Is It Genocide
Run for Cover -- Genocide Conspiracies Abound
Published August 19, 2009 @ 09:30AM PT
People throw the term "genocide" around with utter abandon. The internet in particular gives free reign to those who denigrate the term by slapping it on any number of alarmist rantings.
Simply put, genocide is the systematic attempt to destroy an entire group of people. The intent of the perpetrator is crucial --- genocides are not accidental, they are deliberate. Many approaches are available to one considering this nasty deed, but the purpose is clear: Genocidal intent means pointing to a particular group of people and saying, "You don't have the right to exist."
So if you take this definition and misplace your faith in others to do the same, a quick tour through the internets will show that we have much more to worry about than a few hundred thousand dead in Darfur. Indeed, genocide is all around:
- As previously noted, Obamacare is really a secret plot to kill us all. (Love the conveniently truncated definition of genocide at the top of that post.)
- This, of course, will just add to the secret government plots to use vaccines and mutated viruses to kill us. (Gives a whole new twist to Swine Flu, doesn't it?)
- Evil left-wing doctors are out to kill all of our babies.
- The Japanese are apparently out to rid the world of dolphins. (In all seriousness: The true story behind this claim is egregiously awful.)
- And last but certainly not least, all of human civilization is engaged in a protracted genocide against itself.
Anyone else suddenly afraid to go outside?
Is Darfur a Genocide? (No Delusions of Simplicity.)
Published March 03, 2009 @ 06:57PM PT
This is the third and final installment of the series --- see Part I and Part II.
So if the ICC doesn't approve the genocide charge, will the activists drop it?
Not likely.
If the pre-trial panel does not issue an arrest warrant for Bashir on the genocide charge, it simply means that the prosecutor did not present convincing enough evidence of genocidal intent --- it does not necessarily mean that said intent is nonexistent. Furthermore, a court is not the end-all-be-all of definitions: It will be unfortunate if Ocampo is not able to prosecute Bashir for genocide, but significant enough support exists among established policy, academic, and other circles to justify referring to Darfur as a genocide.
Additionally, as Save Darfur President Jerry Fowler notes, Ocampo wasn't able to carry out his investigation under ideal conditions:
"One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the prosecutor was operating under very difficult circumstances. He could not go to Darfur to do his investigation. So it is somewhat difficult to put together a case when you can't visit the crime scene. But he talked to many, many refugees who had left Darfur, and collected evidence that way."
So investigators couldn't exactly gain access to Bashir's personal files and look for a smoking gun memo or email. ("Oh, the files are in the computer." ...Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Sri Lanka: "Stuck in the Middle," to a Horrifying Extreme
Published February 01, 2009 @ 08:02PM PT
The civil war between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or Tamil Tigers) is a virtual checklist of war crimes and crimes against humanity --- a veritable game of What-Atrocity-Can-We-Commit-Next?, with civilians suffering heavily throughout the 26 year conflict.
Both parties of the conflict have jumped on the mass atrocity bandwagon: Tamil civilians are intentionally targeted as part of the government's counterinsurgency strategy, and are frequently subjected to indiscriminate bombing, mass waves of disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial killings. The LTTE, for its part, not only targets civilians for suicide bombings, but also silences dissent among its own Tamil population, uses them as human shields against government attacks, and forcibly recruits child soldiers.
Tamil civilians are used as collateral by both the government and the LTTE in their war against one another. And in what must be the most horrifying manifestation of "stuck in the middle with you" imaginable, more than 300,000 civilians are currently caught in the squeeze of the government's latest campaign to quell the Tigers' rebellion once and for all.
What Genocide Is, and What it Isn't
Published January 11, 2009 @ 03:45PM PT
My colleague over at the Peace in the Middle East blog, Charles Lenchner, posted an excellent piece last week about use of the Holocaust in protests against the assault on Gaza, which I am more than a little remiss for not mentioning sooner.
Check out Charles' post for pointed list of reasons why "using Nazism and the Holocaust to Support Palestine is a Grave Error." Here, I'd like to talk a bit about what genocide is, and what it isn't, and why calling something "genocide" when it isn't will get you no where.
As I argue in a previous post, genocide is the systematic attempt to destroy a defined group of people. In my opinion, two elements are absolutely essential to identifying a genocide:
- The motivation of the perpetrator: It is the explicit desire to completely exterminate a set population that separates genocide from other forms of mass killing
- The physical destruction of the population: That is, the death of all of the groups members, or enough of them that the population as defined will not survive for long. Ethnocide, "cultural genocide," etc, are all separate phenomena.
Why the obsession with definitions? Isn't it all just semantics? No, actually---if you want to get at the root cause of a problem to fully understand, and hopefully even resolve, the structural dynamics that motivate violence, you need an accurate view of what something is, and what it isn't. To use another of my facetious analogies, if I take my car into the mechanics and insist that my transmission is shot, but won't listen to them tell me that it's actually a problem with my radiator, no amount of arguing will change the fact that my car is still broken.
As I wrote before, this is not to say that non-genocidal mass killing isn't bad, or isn't as bad---it's just a categorically different phenomenon.
Yet accusations of genocide are often tossed around in hostile settings, not because they may be true, but because they are sensational---they stir up anger and resentment, which can then be manipulated to the benefit of those making the accusation. Genocide is widely recognized as one of the worst abuses known to man, but using the term to get attention not only cheapens the memory of the millions who've died at the hands of truly genocidal regimes, it only serves to further radicalize and alienate one's own cause.
The manner in which civilians are caught in the middle on all sides of the conflict in the Middle East is an atrocity, but I have yet to see anything that shows that Israel has set out to systematically wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the planet.
I agree with Charles's point that the use of Holocaust imagery is counter-productive to the Palestinian cause:
"The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has spread, and now includes many other groups. The Lebanese, for example, who paid an enormous price as a consequence of the Nakba. Or the Jordanians, whose demographics were drastically altered. By using Holocaust imagery and language, you are conveying that the opposition isn't merely Israel, or the Zionists, but all Jews. This has the effect of portraying your side as anti-Semitic, thus strengthening Israel's case. It also helps unite Jews in active or passive support of the Israeli PR effort."
I also agree that taking the tragedy of the Holocaust and "turning it around as verbal barbs" aimed at the Jewish population is tasteless, and at the end of the day, will do nothing to help the situation.
There is plenty here to protest. Protesting the right points will get you much farther than the misguided abuse of the memory of 6 million perished.
(And lastly, as a bit of an aside, and to throw myself completely into the intersection of Controversial Avenue and Political Quagmire Boulevard, I strongly disagree with those who refer to abortion as genocide.)
[Photo by Charles Lenchner.]
