60 YEARS ON, GENOCIDE CONVENTION STILL PROMPTS DEBATE
Kerstin Schweighofer

Deutsche Welle
,,3858014 ,00.html
Dec 8 2008
Germany

The genocide in Rwanda set legal precedents with life sentences for
many perpetrators

Sixty years ago, the UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This week, historians, lawyers
and politicians discussed the convention’s future at a conference in
The Hague.

Why is it that a massacre, as horrific as it may be, is not considered
genocide? At what point can we begin using the word genocide to
describe the worst crime committed human beings can perpetrate
on each other? These were the types of questions being posed at a
conference in the Hague on Monday to mark 60 years since the United
Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 260, better known as the
convention on genocide.

Among the guest speakers was Chief Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo. And it’s no coincidence that
the conference is being held in The Hague, which, due to its many
international courts, has developed into the "legal capital of the
world," former UN General Secretary, Boutros Gali, once said.

Among the program points was a discussion about the definition of
genocide as it was laid down in the UN Convention on December 9,
1948. The most important criterion is the intention to completely
obliterate an entire race. That’s why genocide doesn’t always involve
massacres — a single murder will do. Even if all the women of a
certain population are to be made infertile, or all the children are
to be kidnapped, it can still be genocide if the purpose is to wipe
out that population. It’s the most decisive criterion, and for the
prosecutors, the hardest to prove.

The Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin — a pioneer in the field of
international justice — coined the term genocide. He was responding
to the mass murder of Armenians at the hands of the Turks in 1915 —
a massacre that even today, is not legally classified as genocide.

This also applies to the Holocaust. It was never explicitly defined
as genocide before a court, and not a single defendant has ever been
found guilty of genocide towards the Jews. The usual verdict was
"crimes against humanity."

Rwanda, Yugoslavia set legal precedents

Only in the last 15 years have courts ever found defendants guilty
of genocide, in two cases — Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In
the judges’ opinions, the mass murder of the Tutsis and the murder
of thousands of Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica were clear cases of
genocide. At the Rwanda tribunal, a large number of political leaders
were given life sentences in prison.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic faces charges of
genocide Whether the same will happen at the Yugoslavia tribunal
with war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic remains to be seen. Former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic died in prison before he could be
sentenced, and Karadzic’s wartime military leader, Ratko Mladic, still
remains at large. Then there’s the new international criminal court,
the ICC. Last summer, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo indicted
Sundanese President Omar el Bashir on charges of genocide in Darfur.

Because of the small number of convictions, recently, the voices of
those who would loosen the criteria for genocide have been growing
louder. It’s a subject that was up for debate at the conference in
The Hague, but for Dutch historian and director of the Amsterdam
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Wichert ten Have, it’s
out of the question.

"I don’t think this is the right way to go," he said. "It was hard
enough to get all the countries to accept the current definition
60 years ago. Just because jurisprudence has to be created and the
world is waiting for verdicts is no reason to start revising this
definition."

Not a word to be used lightly

Another topic for discussion at the conference was misuse of the word
"genocide." The prominent indictments against Karadzic and El Bashir
have had the effect of popularizing the term, to the extent that it’s
now even being used by animal activists describing the suffering of
animals. Politicians also more frequently use the term in order to
justify violence and military engagement.

"The bloody conflict between Russia and Georgia is a perfect example,"
said Ten Have. "Both sides deliberately spoke of genocide, even though
in this case, it really wasn’t applicable. We have to keep the term
pure — both legally and politically speaking. And we have to accept
that it shouldn’t be used lightly."

–Boundary_(ID_EbTOv9VWcvBbTnYMK17 hvw)–