Rewarding genocide - what to do with land after conflict
Published June 24, 2009 @ 03:19PM PT
The Bosnian Serb entity exists on the land it now occupies because its wartime leaders committed genocide against the Bosniak (Muslim) and Croat populations on that territory. While national self-determination can be both just and lead to greater stability, I believe the international community has a far greater interest in not rewarding genocide and other heinous crimes.
Peter Galbraith's (UN Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan, former US ambassador) response to a piece by William Montgomery (former US ambassador and a former special adviser to the president on Bosnia) in the New York Times earlier this month. (Emphasis in quote is mine).
Now, the debates and warnings on increased tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina come out in the American or European press every once in a while, but this particular back-and-forth is noteworthy for the implications it has for post ethnic conflict/genocide situations and peace agreements.
The current conference in Washington is focused on implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan. And of course, land is one of the biggest sticking points (and that black liquid stuff that hides out under the land). And, as the Enough Project's recent election report notes:
many displaced Darfuris are deeply concerned that registering as residents of internally displaced persons’ camps will delegitimize their land rights outside these camps. In this charged atmosphere, elections could actually lead to more violence and, potentially, give the government an excuse to forcibly close displaced persons camps.
We all know that land disputes often spark conflict. But now interesting questions arise: how to equitably deal with land issues in ongoing or post-conflict areas? and how to balance the need to avoid rewarding conflict and the need for peace?
What do you think?
Hat tip to Bec Hamilton for her post on the Montgomery/Galbraith tête à tête.
Maps from Wiki Commons.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (1)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Martha is the campaign manager at the Save Darfur Coalition. She has worked with a number of organizations and institutions advocating against genocide, including Team Darfur, STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition and Voices for Sudan. The views expressed here are her own.
Genocide, along with all identity-based conflict, is as much about territorial control as it is about the perceived security threats from the targeted groups. As Toft demonstrates in The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory, state leaders see the indivisibility of territory as essential to the survival of the state. Consequently, governments seeks territorial gains and consolidation during genocide. If the genocidal regime survive after the end of the genocide-Serbia and Darfur, they will likely resist future attempts to change the territorial landscape in the country.
In contrast, the RPF victory in Rwanda led Hutus to flee to neighboring Burundi and the DRC; where violence rooted in territorial control continues to this day. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge was ousted from power by Vietnamese intervention in 1978 (although the Khmer Rouge officially held territory into the late-1990s); and thus was unable to maintain control of either the urban nor rural areas of Cambodia. Finally, the Nazi regime was obliterated by the Allied victory in World War Two, thus ending the existence of the state.
These contrasting cases highlight the difficulties of modern cases of genocide as it relates to the issue of territory. Unless the perpetrators of genocide are vanquished via military victory, they will still maintain (Serbia and Sudan) or seek to recapture (Hutus) territorial control of territory. The consequences for the people living in these contentious territories will remain perilous, as groups and state regimes struggle to secure the territory that is so vital to their identity.
(via Gleektopia: http://bit.ly/uiEKz)
Posted by Charles Gleek on 06/25/2009 @ 05:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.