!á�� face="Verdana" size="2">We are so preoccupied with the Armenian genocide allegations made against us that we fail to follow developments taking place in the international arena on issues related to genocide. The genocide law began to take shape with the Nuremberg Tribunal (1945-46) and the trials held in a number of countries that had been occupied by the Nazis. Later in 1948 the U.N. Convention was signed. During the 40 years that followed, no significant development took place except the Eichmann case in Jerusalem. The decisions made by the courts created in Arusha and The Hague due to the genocides that took place in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and discussions held on the status of the “International Criminal Court” have put the genocide issue on the agenda of the international community.

  When the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina took place in the heart of Europe before the very eyes of the EU, it became all too obvious that the specter of genocide had come back despite the earlier conviction that after the Holocaust it would never recur. Priority was given to efforts aimed at understanding the phenomenon of genocide so that genocides could be prevented in the future. Thus widespread but somewhat undisciplined sociological studies began to appear on genocide.

  Now philosophy, too, is becoming involved in this issue. Since, generally speaking, they tend to produce universal knowledge, philosophers refrain from analyzing specific events. A book edited by John K. Roth, “Genocide and Human Rights, a Philosophical Guide," Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 is probably the first of its kind in this regard. Roth has compiled in this book the articles written by 25 philosophers.

  Genocide is an issue that goes well beyond the Armenian allegations. Turks now have an opportunity to study the genocide issue by taking the Armenian problem as a starting point and make a contribution to international efforts.

  Judging by the news leaked to the press from the conference that was finally held at Bilgi University, many of the participants seem to have just been acquainted with the genocide issue. No one reportedly presented a paper on the judicial aspects of the issue though law is the area where the greatest knowledge on genocide has accumulated. Yet a significant number of philosophers are saying that the law is their guide, that it is the law that defines the highly important difference between “crimes against humanity” and “genocide” (Thomas W. Simon, p. 72).

  The conference apparently subscribed to the idea that the Unity and Progress Party with its nascent Turkish nationalism had committed genocide against the Armenians. Many of the participants implied that the massacres in question were genocide while others openly said so. Yet no ruling power could possibly commit genocide out of the blue. For example, prior to the Holocaust, a number of philosophers and academics had -- wittingly or not -- paved the way for the Nazis to subject the Jews to genocide (Colin Tatz, p. 82). When they make an analysis of historical events, the aforementioned Turkish academics fail to determine whether a similar “intellectual preparation” prior to the 1915-16 events had taken place.

  Among the philosophers who contributed to the book are those who oppose any attempt to hastily label atrocious events as “genocide” with a display of a “false sense of justice, false compassion” or a “false sense of the practical.” These philosophers carefully discriminate between massacre and genocide (Raimond Gaita, pp. 165-166).

  In this context, almost all of the philosophers quoted in the said book indicate that Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger had built a racial hierarchy according to the level of being civilized by referring to the “inferior” qualities of the blacks, the Tahitians, etc., that is, of the non-whites, implying the needlessness of backward and weak races to survive. Later, these ideas were supported by the scientific racism of Gobineau and his likes as well as social Darwinism theory.

  It is undoubtedly important that philosophers tackle the genocide issue. However, as we see in their articles, they obviously have serious shortcomings on two points. These philosophers all seem to agree that the intellectual preparation for the Holocaust began 200 years ago when the age of “Enlightenment” had destroyed the religion that had been keeping human aggression in check. Yet, anti-Semitism, the basic cause of the Holocaust, dates back much earlier. In addition, they meet with various difficulties, hence their treatment of the Holocaust as a mystery, because they fail to understand the psychological mechanisms that lie beneath the acts of genocide.

  Whether we like it or not, most of those who think and write in Turkey are liberal intellectuals. They are trying to make room for themselves between the genocide allegation, which is the official Armenian thesis, and the “denial” of the events, which they call the “official Turkish thesis.” They conveniently ignore the fact that in 1983 the late ambassador Kamuran Gurun, the then undersecretary of the ministry, had actually called the events a “tragedy,” giving a full and objective account of these events in his book titled "The Armenian File." Moreover, they do not have the slightest idea about the legal and psychological aspects of genocide. They could, at least, start with the philosophy of it.