Tweet
OTHERS' VIOLATIONS AND GENOCIDES
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-20314 9-109-centerothers-violations-and-genocidesbr-i-by -i-brorhan-kemal-cengizcenter.html
March 3 2010
Turkey
Today's Zaman must be quite popular in other countries as well: Since
I started to write for the paper I have received many invitations
from abroad.
I am being invited to talk on the situation in Turkey. I have turned
down some of these invitations for a specific reason, and I would
like to share it with you.
As regular readers of this column know very well, I am one of the
most critical voices in Turkey on the situation of minorities and past
atrocities committed in this country. I do, however, refuse invitations
to lecture on the situation of Greek minorities in Turkey in a panel
discussion in Greece. If you think I am trying to avoid nationalist
reactions in Turkey, you are mistaken. Because of my writings and my
activities I have had enough threats, insults and rebukes from certain
circles, and I do not care if this increases for any particular
reason. I turn down these kinds of invitations just because I am
extremely allergic to talking about human rights when nationalistic
feelings and high "political interests" are running in the background.
When you invite someone from Turkey to Greece to give a lecture on
the situation of Greek minorities, you are actually organizing a
"political event," unless you do not add a component on the situation
of Turkish minorities in Greece into your panel discussion. I would
definitely refuse to talk about Turkish minorities' situation in
Greece before Turkish nationalists and I do the same abroad, too.
Politicizing human rights is a meaningless endeavor that does not
serve anyone's interests and just harms the very human rights it
claims to fight for. In a genuine human rights struggle there is an
inevitable element of criticism of your own government, your country
and so on. You may be fighting to improve the human rights situation
in your own country, and this almost always involves some risks. You
may be targeted by the government or civilians, you may be prosecuted
and imprisoned, you will be excluded and marginalized. Or you may
be fighting for the rights of others in other countries. This is,
for example, what members of Amnesty International do in developed
countries for the citizens in other countries. A Dutch, Danish or
Swedish member of Amnesty International fights for the rights of
Chinese or Russian dissidents or for the victims in Darfur and so on.
This second type of human rights advocacy may not involve too much
risk for the person doing it, but this type of advocacy also has its
own distinguishing features. It embraces deep sympathy and passion
for victims, and the hostility is always directed to the regime, not
the country itself. In short they fight against China for the sake
of Chinese people, and they wish good for China in the long run. You
can also see these people are equally sensitive to the human rights
violations that their countries have committed.
In the political usage of human rights you cannot see these elements.
In political usage the hostility is directed towards the country
itself, not a regime or certain administration. In the political usage
of human rights you cannot see a genuine concern for human suffering.
>From here I will come to the very hot issue of this "Armenian genocide
resolution" in the US Congress.
This resolution is also a perfect example of the political usage of
human rights discourse. It will be voted on by US congressmen, who
would possibly reject any resolution for a similar declaration for the
massacres of Native Americans or slaves who lived and were killed on
US soil a century and a half ago. This resolution will be supported by
certain interest groups who at this junction just want to hurt Turkey.
But under different circumstances they may be taking a completely
different course of action. So we all talk about politics. If this
resolution passes, it will only strengthen the hand of Turkish
nationalists here in this country and block genuine discussion of
the issue concerned.
I have just returned from Washington, D.C., with these thoughts in my
mind, which is suffering deeply from jet lag. Maybe I should return
to this subject later on to better explain what I mean.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-20314 9-109-centerothers-violations-and-genocidesbr-i-by -i-brorhan-kemal-cengizcenter.html
March 3 2010
Turkey
Today's Zaman must be quite popular in other countries as well: Since
I started to write for the paper I have received many invitations
from abroad.
I am being invited to talk on the situation in Turkey. I have turned
down some of these invitations for a specific reason, and I would
like to share it with you.
As regular readers of this column know very well, I am one of the
most critical voices in Turkey on the situation of minorities and past
atrocities committed in this country. I do, however, refuse invitations
to lecture on the situation of Greek minorities in Turkey in a panel
discussion in Greece. If you think I am trying to avoid nationalist
reactions in Turkey, you are mistaken. Because of my writings and my
activities I have had enough threats, insults and rebukes from certain
circles, and I do not care if this increases for any particular
reason. I turn down these kinds of invitations just because I am
extremely allergic to talking about human rights when nationalistic
feelings and high "political interests" are running in the background.
When you invite someone from Turkey to Greece to give a lecture on
the situation of Greek minorities, you are actually organizing a
"political event," unless you do not add a component on the situation
of Turkish minorities in Greece into your panel discussion. I would
definitely refuse to talk about Turkish minorities' situation in
Greece before Turkish nationalists and I do the same abroad, too.
Politicizing human rights is a meaningless endeavor that does not
serve anyone's interests and just harms the very human rights it
claims to fight for. In a genuine human rights struggle there is an
inevitable element of criticism of your own government, your country
and so on. You may be fighting to improve the human rights situation
in your own country, and this almost always involves some risks. You
may be targeted by the government or civilians, you may be prosecuted
and imprisoned, you will be excluded and marginalized. Or you may
be fighting for the rights of others in other countries. This is,
for example, what members of Amnesty International do in developed
countries for the citizens in other countries. A Dutch, Danish or
Swedish member of Amnesty International fights for the rights of
Chinese or Russian dissidents or for the victims in Darfur and so on.
This second type of human rights advocacy may not involve too much
risk for the person doing it, but this type of advocacy also has its
own distinguishing features. It embraces deep sympathy and passion
for victims, and the hostility is always directed to the regime, not
the country itself. In short they fight against China for the sake
of Chinese people, and they wish good for China in the long run. You
can also see these people are equally sensitive to the human rights
violations that their countries have committed.
In the political usage of human rights you cannot see these elements.
In political usage the hostility is directed towards the country
itself, not a regime or certain administration. In the political usage
of human rights you cannot see a genuine concern for human suffering.
>From here I will come to the very hot issue of this "Armenian genocide
resolution" in the US Congress.
This resolution is also a perfect example of the political usage of
human rights discourse. It will be voted on by US congressmen, who
would possibly reject any resolution for a similar declaration for the
massacres of Native Americans or slaves who lived and were killed on
US soil a century and a half ago. This resolution will be supported by
certain interest groups who at this junction just want to hurt Turkey.
But under different circumstances they may be taking a completely
different course of action. So we all talk about politics. If this
resolution passes, it will only strengthen the hand of Turkish
nationalists here in this country and block genuine discussion of
the issue concerned.
I have just returned from Washington, D.C., with these thoughts in my
mind, which is suffering deeply from jet lag. Maybe I should return
to this subject later on to better explain what I mean.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress