Armenia: The Case For A Forgotten Genocide...

Truth be told, I am packing my bookshelves into boxes in preparation for a move later this year or early next year, once I have finished my masters. It is a long process, not only because there are thousands of books to be packed away, but because I find myself stopping ever now and then to read a few pages or more of a book before putting it into the box.

I came across a photocopied version of "Armenia: The Case For A Forgotten Genocide" by Dickran H. Boyajian (LLM) in my collection of books. The original version it seems was once held by the Permanent Mission to the United Nations of the Republic of Indonesia. I guess, this means that I probably picked it up through my previous work.

Anyways, it is a book I have read a number of times before. I read it and used parts of it in an honours thesis that I wrote for my LLB (Bachelor of Laws). Although for some reason it never ended up getting graded and the rest is history so they say. The book is a challenging read and makes a compelling case. Nevertheless, there are always two sides to any interpretation of history, and this is certainly the case here.

The fact that the Armenian genocide is still so contentious after almost a century having passed is testament to the passionate opinions and interpretations held on each side of the genocide claim.

The purpose of the post is not really to review the book. It is really more to recommend it to anyone that might have an interest in matters such as these. I have been doing some reading on the holocaust of the Jews during World War II. Having read Boyajian's book it has certainly provided a lot of food for thought as to how I might go about teaching subject matter that relates to genocide more generally with respect to people's ability for inhumanity against their fellow human beings.

So, if any one has a fascination for learning in this area or about the history of the Armenian genocide, then this book might be a good jumping off point.

More than anything else, for me this time it was really about wanting to get away from the compulsory reading I have had to do to complete assessment tasks of late. But, in the end, I still find myself thinking about ways and means to teach the material and content that my reading illuminates for me.

Ho hum...

UN Sanctions on North Korea...

This is a Claytons post, the post you make when you're not really making a post. To understand the first sentence you will need to be of a similar age to me and have lived in the 1980s and probably in Australia to understand the Claytons reference, but just in case you can find out here. Besides it is time I produced something that was not about Manohara.

It seems that the UN has decided to up the ante on North Korea and expand the sanctions that are imposed on North Korea as response to a nuclear test last month.

There is no doubt that Kim Jong-il is a dictator and there is little doubt that he is responsible for starving his people. However, sanctions are only likely to further exacerbate the suffering of ordinary North Koreans and those less able to cope with further restrictions in the form of broader sanctions. My guess is that Kim and his family won't suffer because of the imposition of further sanctions.

Sanctions did not work in Iraq in terms of toppling another dictator, Saddam Hussein. Sanctions only saw greater suffering endured by the little people. This suffering was so bad that the UN was forced into a food for oil program to try and offset the harm the sanctions were doing to those Iraqis least able to cope.

I wonder is it possible to make an argument that UN sanctions are tantamount to a crime against humanity or a pre-cursor to genocide even though the actions of the UN are sanctioned by the members of that organization?

Just a thought!

Ahmadiyya in Pakistan

Ahmadiyya in Indonesia has sort off gone of the radar since the issue of a Ministerial Regulation that to all intents and purposes bans the Islamic sect by prohibiting the ritual practices of believers and the violence perpetrated against people rallying in support of religious pluralism. The propensity for violence exhibited by some towards Ahmadiyya certainly needs no encouragement.

At the time in Indonesia there were videos posted on you tube of calls to jihad (some might argue that Jihad is not about violence but rather it is a personal struggle designed to bring a person closer to God) in order to exterminate the Ahmadi. However, in Pakistan this has gone one step further with Aalim Online presenter Aamir Liaqat Hussain, the former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs in Pakistan, calling the Ahmadi's "kaffirs" and deserving of being killed.

Within days, two prominent Pakistani Ahmadi had been murdered.

Interestingly, the show also airs in the UK, the USA, and Canada. I wonder whether broadcasting standards in these countries are tolerant of such incitement to murder over the public airwaves.

I wonder how Indonesia would deal with a popular TV presenter issuing a call to violence and murder or even genocide?