GENOCIDE: ARMENIA & TURKEY

Now that the poh-faced Swedes, along with their colleagues in the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- no doubt aroused by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose constituency contains a large and vocal Armenian contingent -- have delivered their marvelously self-satisfying verdict that , the events in Turkey during the Great War of 1914-1918, merit the word 'genocide', some little clarification would seem necessary. The word, a relatively new one, is much bandied about, but just how stable is our definition?

Over many years of teaching I would like to offer a strict definition which, if enshrined in international law, might serve some more useful purpose than labeling states or individuals responsible for acts which we all find deplorable, which do fit in under other sanctions of international law, such as war crimes, but should not be labeled genocide.

Here is the definition I favor:

Genocide is the systematic mass murder by a legitimate state of its own citizens, not for what they do but for what they are.

What fits?

First, and only so far, the German extinction of its Jewish population, whether accomplished within its borders or transported to other countries. The Hitler government in Germany was that of a legitimate state; the killing was massive; it was systematic and not sporadic, and Jews were its victims because they were Jews, something they could not avoid being.

What does not fit?

The undoubted crimes committed against Turkey's minority Armenians. This was sporadic, not systematic; it has not been proved to be enshrined in state legislation; the crimes can best be seen as acts of war and should be condemned as such -- as akin to the massacres on both sides during the Spanish Civil War or the conflicts in Rwanda.

The Pol Pot regime in Cambodia meets all the criteria save for one: theirs were the crimes of an illegitimate government.

Was the Soviet elimination of its Kulaks genocide? No. Though it often resulted in the death of its victims -- as the Gulag killed off its dissidents, real or imagined -- it was not conceived of as a mass killing.


More difficult is the case of non-German nationals, specifically Jews, who were indiscriminately slaughtered on the orders of the German government. It can be argued that Polish, French or Norwegian Jews were involved in acts of war (resistance) to German occupation. Their killing is certainly a war crime, but I would rather keep the definition of genocide as rigorous and restricted as possible, for only the clearest definition of such crimes against humanity can prevent their recurrence.

If this definition appeals to readers, I humbly request that they copy it on all available links so that it may be discussed widely. And may the Swedes and our beloved representatives come to grips a real, usable definition of the word.

RAY CHANDLER

Chandler was always a classy writer, and his correspondence should be made required reading not just for writers' workshops but for various Nobel laureates of recent years, who strike me as utterly deprived of the common sense without which they are destined to the world of coteries.

In 1949 he wrote as follows:

I have always thought it one of the charms dealing with publishers that if you start talking about money, they retire coldly to their professional eminence, and if you start talking about literature, they immediately yank the dollar sign before your eyes.

I would remind younger readers that in 1949 publishers could still read and write.