The Cherry Orchard

Now that several leading Republican politicians (and many more smart Republican voters) have abandoned the inane Bush/Cheney position that USA troops must stay the course in Iraq, it seems likely that American forces will begin pulling out soon (how soon? I wish I knew). This is far the end of our troubles in Iraq, or Iraq’s troubles. The hard work will get harder before it gets easier, and some frightening issues loom. We must pull out without leaving causing a massive refugee crisis that could lead to further horrors, privations and invitations to genocide.

As we’ve observed elsewhere on this site, major historical acts of genocide from Turkey to the Ukraine to Nazi Germany to the Chinese heartland to Rwanda have almost always been politically motivated. The “madman” theories that blame past disasters on obsessive politicians (Hitler) or mindless marauding gangs (Rwanda) invariably miss their mark. Genocides happen, sadly enough, because they benefit the governments that support them (I don’t want to repeat my past writings on this topic here, but if you find this formulation unconvincing please visit the articles in the “genocide” category here, where I explore this in more detail).

Here’s why this is relevant now: the territorial and economic battles between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions over control of Iraq (and Iraq’s oil wealth) will probably result in some type of either formal or (more likely) de facto partition. A national partition will quickly lead to a refugee crisis (as it did in, say, the creation of Pakistan from the partition of India). A refugee crisis invariably involves the type of chaos that can lead to genocide. It’s all too easy to see the worst-case scenarios that could emerge in Iraq in the next couple of years, and it is the entire world’s responsibility — not just the USA’s, and not just Iraq’s — to make sure this doesn’t happen.

What can we do to help? As I’ve said so often in these pages before, we can begin by improving the quality of our national debate on the future of Iraq. This Huffington Post article by Thomas de Zengotita helps by pointing out the flaw in the oft-spoken Bush-Cheney line that the current Iraqi government needs to “step up” to solve the country’s problems. The condescending idea that Iraq’s inability to govern itself is due to a lack of national character or organization is pure fiction. Iraq can’t govern itself because its people are allied along Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish lines rather than national lines (and have always been) and will choose to fight for the sectarian causes they have been raised to believe in rather than for a “unity government” that they do not trust.

Unfortunately, not many people will read or understand articles like Thomas de Zengotita’s, and the idea that we can allow “nature to take its course” in Iraq while they “figure out how to govern themselves” is all too widely believed.

I don’t know how we can avoid a vicious refugee crisis in a post-USA Iraq, but this is the question we all need to ask, and we need to ask it now. And let’s just skip the simplistic answers, because they are not going to help.

I just finished a powerful, mind-bending history book, Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang (a Chinese novelist) and Jon Halliday (an American writer and historian). This thick but highly readable book chronicles Mao Zedong’s entire life, from his humble beginnings as a student, librarian and bookseller to his death in 1976. According to this book, it doesn’t matter how monstrous you thought Chairman Mao was; he was worse than that. The book reads like a diatribe, but the scholarship is persuasive. I did some fact-checking, and it appears that Chang and Halliday are simply laying out the sad truth: the political career of Mao Zedong was one of the great frauds of modern history.

The most surprising finding in this book is that Mao, who was never popular or highly regarded by his political peers during the Communist rise to power, ascended to party leadership by consistently sabotaging his partners. Mao was a ruthless “master player”, always looking beyond his organization’s immediate goals to calculate the long-term effects a military defeat or victory would have on his own position within the team. Chang and Halliday provide evidence that Mao regularly forced changes in battle plans or retreat plans, often with disastrous results, so as to deny his “comrades” great victories. This is most pronounced during the famous “Long March”, in which terrible decisions were made at great human cost, diminishing the size and strength of the escaping Chinese Communist Party until it was weak and fractured enough for Mao to begin to emerge as the party’s leader.

Sabotage seems to have been the sharpest tool in Mao’s toolbox, and he betrayed the trust of his colleagues over and over during his long career. I’ll never think of the Korean War the same way again, for instance; I’d always understood that the Chinese and North Koreans were close partners in this conflict, but Chang and Halliday lay out a strong case that Mao allowed North Korea to suffer a disastrous loss in a successful bid to raise China’s global profile and gain access to weapons.

The most upsetting part of the book deals with the agricultural collectivization project known as the “Great Leap Forward”, which caused the deaths of tens of millions of peasants from 1958 to 1961. Here, Mao’s personal perversity is clearly visible; he is unabashedly proud to have managed to have caused such extreme suffering and death, as if this proves his power and his determination. In an almost comic coda to this disaster (which was finally eased after other Chinese Communist politicians bravely defied Mao to end the horror), we see Mao reaching out to heads of state in Iron Curtain-era Eastern Europe by advising them to torment their own populations as successfully as he has in China. Not surprisingly, even the communist leaders of Eastern Europe found Mao’s instructions unappealing, except for the leaders of Albania, who fell for it.

I’m planning to read more about the Chinese peasant genocide of 1958-1961. As I read these chapters, the word “slavery” kept popping into my head. That’s the clearest description of what China’s government achieved during this program: a handful of coastal leaders managed to turn the world’s most populous country into a slave society. It’s quite frightening to see how easily this was achieved.

On an existential or psychological level, a portrait of Mao emerges. He was brave, ambitious and quite smart. He appeared to be a happy and lustful person, without a shred of idealism or humane warmth. Indeed, he mocked and denigrated anyone in his orbit who expressed idealistic or romantic notions, and this ability to undercut the idealism of his “revolutionary” party served him well.

The Dalai Lama bitterly referred to Mao Zedong as his “greatest teacher”, since Mao taught him how venal and destructive a single human being can possibly be. Based on this book, I’ve still got some learning to do.

Suffer in silence. So you were removed from your home, and informed you had no right to live there. So you were told that you were an insect, that your family was a family of insects. So you were barred from working where you have always worked, even though you did a good job there and everybody liked you. So you were put in a train. So you were stripped of your clothes in the cold. So they took all your food away. So your family was shot. So they made you march. So they put you in a camp. So you were forced to breathe poison gas. So your kids were killed. Suffer in silence. Shut up and take what you deserve.

This blog hasn’t been very cheerful the last few days. I’ve been immersing myself in the historical records of one atrocity after another, and it’s been screwing with my state of mind. So many facts to learn, so many pictures to look at, so much I still don’t understand.

But here’s one thing I’ve figured out: genocide works because the persecutors manage to shame their victims into silence. Fear and shame are two of the main weapons in the genocidal toolbox, and we need to ask hard questions about why so little is known about the atrocities of our time. Where is the literature of the Ukranian Holodomor (a word I’ve just learned today)? Who is the Primo Levi, or the Cynthia Ozick, or the Steven Spielberg of Cambodia, of Rwanda, of the Ukraine, of China, of Bosnia, of Darfur? Dave Eggers is doing his best, but mostly there is silence.

It happens that silence is what the persecutor wants to hear from his victims. The experts know what they’re doing, and they know how to manipulate and dehumazine their targets into submission and silence. This is why our modern planet cannot stop the threat of genocide, even today. The technique still works, and it’s happening again as we speak.

One of the several books I’m reading is The Holocaust Chronicles, which begins with this line: “It exists alone in history.” Hardly. This is a question I brought up earlier in this series: why is so much known about the Jewish holocaust and so little about all the others? Well, maybe the Jews were the first people to actually speak — loudly, defiantly, and absolutely incessantly — about what happened to them. I’m proud of this. I’m even proud to be continuing to complain about it here today, and I’m not halfway done complaining yet.

How about you — when are you going to complain about it?

Our inquiry into the meaning of “genocide” continues. Yesterday we looked at the most common template for genocide, in which a “suspect” minority is attacked in time of war. The Armenian massacre, the Jewish Holocaust and the Rwandan massacre all fit this pattern, and so do the the horrifying crimes Saddam Hussein committed against Kurds in northern Iraq during the final years of the Iran-Iraq War. Recent genocidal disasters in the former Yugoslavia (involving Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo and Albania) fit this pattern as well, and so does the genocide currently raging in civil-war torn Darfur.

But it’s too early to conclude that war is the necessary and sufficient explanation for genocide, because (strangely enough) the two worst genocides of the last hundred years contradict this thesis completely. The two worst recorded genocides of all time took place during peacetime, and were targeted against utterly placid and defenseless people. I’m speaking of the two forced famines that decimated the peasantry of Russia in the 1930’s and the peasantry of China in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and of the two incredible monsters who committed these acts. Ladies and gentleman, meet the two champions in the all time pantheon of bureaucratic murder: Joseph Stalin (7 million deaths in 2 years) and Mao Zedong (20 to 30 million deaths in 3 years).

Unlike the Jews or Armenians of Europe or Tutsis of Rwanda, the victims of the vast Russian and Chinese genocides never had the catharsis of victory or judgement against their persecutors. Joseph Stalin decimated his nation’s population and went on to rule as the Great Father of Russia for 20 more years until his death in 1953. Chairman Mao decimated his nation’s population and went on to rule as the mystical oracle of China for 25 more years until his death in 1976. Neither nation has ever mourned for its sins. You think Turkey is in denial? Let’s talk about China if you want to talk about denial …

But let’s start with Russia and Joseph Stalin, because his holocaust came first. Stalin, newly powerful as the sole leader of the fledgling Communist nation, embarked in 1931 on an aggressive program of farm collectivization designed to “increase productivity” and erase bourgouis notions of private ownership across the Russian countryside. Collectivization was a Marxist ideal, but in Stalin’s perverse hands the idealistic project never had a chance, because the farmers were essentially transformed into slaves.

They could not keep up with required yields, and the result was a national starvation. It’s not clear to what extent the government leaders in Moscow cared that the great agricultural project had failed, and to what extent they were actively scheming to trim their population by forced famine.

Thirty years later this pattern repeated itself almost exactly in China, which also suffered from economic problems due to population excess. The similarities between Russia’s “Five Year Plan” and China’s “Great Leap Forward” are quite stunning, though Mao’s scale was significantly larger.

Fifteen years later, yet another Communist dictator, Pol Pot of Cambodia, carried out a program of genocide against his own population that also resembled the Russian and Chinese atrocities. Victims were estimated at 1.7 million.

The Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot template — genocide for population control — provides a strong contrast to the more common war-based genocide template we discussed yesterday.

Despite the strong contrast, though, one principle stands: genocide always serves a functional purpose. Whether the purpose is economic (Russia, China, Cambodia) or military/strategic (Turkey, Nazi Europe, Iraq, the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur), genocides don’t happen by accident. Genocides happen because governments plan them.

Comments welcome again … and I’ll write another installment on this topic tomorrow.

Before I dive into the following inquiry, I’d like to clear up why I think I’m qualified to write about history even though I have no training as a historian (though I have degrees in philosophy and computer science and consider myself well-read).

The fact is, our “experts” aren’t getting the job done. History is an absolutely critical piece for anybody trying to understand modern politics, and in fact a good understanding of the past and present is probably the single most important tool in the toolbox of anybody engaged in a political field (as a journalist, a candidate, a commentator or a supporting player). When it comes to strong popular coverage of the stunningly important debates of the day, though, it seems like we’ve let the room get taken over by yammering monkeys. There’s a lot of noise, but nobody’s saying much at all.

I think we should do better. In the series of posts I’ll be writing for the next few weeks, I’m focusing on one particular question, and I hope you’ll help me figure out the answer by posting comments if you’d like.

It’s a simple question, the kind only an amateur would ask. What is genocide?

What is genocide? Well, let’s see what some of these events share in common. Thinking about, say, the Turkish murder of a million and a half Armenians during World War I, the Nazi Holocaust during World War II, and the monthlong killing spree in Rwanda in which a million Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus, one big fact pops out right away. All three of these events occured during wartime, and the victims were ethnic minorities who were considered likely to betray their nations to invading armies.

The nation of Turkey (during the last years of the Ottoman empire) was allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary against France, Britain and Russia in the First World War. After Turkey lost critical battles to the Russians, the government resolved that the minority population of Armenian Christians were likely to welcome the coming invaders, and planned to kill them all. They carried these plans out for three years.

The Jews of the varied nations of Europe were already reeling from the incredible discrimination and dehumanization of the German Nazi regime when the death trains began rolling in 1942. The Nazi brand of anti-semitism has deep roots, but the German drive to clear Eastern Europe of Jews during its vicious war against Russia was rooted in military strategy as well.

The Rwandan million-person massacre of 1994 was, incredibly enough, a carefully plotted and insidiously executed political maneuver. Hutus form the majority population of Rwanda, but remained in many ways economically and politically subservient to the wealthier minority Tutsis. In 1994, the weak Hutu-led government seemed about to collapse to a powerful invading force of Tutsi exiles when a Hutu radio station began broadcasting instructions that all Tutsis must die (the machetes had already been distributed).

What is genocide? Well, it seems to have a hell of a lot to do with war. Ahh, those masters of war! Genocide belongs to them too (no, to us, all of us, since we are all to blame).

Here’s a slogan more people should hear: War Causes Genocide. War causes genocide like cigarettes cause lung cancer. Something to think about the next time you’re about to reach for a pack, or call up some troops.

More on this subject to follow, of course! Please feel free to comment and tell me how you think this inquiry is going so far.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s new campaign of disinformation regarding the European Jewish genocide of half a century ago has had a positive effect for me: it’s inspired me to do a lot of thinking on this subject. Since writing this article, I’ve been studying up on the actual histories of the Jewish holocaust and several other holocausts of the 20th century, and learning some surprising things.

I wrote in the article linked above that, contrary to popular perception, genocide is anything but rare in the world today. I’ve been gathering more information (though my knowledge of the subject is still sparse), and I’m continuing to find many surprising patterns and similarities between what appear to be isolated histories. Here are some of the more well-known cases of genocide on our planet in the last hundred years, listed chronologically:

1. Turkish Armenians, 1915-1918

2. Russian Peasantry, 1932-33

3. Eastern European Jews, 1939-1945

4. Chinese Peasantry, 1958-1961

5. Cambodian Peasantry, 1975-1979

6. Iraqi Kurds, 1988

7. Rwandan Tutsis, 1994

8. Bosnians, 1992-1995

9. Sudanese, now

We are accustomed to examining these incidents in isolation, but what can we learn by comparing them, and why is that most popular treatments (books, movies) of genocide focus so tightly on specific incidents but draw back from any attempts at universal conclusions?

I believe this is a natural result of the intensely private experience we each have when apprehending the ugly facts of our own history. It is very difficult for me, as a Jew, not to see Hitler’s Jewish holocaust as a searingly unique event, despite the fact that a wider look reveals it was nothing of the sort. Historians with personal connections to any of the other ethnic groups or economic classes above will likewise tend to individuate, and if we stop our inquiries there we are likely to miss the obvious fact that genocide follows clear and distinct universal patterns. In fact, once we separate ourselves from our emotional reactions of victimhood and take a close look, a shocking truth quickly emerges: genocides happen because they serve a functional purpose.

This contradicts the prevailing idea of genocide as the work of madmen. I’m sorry to report that no such easy excuse can survive close examination. I only wish we could blame this horrible phenomenon on human insanity, but this explanation does not hold.

Today is Martin Luther King Day, which seems like an appropriate time to announce the beginning of a new inquiry that I will conduct here at the ol’ Cherry Orchard Blog, Fruit Stand and Political Theme Park. I am going to attempt a field guide — a broad, fact-rich overview — of the worst known incidents of man’s inhumanity to man (as we like to call it) in modern history. Please visit again during the next few weeks as I prepare my first summaries on this topic.