Posted on 10/24/2019 5:21:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editor’s Note: This column was coauthored by David L. Phillips.
Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to “cleanse” northern Syria of Kurds. Though the term “ethnic cleansing” originated during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, genocide and ethnic cleansing are functionally interchangeable. Both are crimes against humanity to which the U.S. must be adamantly opposed.
The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943 who explained, "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action." Genocide was the legal basis of the Nuremberg Trials, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, adopted in 1948, requires states to intervene, whereas ethnic cleansing has no explicit or implied legal obligation.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide outlines acts that constitute genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group.” These include: - Killing members of the group._ Causing serious bodily or mental harm.
- Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
“Ethnic cleansing” is a complementary term first used by the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, to characterize Serbia’s treatment of Muslims and non-Serbs during the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It may seem like a more benign and antiseptic term, but genocide and ethnic cleansing both describe crimes against humanity.
As U.S. officials, and in our private capacities, we struggled to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbs in Bosnia. We applauded in 1995 when the United States went to war to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and, in 1999, U.S. forces intervened to prevent what happened in Bosnia from happening in Kosovo. In both instances, we championed the rights of Muslims. We were proud that the U.S. went to war to defend defenseless victims.
In 1998, we visited Southeast Turkey to document the systematic killing and displacement of ethnic Kurds. Turkey cited counter-terrorism to justify its crimes, which resulted in the deaths of 40,000 people and the displacement of millions. We testified to the UN Human Rights Commission on Turkey’s abuses.
Today, Turkey is practicing genocide again. Turkish troops and their jihadist mercenaries invaded northern Syria in October 2019. Erdogan vowed to “clear” the Kurds from the border area. Clear is a euphemism for cleanse, which is another way of saying genocide.
President Trump’s turning a blind eye to Erdogan’s murderous action against a U.S. ally who joined our fight against ISIS is a problem. The president said the Turks needed a swath of Syria to be “cleaned out” of Kurds -- this will be seen by many as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. Regardless of the language or legal semantics, the U.S. should always oppose genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The U.S. has historically tried to be a force for good in the world. We opposed Hitler’s genocide. Bombed the Serbs to prevent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Launched the Gulf War to keep Saddam Hussein from using chemical weapons.
By allowing ethnic cleansing to remove the Kurds from northern Syria, the U.S. may be seen as an accomplice to Erdogan’s war crimes. The U.S. must oppose genocide in all its forms and in whatever name.
I would say not many
“We were proud that the U.S. went to war to defend defenseless victims.”
Unless WE includes the mouse in your pocket or your panty waist friends - count me out of the happiness index.
The Kurds leave the area, therefore, no ethnic cleansing, no nothing. If the Turks advance beyond Northern Syria and go after the Kurds, I would say that would unleash a response from us.
In short, I have no idea what this author is trying to say, other than, bashing Trump again for pulling troops out that were only supposed to be there 30 days.
By allowing ethnic cleansing to remove the Kurds from northern Syria, the U.S. may be seen as an accomplice to Erdogan’s war crimes.
This author is nuts. We shouldn’t have bombed the Serbs. We fought Saddam because he invaded Kuwait. We aren’t “allowing” Erdogan to wipe out the PKK terrorists.
Smoking some good stuff there, huh?
I haven’t heard NATO step up to curb Turkeys actions. What’s really going on?
Ethnic cleansing, genocide, or whatever term you want to use has been going on at some place in the world at any given time since man first figured out what a large club was good for.
For us to go after every monster doing this means being in perpetual wars, just like we have been doing since the swamp got control of DC.
There’s a Latin term for this ethnic cleansing: “Tufem Shitium”. Translated it means that’s just too bad, it’s none of our business as we have our own problems to tend to (such as the southern border).
Keep our troops home.
How did all that work out for us?
Yup. “Ethnic Cleansing” or “Genocide” was simply called WAR for 10,000 years. Modern Westerners are brainwashed idiots.
It's the Kurds against Syria, Russia, Turkey, and the U.S. I don't think they had much of a choice but to leave.
If the Turks advance beyond Northern Syria and go after the Kurds, I would say that would unleash a response from us.
Why?
Not saying troops. Because Trump gave Turkey that order. It would evoke sanctions.
No, we should not. I agree with President John Quincy Adams who said that the US should not "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy" but should act as the "well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" and the "champion and vindicator only of her own." We need to take care of our own problems and quit sticking our nose into other people's business.
I'm not saying troops either. But the Kurds had no allies in this. The U.S. gave Erdogan everything he asked for so the threat of sanctions was a hollow one; there was never any chance they would be imposed. So with everyone on the other side the Kurds had no option but to leave.
America is being “ethnically replaced” right this very moment and dopes like this writer couldn’t care less.
Grab a rifle and invade Syria yourself, jackass.
Who cares what NATO says on this? If Trump says it, that’s what NATO will do because we fund the largest part of NATO.
No but isn’t turkey affiliated with NATO? Shouldn’t that organization be doing more if genocide was coming? Strange silence
True...I still think it was by far the right thing for Trump to do, but I never realized how deeply entrenched the GOP and the Dems are in this military complex thing.
I fear for Trump’s life, thinking, that these basta*ds want us in wars...beyond all reasoning. Bolton, it looks like now, was the worst of them.
Half the Kurds under arms belong to an organization the US has identified as an Islamic terror group and most of the other half are Maoist Communists.
Obviously the author cares about Islamic terrorists and Maoist Communists but not about Christians. A common perspective among those whining about Trump keeping his campaign promise to pull out of Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.