DEBATE CONTINUES OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES GENOCIDE

Worldfocus
09/02/05/debate-continues-over-what-constitutes-ge nocide/3925/
Feb 5 2009
NY

Turkey admits to World War I-era mass killings in Armenia but denies
that it was genocide. A memorial in Yerevan, Armenia, commemorates
the killings.

The word genocide was coined in the wake of the Holocaust.

Since then, the term has been used in varying contexts to describe
modern conflicts, from Rwanda to Darfur. But the term itself has become
a source of conflict, as many look to whether or not governments and
leaders recognize and punish genocide.

The United Nations defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group" and a convention criminalizing genocide became law in 1951.

Some people have been prosecuted and found guilty of genocide,
including Rwandan politician Jean-Paul Akayesu and Serbian General
Radislav Krstic.

However, while the U.S. has pointed to genocide in Darfur, the United
Nations has refrained from using that term to describe the killings
in Sudan.

The "Killing Denouement" blog discusses the historical use of the
term and modern debates surrounding its usage:

Is Gaza a genocide; is Darfur a genocide? Where do you draw the lines
between ‘land conflict’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide’, and what
are the political value(s) of doing so? And how does something get
designated as genocide anyway – is it, legally, only when the ICC at
the Hague says so?

[…]The Rwandan genocide is popularly characterised as one of the
most shocking massacres of a century already stained by violent
bloodshed. Much of its associated visceral horror comes from the
situation of neighbours turning against each other. Not unlike its
historical cousin of the Nazi Holocaust, it too was structured around
several poles of binary opposition. Citizen and subject; native and
settler. Hutu and Tutsi; Nazi and Jew. Both of these atrocities have
seeped their way into the collective Western consciousness, and have
come to function as embedded points of reference for future conflicts.

The "Presidential Blog" writes about the debate surrounding the Gaza
war and its casualties:

I see how the name-calling and the evocations of other historical
horrors take us all further away from understanding, further away from
any hope of resolution on a human scale. Comparisons to "genocide"
or "apartheid" simply raise the rhetorical stakes; they may help
speakers or writers score points (in their own minds and the minds of
the like-minded) but they do nothing to advance shared understanding.

On the contrary.

Mahmood Mamdani of "Pambazuka News" points to similarities between
violence in Darfur and the war in Iraq, exploring how the conflicts
are named differently:

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate
of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly
similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the
official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The
victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather
than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is
named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency
and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the
difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference
does it make?

Flickr user "Bullneck" posts an image of a protester with a sign
declaring genocide, and argues that the word is misused:

Here’s an idea: Why don’t we all put the term ‘genocide’ (and
‘Holocaust,’ too) on a hiatus from placards and instead use words with
more meaning, rationality, and thought? The only situation which calls
for the use of such terms would be something akin to Rwanda in the
’90s. Everything else is self-righteous hyperbole which cheapens the
word’s meaning.

Blogger "Stacey Perlman" argues that governments use alternate terms
to avoid responsibilities:

The genocide in Darfur has gone on since 2003 and has not gained the
attention it deserves. Other genocides include Rwanda in 1994 and
the Cambodian Killing Fields in 1975. Not to mention the death of 11
million people, 6 million of them Jews, in the Holocaust during WWII.

Perhaps lesser known is the first genocide of the 20th century. No,
it wasn’t the Jews in WWII, it was the Armenians in 1915 during
WWI. It is estimated that one and a half million people died between
1915 and 1923. There is still controversy surrounding the mass murder
of these people as the Turkish government has continually denied it
ever happened.

In Kenya, the recent election controversy was the straw that broke the
camel’s back after decades of tension from grudges over land. Using
a term like "ethnic cleansing" is an easy way to avoid providing
aid. […] Until the situation is deemed "genocide" no legal action
needs to be taken, which is disturbing. Ethnic cleansing is not any
less minor of a situation than a declared genocide and efforts should
be made to combat it.

The "BlogCritics" blog writes that Western governments only deem mass
killing genocidal when economic interests are involved:

After the horrors of World War II, the world said "never again" to
horrific mass killings. But, due to the Cold War tensions, idealistic
ideas such as this one were abandoned in favor of realist politics
and fighting for self-interests. "Never again" does not mean "we
will do everything to stop genocides from happening anywhere in the
world." The Western world in particular considers stopping genocides
only in countries where they have economic or other interests.

That is why in 1994 the American government did not want to use
the term "genocide" to describe the fastest genocide in recorded
human history that took over 800,000 lives in Rwanda in only 100
days. […] Calling the mass slaughter "genocide" would obligate the
US and other governments, signatories of the Resolution 260A(III),
to intervene and stop it. But the US and other Western countries did
nothing because they had no interests in the small, overpopulated, and
poor African country. That a whole ethnic group was being exterminated
in front of the whole world was not enough.

Blogger "Erica Thurman" argues that omitting gender from the definition
of genocide allows violence against women:

Discourse of human security as it relates to women appears to avoid
the "G" word–genocide. This is perhaps because the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Convention)
fails to identify systematic sexual based violence as an act of
genocide. Various threats to human security are gender specific. Rape,
forced impregnation, maternal mortality rates and sexual slavery
are components of human insecurity which have to be viewed through a
gendered lens to recognize "who is affected and how, and what specific
forms of protection or assistance are needed by whom." […]

A finding of systematic rape as genocide would serve two purposes. The
first would allow the violence against African women to be classified
as genocide, thereby compelling the international community to
act to prevent future occurrences of this heinous crime. Secondly,
the finding of rape as genocide would introduce the idea of sexually
specific crimes in the discourse of genocide which could subsequently
compel an amendment to the Convention establishing women as a protected
class against genocide.