern Iraq.

Mr. Bush appeared on the South Lawn of the White House before the vote and implored the House not to take up the issue, only to have the majority of the committee disregard his warning at the end of the day, by a vote of 27 to 21.

"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Mr. Bush said in remarks that, reflecting official American policy, carefully avoided the use of the word genocide. "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

How about being honest about that "tragic suffering," then? Why avoid the truth? Why deny it? Why show such cowardice? Because Bush needs Turkey -- because of the Iraq War and Occupation and the War on Terror. And, to secure that support, it seems, he is willing (as his chief Cabinet secretaries are willing, as many in his party are willing) to help prop up Turkey's long-standing campaign of denial (of accountability, of responsibility, of the truth -- truth it finds so unpleasant as to warrant such decades-long propaganda).

Bush himself referred to "these historic mass killings," but is that not genocide? Apparently not. It seems it's only genocide if it's called genocide, if the label is formally applied, even in a non-binding House resolution. I may call it genocide, you may call it genocide, historians may call it genocide, certainly the Armenians call it genocide, but it's apparently not genocide if nothing formal is declared. So Bush refuses to call it genocide, and tries to persuade the House not to call it genocide, even though he describes it as genocide and probably knows it was genocide. And why? Again, because Turkey doesn't want him to -- and, it seems, because, kowtowing to Turkey is the name of the game if you want its support, the support of "a key ally," kowtowing meaning playing along with Turkey's revisionism, accepting a role as an organ of Turkish propaganda.

This is what George W. Bush has become -- an organ of Turkish propaganda, a denier of genocide.

With all else that Bush has done that has been reprehensible, far too much to list here, this must stand as one of the lowlights of an appalling presidency.

**********

Writing in the L.A. Times today, historian Niall Ferguson (who leans right) argues that, based on the evidence, what the Turks did to the Armenians was, in fact, genocide. Yet, realpolitik triumphant, he finds fault with the resolution -- given the possible weakening of American relations with Turkey.

His concerns are very much Bush's: Most American supplies to Iraq pass through Turkey, Turkey is a good friend (an Islamic one, at that), an unfriendly Turkey will be more likely to strike Kurdish separatist bases in northern Iraq.

And so, again, the proper response is to support Turkey's lie? I understand the realities of the situation, but it seems to me that the U.S. would do better to engage with Turkey from a position of strength: We are your friend, but we condemn what you did to the Armenians 80 years ago, and we're calling it genocide.

Yes -- 80 years ago. The genocide was certainly not committed by the present-day Turkey. And so the point is not to say that you did it but that they did it. Germans have mostly taken responsibility for what they did, other Germans, just a generation or two back -- why can't the Turks, for whom is was not so much a previous generation as a different regime?

Ferguson may be right that calling it genocide won't change things: "My sense is that all the resolutions in the world about past genocides will do precisely nothing to stop the next one." No, but language matters -- words matter, labels matter. And being honest about the past, being truthful about the darkest periods of human history, is important as we struggle with the same sort of horrors today, in North Korea and Darfur and Burma and elsewhere, and the same sort of horrors tomorrow.

**********

The pressure from Turkey continues in the wake of the House committee's vote:

The chief of the Turkish armed forces has warned that military relations with the United States would take a negative turn if Congress approved the Armenian genocide resolution that was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the armed forces chief, was quoted by the Turkish newspaper Milliyet on Sunday as saying that the resolution, which condemns the killings of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks beginning in 1915 as an act of genocide, has caused considerable disappointment in Turkey.

General Buyukanit called the passage of the resolution by the committee "sad and sorrowful," in light of the strong links the two NATO allies have shared.

Further, if it were to be passed by the full House of Representatives, "Our military relations with the U.S. would never be as they were in the past," he said.

"We could not explain this to our public," he said. "The U.S., in that respect, has shot itself in the foot."

How about explaining to your public what you did to the Armenians?

You call what the House committee did "sad and sorrowful," but what about what you did to the Armenians? What words do you use to describe that?

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. should be strong enough, and so committed to the truth, to tell Turkey to fuck off. And yet, from Bush and the deniers of genocide, all we get is acquiescence. So desperate are they for support, they are willing to agree to spread the lies that the Turkish government has been telling for decades. It's like calling black slavery in the U.S. a "human resources plan," or the Nazi extermination of Jews a "population-control project". It's bullshit.

And so top Turkish officials like Gen. Buyukanit issue their threats and all Bush and Rice and Gates can say is yes, Turkey, of course, whatever you want, Turkey, feed us the lines, we're good friends, tell us what to do.

It's called extortion. Which seems to be how Bush is conducting his foreign policy these days -- giving or receiving, whatever, it's all so much corruption.

**********

Also -- The U.S. has "shot itself in the foot"? How repugnant a way to put it.

Turkey killed a million and a half Armenians!

**********

Thankfully, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has committed to push ahead with the resolution. It deserves a full vote on the floor of the House, as well as a full vote in the Senate.

History cannot be changed, but the truth about what happened even so long ago can allow us to come to terms with the past even as we deal with the present and prepare for the future. In this case, that truth must win out over Turkish propaganda.

No matter the timidity and cowardice of Bush and the other deniers of genocide.

Bush denies the Holocaust

By Capt. Fogg

It seems that President Bush would like the US to become an official holocaust denier. Not that holocaust, one of the other ones: the 1915 killings of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks. Both Gates and Condoleezza spoke with CNN this morning after advising Congress to give in to threats by Turkish President Gul and refrain from passing a bill which although it would not affect foreign policy, would call the genocide a genocide. Turkey of course, has been spending a lot of money in grants to US universities in exchange for downplaying their responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths and money in America is truth.

It seems we need the Turks to continue our forever war in Iraq and the dire consequences threatened by the Turks have the administration all acquiver. Bush has demonstrated his true nature this morning and his true nature looks a lot like an over aged woman in pink hot pants lurking under a street light.

Around the World: Darfur, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's our first "Around the World" post -- the first of an ongoing series -- a quick round-up of interesting and important stories from, well, around the world, stories that you might have missed or that might not be getting much attention here in North America or elsewhere:

1) Darfur -- rape and ethnic cleansing

A new report on the crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan has identified rape as a systematic weapon of ethnic cleansing being used by government-backed Janjaweed militiamen, and said Sudanese laws discriminate against female victims, who face harassment and intimidation at local police stations if they try to report the crime.

The report, "Laws Without Justice: An Assessment of Sudanese Laws Affecting Survivors of Rape," by the humanitarian group Refugees International, said rape was "an integral part of the pattern of violence that the government of Sudan is inflicting upon the targeted ethnic groups in Darfur."

"The raping of Darfuri women is not sporadic or random, but is inexorably linked to the systematic destruction of their communities," the report said.

2) Zimbabwe -- inflation and tyranny

Panic buying swept through the streets of Zimbabwe yesterday, as stores ran out of basic goods and shopkeepers complained that they were selling goods at a loss after the government ordered prices to be halved in a last-ditch effort to tackle hyper-inflation...

Inflation is currently estimated at 10,000% and rising. Armed soldiers and the youth militia are patrolling shops and open-air markets to enforce President Robert Mugabe's price controls. More than 200 retailers have been charged with crimes of charging more than the official prices, police confirmed yesterday.

3) Ethiopia -- civil war and tyranny

Ethiopia's government has been accused of forcing thousands of civilians from their homes in a campaign against separatist rebels in the south-east.

US-based Human Rights Watch says troops had burned homes, seized livestock and carried out arbitrary arrests.

Three stories from Africa. All horrible.

Kidnapping in the CAR

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's a horrific story from a horrific part of the world:

Armed gangs are seizing children for ransom payments in the lawless north of the Central African Republic, human rights body Amnesty International says.

Some parents have paid up to $4,000 for their children to be freed -- other minors have been killed, Amnesty says.

The region is a "free-for-all" for rebels, soldiers and armed bandits, a researcher who has just returned says.

CAR has accused neighbouring Sudan of backing the rebels, with attacks coming from Darfur. Sudan denies the charges.

Says one Amnesty researcher: "News is clearly spreading to criminal elements throughout the region that they can have free rein in northern CAR, as there is an almost total absence of any authority." Meanwhile, CAR civilians are "fleeing 'from the frying pan into the fire" by heading to Chad and Sudan" -- "More than 280,000 people have fled their homes in the past year." Both sides, government forces and rebels alike, seem to be killing civilians, though of course this is being strenuously denied.

Kidnapping and genocide. So much more of the same for a continent rife with problems that are so enormous as to seem insoluble. Which, however, is no excuse for doing nothing.

Petition for Darfur

By Heraclitus

Here's a petition you can sign urging Fidelity Investments to divest from a company helping to fund and prolong the genocide in Darfur. From the Save Darfur website:

Divestment offers a powerful way to put economic pressure on the Sudanese government to cooperate with international efforts to end the violence in Darfur.

Fidelity Investments is a major holder of PetroChina, a Chinese oil company that is one of the highest offenders in helping fund the genocide in Darfur.

Help cut off financial support for the government-sponsored violence in Darfur by urging Fidelity and other investment institutions to divest their holdings from PetroChina and other companies doing business with the government of Sudan.