Genocide and the Possibilities of Future Genocides - Research Paper Example

GENOCIDE 1.0 INTRODUCTION As contemporary humanity prides itself for the leaps and bounds in development and progress in science and technology, the horrific atrocities against humanity in the last one hundred years have no comparison in the story of humanity and this prove to be our shame. This paradoxical reality creates myriad of questions that can only be addressed and stopped in the authentic realization of never again. Never again is a very catching and emotional phrase that has become the rallying cry of people who have experienced the atrocities of WWII (Nzelibe, 2009), the mantra of the citizens of the world who oppose and condemn the dehumanization of human beings at all times across the globe, and the dream of all peoples in the world (Scarlet, 2009). Never again is humanity’s response to one of the greatest if not the greatest evil of our times – genocide. This paper will attempt to understand genocide by looking into its definition, by elucidating what has happened and is still happening in some parts of the world where the experience of genocide is as real as the rising of the sun and what are the possibilities of genocide in the future. In the end it is the hope of the author that the understanding gained from this exposition creates a vision of a world that is fast moving away from violence against humanity. 1.1 GENOCIDE: DEFINED The term genocide is derived from two ancient Greek terms geno which means nation, tribe or race and caedere which means to kill (Schabas, 2000). Raphael Lemkin (1944), the one who coined the term, has defined genocide as “coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objective of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such group” (79). This definition is considered as too narrow as it looks only in terms of national groups and too broad also at the same time for not limiting genocide to physical atrocities only but includes cultural and language disintegration (Schabas, 2000), yet it still provides the most appropriate description of an “old practice in its modern development” (Schabas, 2000:27). In the Genocide Convention (1948), genocide is defined as means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such in the a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The genocide definition provided by Genocide Convention is hounded by four problems namely: 1) it excludes people defined by their political actions 2) the term mental harm is problematic as genocide is often delimited to physical harm 3) the terms intent to destroy is plagued by ‘how will you measure or know the intent of the person?’ and 4) it fails to take into account non-state actors who can and do attempt to destroy rival and ethnic groups (Harff, 2003). Though, these definitions are beleaguered with limitations and problems, it presents clear and succinct circumstances which may constitutes as genocide. Furthermore, it should be noted, that in the Holocausts where genocide was committed interwar (Schabas, 2000), the more modern face of genocide is being committed “in the context of full-blown civil wars or rebellions in which rebel leaders are usually pursuing independent political objectives that might be more valuable to them than the lives of their followers”(Nzelibe, 2009:1172). And this whole new dimension of genocide creates a more terrifying and horrific scenario for humanity. 1.2 GENOCIDE: PAST AND PRESENT Harff (2003) claims since the genocide of World War II, it seems that the world has not really learned its lessons. The table below shows the list off genocide and politicide that have been committed since after WWII. TABLE 1. Genocides and Politicides from 1955 to 2001 Country and Dates Nature of Episode Estimated Number of Victims Sudan, 10/56–3/72 Politicide with communal victims 400,000–600,000 South Vietnam, 1/65–4/75 Politicide 400,000–500,000 China, 3/59–12/59 Genocide and politicide 65,000 Iraq, 6/63–3/75 Politicide with communal victims 30,000–60,000 Algeria, 7/62–12/62 Politicide 9,000–30,000 Rwanda, 12/63–6/64 Politicide with communal victims 12,000–20,000 Congo-K, 2/64–1/65 Politicide 1,000–10,000 Burundi, 10/65–12/73 Politicide with communal victims 140,000 Indonesia, 11/65–7/66 Genocide and politicide 500,000–1,000,000 China, 5/66–3/75 Politicide 400,000–850,000 Guatemala, 7/78–12/96 Politicide and genocide 60,000–200,000 Pakistan, 3/71–12/71 Politicide with communal victims 1,000,000–3,000,000 Uganda, 2/72–4/79 Politicide and genocide 50,000–400,000 Philippines, 9/72–6/76 Politicide with communal victims 60,000 Pakistan, 2/73–7/77 Politicide with communal victims 5,000–10,000 Chile, 9/73–12/76 Politicide 5,000–10,000 Angola, 11/75–2001 Politicide by UNITA and government forces 500,000 Cambodia, 4/75–1/79 Politicide and genocide 1,900,000–3,500,000 Indonesia, 12/75–7/92 Politicide with communal victims 100,000–200,000 Argentina, 3/76–12/80 Politicide 9,000–20,000 Ethiopia, 7/76–12/79 Politicide 10,000 Congo-K, 3/77–12/79 Politicide with communal victims 3,000–4,000 Afghanistan, 4/78–4/92 Politicide 1,800,000 Burma, 1/78–12/78 Genocide 5,000 El. Salvador, 1/80–12/89 Politicide 40,000–60,000 Uganda, 12/80–1/86 Politicide and genocide 200,000–500,000 Syria, 4/81–2/82 Politicide 5,000–30,000 Iran, 6/81–12/92 Politicide and genocide 10,000–20,000 Sudan, 9/83–present Politicide with communal victims 2,000,000 Iraq, 3/88–6/91 Politicide with communal victims 180,000 Somalia, 5/88–1/91 Politicide with communal victims 15,000–50,000 Burundi, 1988 Genocide 5,000–20,000 Sri Lanka, 9/89–1/90 Politicide 13,000–30,000 Bosnia, 5/92–11/95 Genocide 225,000 Burundi, 10/93–5/94 Genocide 50,000 Rwanda, 4/94–7/94 Genocide 500,000–1,000,000 Serbia, 12/98–7/99 Politicide with communal victims 10,000 SOURCE: Harff, 2003 Likewise, in the same article no conceptual distinction has been made by Harff (2003) between genocide and politicide. She contends that the pre-conditions for both genocide and politicide which are political upheaval, mass killings, political systems which adhere to exclusionary ideologies and autocratic rule, ethnic and religious cleavages, low economic development and in the international arena, countries which do not support international interdependence are the one and the same thing, producing both genocide and politicide. But more than the numbers of bodies counted, are the lived experiences, the told stories of those who have survived – “someone who saw herself in muddy detail as a corpse in the papyrus lying among all the others, comparing herself to all those dead, always feels distressed. By what? I cannot say. . . .The truth is, if she has lost her soul even for a moment, then it’s a tricky thing for her to find a life again” (Stancell, 2009: 40). What makes genocide more lethal is that just like in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, after the limelight and the country has been pacified and secured , the moral and psychological ravages continued—as they do today”(Stancell, 2009: 36). In the face of this grim reality, what can be done? 1.3 GENOCIDE: THE FUTURE The choice of the future of genocide lies in the hands of all human beings. Nobody can claim that they have come up with the panacea for genocide. Never again should not just be a mantra uttered, it should be a way of life embraced by all. There should be a conscious effort on the part of governments and citizens to not perpetuate genocide. Let us be constantly reminded that people who have died are real and are not just figures, numbers. Indeed, the world is stupefied by the horrors of the numerous genocides that the world has seen since WWII. But, the fact that certain generalizations regarding genocide is now known like genocide is born of conflict whether social, racial or ethnic; that perpetrators of genocide are ordinary, rank and file citizens is a known fact. Moreover, genocide is propaganda and that the role of the State in mobilizing perpetrators is a hard known reality in this issue. Furthermore, victims of genocide are innocent in the sense that these “persons which have nothing ‘about them’ which would justify hostile behavior”(Schwenkenbecker, 2009: 107). Let us use the knowledge that we have pertinent to genocide. This knowledge can be used for better understanding of transitional justice which is deemed human rights beyond the traditional conception of human rights (Scarlett, 2009). Moreover, foreign policies of First World countries, especially, US should be less protectionist of its national interests and more open in “using its economic and military power to stop genocides in the 21st century” (Mills, 2009: 80). 1.4 CONCLUSION Genocide is an act that denigrates and dehumanizes all of humanity. Its victims are innocent and yet contemporary history has shown that humanity is continuously under threat of genocide. The future possibilities of genocide rest at the hands of each and every one of us. The telltale facts of genocide are known. The decision to learn from humanity’s experience of genocide should be a global effort. Never again! Never again! REFERENCES: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. (1951). Harff, B. (2003). No lessons learned from the Holocaust? Assessing risk of genocide and mass Murder since 1955, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No 1,pp 57 – 74. Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Mills, B.J. (2009). How to end the genocide in Darfur and why it won’t happen, Military Review, pp 80 – 87. Nzelibe, J. (2009). Courting genocide: The unintended effect of humanitarian intervention, California Law Review, Vol. 97, pp 1171 – 1230. Scarlett, M.A. (2009). Imagining a world beyond genocide: Transitional justice, The Social Studies, pp 169 – 178. Schabas,W.A. (2000). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes.UK: Cambridge University Press. Schwenkenbecher, A. (2009). Terrorism, supreme emergency and killing the innocent, Perspective, Vol. 17, No 1, pp 105 - 126. Stancell, C. (2009). The aftermath and after, The New Republic, pp 35 – 44. Read More