On July 13, 2016, after more than 23 years of its enactment, the “General Amnesty Act for the Consolidation of Peace” was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador. In what has become a landmark ruling for the victims of the armed conflict, the highest court of justice has opened up the possibility to try those people from both warring parties who perpetrated the most egregious international crimes during one of the bloodiest wars that took place in Latin America in the twentieth century.

But the declaration of incompatibility of the “General Amnesty Act for the Consolidation of Peace” with the national and international corpus of law is not the only achievement in the quest of justice for the victims of the armed conflict. In that same judgment, El Salvador aligns itself with the current tradition in international law which establishes that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not bound by statutes of limitations. This decision also constitutes a breaking point with the national jurisprudence that had declared so far that the time to judge the international crimes committed during the civil war had passed by.

All these past years, this perverse law has been a monument to impunity erected and supported by the governmental authorities in turn, despite their supposedly antagonistic ideological inclinations. As a consequence of its adoption in March 22,1993, in El Salvador none one has been tried for gross violations to international human rights law and for serious violations to international humanitarian law. That is how, with the passing of time, the perpetrators within the country have remain victorious and unchallenged.

In the aftermath of the civil war two values came into tension in El Salvador: justice and peace. Since there was not a clear victor among the warring parties, both agreed that one of those two values had to be completely sacrificed in order to fully achieve the other. Thus, within the country, justice was relinquished in honor of peace. Nevertheless, as this recent judgment has taught us, justice must not be seen as the sacrificial lamb during the negotiation of peace agreements. Peace, in its positive conception, cannot be built upon the pillars of impunity. Believing otherwise would be like the parable of the wise and the foolish builders. Positive peace is built on rock. The rain will come, the streams will rise and the winds will blow, yet it will not fall, because it will have its foundation on the rock. Negative peace is built on sand. The rain will come, the streams will rise and the winds will blow, and it will fall with a great crash.

And it is with a great crash that both warring parties have received the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador. Despite the multiples and persistent claims for justice made by the victims of the armed conflict over time, the two main political parties in El Salvador that emerged as a result of the civil war have vehemently and adamantly opposed the decision reached in these past days by the highest court, arguing that such a decision will open the wounds that were closed by that law a long time ago. But to the victims, whose wounds have not healed just with the passing of time, this judgment may indeed constitute a balsam that helps to start soothing those wounds.

Paula received an LL.B. Degree from the Central American University José Simeón Cañas, and a Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Education for Peace from the University of El Salvador. She also holds an LL.M. degree in International Human Rights Law from Notre Dame and a Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratization Processes from the University of Chile. Paula is currently pursuing a degree in History at the U of M. During the 2014-15 academic year, Paula was the Bernard and Fern Badzin Graduate Fellow at the Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies. 

In her research as part of Alejandro Baer’s course, SOC 4315 “Never Again! Memory & Politics after Genocide,” Alana Erickson reviewed media coverage of violence against Yazidi women in territory controlled by the Islamic State (IS). Below is a reflection of her work.

Looking at the repeated recounting of women’s traumatic experiences in the gory detailed articles across my news log, I find the descriptions of the crimes often gratuitous. I am critical of the use of descriptive stories and recounts of sexual violence perpetrated against Yazidi women by Daesh / the Islamic State (IS). Why are the writers choosing to use these descriptions or leaving them out completely? I am aware that these are real atrocities which happened, and part of reporting on them may include telling things that horrify any sensible reader. However I found myself avoiding logging the more horrible articles in my research, and instead writing them off as pointlessly evocative. I believe that there is something very powerful at play under the surface of these representations of the trafficking and sexual violence of Yazidi women in the news.

I read many articles: large publications, regional, religious, both far right and left political writers, opinion columns and articles that generally filed in the World section of these online publications. A common thread I have noticed in the coverage of the Sinjar Massacre — from 2015 to the present — is the sensationalistic representations of violence and genocide. It is worth being critical of any gratuitous description of horrific events, specifically when the events concern a primary “enemy” of the West, like ISIS, because the effect of horrific language in that context reinforces the West’s moral dichotomy of the “barbaric” Muslims and the “civil, democratic, benevolent” West. It only serves the narrative of protecting Western civility and modernity to emphasize the evil nature of their crimes — and by extension the evil nature of their selves.

Actions that horrify are presented in all media outlets not only to sell papers but also to reinforce the legitimacy of military involvement in the Middle East. The news serves as a warning and a call to arms. In one Newsweek article, I note an especially evocative headline, “Yazidi Teenager Describes Being Islamic State Sex Slave.” This headline is filled with loaded words that elicit intense feelings instantly in the reader. The article continues to center around fear and includes a quote from an IS propaganda video in which the man who held the teenager captive explicitly makes threats to take Western nations: threats that they are going to “spill your blood…erase your history…convert your children.”

The narrative of the war states that it is necessary, untouchable in its necessity lest we find our golden cities surrounded by the black cloud of Daesh forces. I find it interesting that this IS propaganda video is combined with the detailed account of the terrible crimes that Nihad Barakat was subjected to while in captivity. We must look at the cultural meanings invoked in representations of Daesh and its genocidal crimes against Yazidis in the media and how those meanings are used to cause societal action.

There is a more hidden tactic in the articles I read, especially the loud, horror invoking pieces such as one from the Independent (British online newspaper) published in mid-March with the headline “Yazidi Woman Held as ISIS Sex Slave ‘Abused Every Day’ for Seven Months.” In these articles the special use of the term “sex slave” is not only upsetting, but it also carries a cultural weight left over from old Orientalist tropes of Arab sex slavery and the exotified ‘harem girl.’ Not only is the narrative of ‘evil by nature’ invoked (the article opens with noting that the interviewee described her captors as “not like humans”) but there is also an increased level of sexual brutality described which has been used to code people of Arab descent as predatory, barbaric, not like people, and, most importantly, as the radical “Other.” Noting and describing these actions are easy clickbait when they are described in terms that instantly trigger Orientalist fantasies combined with horror in the Western reader. There was usage of a descriptive dramatic narrative style and triggering words or horrific words in some articles on the Yazidi genocide crisis from all forms of news media. For example I did not note the use of more horror words in right wing media comparatively. The article is written with mind to imagery that the Western reader can understand, coded from centuries of representation and fantasy in Western culture. The usefulness of the evocativeness in these articles is varied: Articles with language that triggers and reinforces Western identity sell news and they also demand emotional attention in a way that unbiased factual reporting cannot.

As survivors of trafficking and the Sinjar massacre are finally escaping captors many months later, several are choosing to tell the world what happened to them and demand that the global community pay attention. Nadia Murad Basee Taha, whose interviews and testimony at the United Nations is widely cited, gave details on her sexual assault explaining what happened to her and when, how she felt and how she escaped. In addition to the stories of her harrowing experience she also has made pleas for the global community to take action to help the Yazidi recover from genocide. Among these calls for action are requests to establish facts, offer monetary support for rebuilding, and to open borders for Yazidis, respecting their dignity and acknowledge their victimization by genocide. Lastly, and probably the most commonly cited demand by news media, is her request that the world  “Get rid of Daesh completely… all those who committed these crimes must be brought to justice so that women and children may live in peace.” The decision to use details of the experience is calculated for the purpose of furthering awareness of the plight of the Yazidi.

There is no question that the world must know the stories of survivors of genocide but we must be critical of how the stories are relayed. Does the level of fear and hatred for Daesh amongst the West (manifested through Islamophobia and racialized Orientalist attitudes) and in the news, which precipitates and reinforces that fear, assist the Yazidi’s struggle? Or do the stories simply pile more harmful incendiary rhetoric on top of an already very culturally problematic mindset towards violence in the Middle East?

Alana is an undergraduate student working on her Global Studies Major (with Concentrations in Cultural Analysis, Mideast Region) and an Arabic Minor. She transferred to the University of Minnesota from MCTC in Fall 2015 and was recently awarded a 2016-17 Foreign Language & Area Studies Academic Year Fellowship. In her other life she is a performance artist and musician.

This is the first in a series of articles highlighting the work of University of Minnesota students associated with the Center. Our first student Miray Philips, was recently awarded Bernard and Fern Badzin Fellow in Genocide and Holocaust Studies for the 2016-2017 Academic Year.

Miray was born in Egypt, raised in Kuwait, and moved to Michigan to pursue a college education. She graduated from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor with a BS in Psychology and Sociology. She then moved to Minnesota to begin her PhD in Sociology, with a focus on violence, collective memory, and the Middle East and North Africa. She is broadly interested in the experiences of ethnic and religious minority groups within the Middle East and North Africa, specifically as it pertains to persecution, discrimination and violence.

Miray Philips’s current research is focused on understanding how the Coptic Christian community in Egypt and the diaspora makes sense of their present day experiences in light of a long history of suffering and persecution, and in turn how that history informs their present-day experiences. While Copts in Egypt face persecution and discrimination at the hands of the state and civil society, Copts in Kuwait are at the difficult intersection of being a religious minority and also expats. Copts in the US, however, experience relative privilege in a predominantly Christian country. During the fellowship year she will be completing course work and interviewing Copts in Egypt, Kuwait and the US.

On the occasion of the 40^th anniversary of the end of World War II, on May 8^th 1985, German President Richard von Weiszäcker addressed the country’s parliament with the following words: “All of us, whether guilty or not, whether young or old, must accept the past. We are all affected by the consequences and liable for it. We Germans must look truth straight in the eye – without embellishment and without distortion.”

Weiszäcker’s speech became a milestone in  the distinctively German process known as Vergangenheitsbewältigung (a composite German word which can be best rendered in English as the struggle to overcome or confront the [criminal] past.) Acknowledging the Holocaust and other atrocities committed by Germany during WWII was not an easy process. Weizäcker’s speech challenged persisting idealized or self-victimized national narratives, and it undermined citizens’ identification with their history.

Will a Turkish statesman ever deliver a similarly courageous pronouncement about the  country’s horrific past vis-à-vis the Armenian and other Christian minorities?

The German Parliament’s recent declaration recognizing the genocide by its name might actually bring that moment a bit closer. This declaration was not fingerpointing nor blaming. It was, again, an example of self-reflection: it recognizes the German Reich’s complicity in the 1915-1918 events. “This is not a matter between Armenians and Turks,” said the President of the Bundestag in an interview after the historic declaration, “it concerns us in Germany as well.”

It is also important to understand that Germany’s declaration is about more than acknowledging the crime itself. The passage of time (more than a century) removes the actual victims, perpetrators and bystanders. The question, now, is how their descendants will deal with this divided history. In too many instances, we see that victim identities are passed on to subsequent generations while others will be condemned with the perpetrator stigma. In this respect, the German example is valuable for all, as it distinguishes clearly between guilt and responsibility. In listening to the statements of the German members of Parliament, I was reminded of how political theorist Hannah Arendt elucidated that distinction: “We are always held responsible for the sins of our fathers as we reap the rewards of their merits, but we are not guilty of their misdeeds.”

Germany’s declaration this week in the spirit of Vergangenheitsbewältigung, provides guidance for a process through which societies can move from a divided past to a shared future. It also teaches that one can only step out of the dark shadow of the past by ceasing to deny the undeniable.

Alejandro Baer is the Stephen Feinstein Chair and Director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He joined the University of Minnesota in 2012 and is an Associate Professor of Sociology.

In April, the University of Minnesota welcomed Pulitzer Prize winning author Peter Balakian to campus for the 2016 Ohanessian lecture, organized by Prof. Ana Forcinito (Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese Studies) and sponsored in part by the Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies. Dr. Balakian spoke about the cultural destruction that occurred during the Armenian Genocide. You can watch the presentation here:

Be sure to check out the CHGS blog in the coming weeks for an exciting interview with Dr. Balakian, discussing his work and the growing movement towards recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

This morning, Germany became the thirtieth country to officially recognize the massacre of Armenians at the hands of the Ottomans a century ago as genocide. Although Germany’s recognition comes after several other nations made similar declarations since last April, several factors make the Bundestag’s resolution especially unique: historical ties, the war in Syria and Germany’s own immigrant history all culminate to make today’s news a momentous occasion.

While there is a growing movement in the international community towards declaring the Armenian massacres as genocide, Zack Beauchamp writes in his piece for Vox that Germany’s official recognition of the Armenian Genocide is primarily important for two reasons. First, there is the historical aspect: Germany has already recognized its role in committing atrocities during World War I as an ally of the Ottoman Empire. Several German military advisors played roles in advising Ottoman leaders, including ‘solutions to their Armenian problems.’ Second, it’s widely acknowledged the Armenian Genocide would serve as an inspiration to the Nazis decades later as they attempted to exterminate Germany’s and Europe’s entire Jewish population. Beauchamp writes that official recognition of the Armenian Genocide helps not only the German population heal from its own culpability in atrocities committed against the Armenians, but the later horrors of the Holocaust as well.

Beyond Germany’s historical role in the Armenian Genocide, its recognition today has other importance. As the world’s fourth largest economy, Germany is the wealthiest country to recognize the genocide, surpassing France, which recognized the genocide in 1998. Germany is also a strategically important trading partner of Turkey, generating billions of dollars economic activity between the two countries. The close trade relationship between Turkey and Germany will likely increase pressure on the United States and the Obama Administration to act, as well. Turkish reliance on German trade will likely dull any lasting effect of genocide recognition – something that will likely be of interest to advocates who are continuing to gain recognition in the U.S.

The war in Syria and Iraq is also impacted by today’s declaration from Germany. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was instrumental in getting an agreement passed with Turkey to alleviate the swell of refugees crossing into Europe as a result of the conflict in March. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim had said prior today’s vote that it would be a ‘test of friendship’ between the two countries. Hours after the resolution passed in Berlin, the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to discuss recent developments. What the future is for the recent refugee agreement remains to be seen.

Today’s news is also noteworthy for how the resolution came forward. German MP Cem Özdemir, a member of the country’s Green Party, authored the resolution last year, hoping it would pass in time to mark the centennial of the genocide in April. Özdemir is of Turkish descent himself – the son of Turkish guest-worker who came to Germany in the 1960’s; he didn’t get German citizenship himself until 1983. Today, Özdemir is one of more than a million Turks living in Germany. His position as the leader of the Green Party in Germany could signal a greater involvement in German politics for Turkish-Germans. In an extra twist, the Bundestag has taken steps to increase voting rights for Turks, adding polling locations for Turks to participate in Turkish elections. Could this ultimately affect Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide?

Germany’s official recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been more than a century in the making.  While recognizing the genocide is a victory for the victims, survivors and descendants of the genocide itself, the passage of today’s resolution will have an effect well beyond the recognition movement itself.

Joe Eggers is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, focusing his research on cultural genocide and indigenous communities. His thesis project explores discrepancies between the legal definition and Lemkin’s concept of genocide through analysis of American government assimilation policies towards Native Nations.

This month’s contribution is by Fata Acquoi, who recently graduated with a double major in Sociology and Political Science at the UMN. She intends on pursuing a graduate degree in Human Rights. Her contribution is a snippet of a class assignment that focused on the role of the international community in dealing with alleged perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocity.

The conflict in Darfur has widely been recognized as the first “genocide” of the twenty-first century. Though this recognition is well-known, the 2008 joint United Nations and African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur failed to stop the genocide, and more specifically the ethnic-cleansing program enacted by the current regime in Darfur. This included rape and torture of women and children. According to the Sudan Democracy First Group, a coalition of civil society organizations, there are about two million Internally Displaced Persons in Darfur, of which over 200,000 were displaced in 2015 alone. This suffering is widely felt throughout Darfur, and has not diminished, though it seems that concern for these people by the international community certainly has diminished.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued warrants for Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the head of the Sudanese regime for more than twenty-five years. These warrants are for crimes against humanity and multiple counts of genocide. Though nations have been notified about the warrants for al-Bashir’s arrest, it is unlikely that we will see his prosecution.

In June of last year, al-Bashir attended the Africa Union summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. In May of 2016, al-Bashir attended the swearing in of Yoweri Museveni in Kampala, Uganda. In March he attended the 5^th Extraordinary meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit in Indonesia. The Indonesian government defended its decision to invite al-Bashir to attend the Summit, despite the ICC warrants for alleged war crimes. President Widodo of Indonesia further held a bilateral meeting with al-Bashir, noting the intention of some Indonesian companies to invest in the oil sector in Sudan. The Indonesian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Arrmanatha Nasir, is quoted as saying, “We’re not allowed to cherry-pick which countries we want to invite like on an à la carte menu at a restaurant.”

Meanwhile, the US expressed concern over al-Bashir’s travel to Jakarta to attend the OIC Summit. While the US is not party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, Washington has claimed that it strongly supports the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur. The international community has tried to defeat al-Bashir through economic sanctions, but these have been too partial to bring any real results.

As things continue to get worse in Darfur, the only thing that can help end the genocide is full international intervention.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, must do more in his position of power to address the crisis in Darfur. There is the uncomfortable fact that UN peacekeepers have been accused of sexually molesting young children in countries such as Central African Republic. This casts suspicion on their involvement in any conflict one that is fraught. The African Union, despite having a peacekeeping mission in Darfur, needs to be more strict with al-Bashir’s regime.

Some have called for a continent-wide ban on al-Bashir traveling, which might begin to end his regime. The US needs to practice what it preached and send tanks and machinery to African nations, like Rwanda, that have been on the ground trying to help civilians affected by this conflict. As an international community, we cannot sit back a let this crisis continue after we have acknowledged the pain and suffering of the people of Darfur.

Some Sudanese leaders have called the lack of international intervention a form of International racism. First the international community waited too long to interfere in Rwanda, and over 800,000 people died. Now we have another conflict on the African continent that undermines all of the Western establishments that have been put in place to seek justice. What will this mean for the ICC in future prosecutions of genocidal heads of state? Why call something a “genocide” when they weren’t going to do anything about it in the first place? Why acknowledge the wrongs of a perpetrator that has not been brought to justice? What is the point of acknowledgement in the case of Darfur when it doesn’t bring justice or peace? These are many of the unanswered questions that the international community needs to grapple with, not only in Darfur, but for other on-going atrocities and any we might encounter in the future.

The Turkish systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting present-day Turkey between 1915-1923 can be defined with one word: genocide. Is this by now an incontestable statement? Over the last century, the surviving Armenian communities, spread across the globe as part of one of the world’s largest diasporas, have struggled to gain official recognition for the genocide. Along the way, Turkish nationalist organizations have fought recognition. Instead these organizations push for reconciliation, which merely serves to perpetuate denialist propaganda as it distracts from Turkey’s role in committing genocide.

Last year, with the numerous centennial events commemorating the genocide, the global Armenian community made great strides in gaining recognition. Throughout the year, several countries officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. In April, dozens of Representatives in the United States Congress penned a letter urging President Obama to condemn the events beginning in 1915 as genocide. Later in the same month, Pope Francis issued a statement calling the deaths of 1.5 Armenians as the first genocide of the twentieth century. The centennial was commemorated in the Twin Cities in a series of events, including an interfaith service at the Cathedral of St. Paul and a service at St. Sahag, St. Paul’s Armenian Church.

While the world is increasingly coming to recognize the massacres of 1915-1923 as genocide, Turkey is not. A poll of Turkish citizens last year found that less than 10% want their government to recognize the genocide. Seemingly caught off guard by the massive display of support for recognition, Turkey and Turkish nationalist groups made the 101^st anniversary the target of denialist rhetoric. On April 20^th, the denialist website, FactCheckArmenia, contracted with a skywriting company to spread its message across the skies of New York City. The same day, the website also took out a full page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. Earlier in the month, the site had billboards installed in Boston. This is made especially disheartening because the Boston area is home to the second largest Armenian community in the U.S.

Not surprisingly, sites like FactCheckArmenia are intentionally vague about their founding. It’s likely the organization receives at least some support from the Turkish government. FactCheckArmenia is just one of many well-funded organizations established to curb recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the efforts are extensive. Last week, it was revealed that the deputy mayor of a New Jersey city actively lobbies to deny the genocide. Former Congressmen Dennis Hastert and Dick Gephardt have long been accused of lobbying on behalf of genocide denial. The University of Minnesota and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide has also been the target of denialist efforts, when both were sued in 2011 by the Turkish Coalition of America. The case was dismissed.

Efforts to deny the Armenian Genocide go beyond ignoring historical facts. Denying genocide is in effect, leaving a wound unhealed for the millions of victims and their relatives. Genocide denial is the last stage of genocide, as the victims are insulted, invisibilized and ultimately forgotten. Denial not only perpetuates in time the past genocide – “Even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins,” wrote the philosopher Walter Benjamin. It is also is a dreadful sign of genocides to come.

Joe Eggers is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, focusing his research on cultural genocide and indigenous communities. His thesis project explores discrepancies between the legal definition and Lemkin’s concept of genocide through analysis of American government assimilation policies towards Native Nations.