Posts

Posted on

UN genocide prevention comes up toothless

The United Nation’s Secretary-General recently released a report on the implementation of the so called Five Point Action Plan and the activities of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. For those who aren’t familiar with the plan, it was originally proposed back in 2004 and can be boiled down to a single paragraph, as it was in this 2006 report for the Human Rights Council:

On 7 April 2004, in his address to the Commission on Human Rights on the occasion of a special meeting to observe the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, the Secretary-General outlined a Five Point Action Plan to prevent genocide, which included the following: (a) preventing armed conflict, which usually provides the context for genocide; (b) protection of civilians in armed conflict including a mandate for United Nations peacekeepers to protect civilians; (c) ending impunity through judicial action in both national and international courts; (d) early and clear warning of situations that could potentially degenerate into genocide and the development of a United Nation’s capacity to analyse and manage information; and (e) swift and decisive action along a continuum of steps, including military action.

While it seems like this is a fairly intelligent and obvious list of steps one would need to take in order to stave off genocide, the reality is that effective action in halting violence is one of those things that time-and-again have stymied international bodies. As United Press International recently wrote:

The report of the secretary-general on the implementation of the Five Point Action Plan on the Prevention of Genocide said more work needs to be done to strengthen the activities of the special adviser on the prevention of genocide.

The report concluded that the United Nations in general “has experienced difficulty” in recognizing the signs of outbreaks of violence that could lead to genocide and in intervening early enough to make a difference.

Ask anyone who works in this field if “recognition” is the problem and you’ll most likely get a clinched-toothed “no.” Simply put, genocide is often easy to spot, but the United Nations and her members, even when faced with hard-and-fast evidence of genocide (as it was in Rwanda), are extremely wary of intervention.

As this report once again affirms, the United Nations remains committed to an approach that recognizes and fully respects the sovereignty of States and sees sovereignty as a positive concept of State responsibility to protect those under its jurisdiction, respect their human rights, and seek international support when needed. While respecting the sovereignty of an individual nation is without a doubt important for insuring participation in the United Nations, it’s unlikely that a country in the midst of a genocidal furor is going to take the responsibility of protecting its own citizens as paramount, since that’s contrary to the very definition of genocide.

It does, however, ensure that other member nations, who may be inclined to aid those who are suffering at the hands of genocidaires, will keep conflicts at arm’s length in order to maintain the principle of “fully respect[ing] the sovereignty of States.” It’s this kind of backwards thinking realpolitik diplomacy that allows genocide to happen without threat of intervention.

Posted on

On Samantha Power

As an anti-genocide activist and an insider in the greater structure of Holocaust organizations in the United States and abroad, I’m not surprised by the number of hits my site has been getting over the last week concerning Samantha Power. I’ll state up front that I don’t know her, nor have I ever met her, yet I’m familiar with her work, and have admired the stance and positions she’s taken over the years as a human rights activist.

Undoubtedly, the bulk of visitors who are stopping by are looking for the latest scoop on her resignation from Barack Obama’s campaign; or looking for some insight as to why she referred to Hillary Clinton as “a monster.” I’m not going to really address either of those points, as not only do I not have any perspective for fresh insight, but honestly couldn’t care less.

The truth of the matter is the number of people in this country who are actively and aggressively working to end genocide can practically be counted on one hand. If you were inclined to make such a list, Samantha Power would certainly be on it, if not at the top. While I’ve had the pleasure of meeting/listening to/working with others who do what Samantha does — Jerry Fowler, Jen Marlowe, Paul Rusesabagina, Awer Bul, and the host of survivors I see on a daily basis — I can’t think of anyone who’s done a better job of illustrating our country’s lack of motivation in responding to genocide.

Marc Cooper’s recent article on The Huffington Post said it best:

Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. “I’m getting creamed,” Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).

We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed.

For those of us who work in this thinly populated profession, having champions like Samantha Power is an enormous benefit. In a single article or news conference, she can not only raise the kind of awareness that it often takes non-profits months to generate, but can even turn the public’s attention to a subject that so often gets ignored or overlooked.

To build on Marc Cooper’s last words, it’s monstrous to think of how long this kind of story stays in the news cycle, particularly when compared against the amount of time we see devoted to Darfur.

Posted on

Denial is endemic

While Holocaust denial gets the lion’s share of press when it comes to the subject of “genocide revisionism,” it’s certainly not the only case. In fact, in recent years, as the United States has contemplated recognizing the Armenian genocide, the voices of angered Turks has been added to the cacophony of those who strive to paint history in a different light.

In fact, Gregory Stanton (the president of Genocide Watch) included Denial as the eighth, and final, stage of genocide in the briefing paper he presented to the U.S. State Department in 1996:

Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them.

The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone Tribunals, an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and ultimately the International Criminal Court must be created. They may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some mass murderers may be brought to justice.

While Stanton was primarily speaking about “active” cover-ups immediately preceding a genocide, its fascinating (and depressing) that such acts quickly move from action into mainstream discourse. Even when trials have taken place, evidence has been presented, and testimony has been gathered, the crime is still an on-going source of controversy years after the fact.

David Irving is no doubt one of the better known Holocaust deniers, but he’s only one example of the plethora of those who seek to diminish the crime through the guise of scholarly debate. As academics and researchers alike begin to dig deeper into the origins and events of other modern genocides (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur, et al.), a stream of fresh deniers are following along with their own versions of what happened in each of these cases.

For example, it was recently announced that one such group of deniers (called negationists by allAfrica) are heading to a conference later this month — The Media and Rwanda: The Difficult Search for the Truth. The event is being sponsored by Les Editions les Intouchables, who published a book by Canadian Politician Robin Philpot entitled Ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça à Kigali (“It did not happen like that in Kigali”). Based on the reported speakers, the sphere of discourse is going to be largely limited to those who are attempting to revise as they revisit what took place in Rwanda.

Even though Stanton did an excellent job of outlining the various stages of genocide, it seems like the eighth needs to be expanded beyond the immediate vicinity of the crime. As denial is constantly expanding with the pace of scholarship, and it often grows rather than diminishes over time, it seems apt to address the problem, particularly considering the rate at which the information age has accelerated the course of such specialized revisionism.

Posted on

USC to tackle Rwandan genocide

The University of Southern California’s Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education announced it will start recording Rwandan survivor testimony in the coming months.

Next month, the institute’s executive director, Douglas Greenberg, will travel to Rwanda to begin organizing a project with IBUKA, the umbrella organization for all of the 1994 Rwandan Tutsi Genocide survivor groups. Greenberg and IBUKA plan to interview Rwandan survivors about their experiences during the genocide.

Greenberg said these visual testimonies will be available on the institute’s online archive, the largest of its kind in the world, to educate people about the harmful effects of prejudice.

As someone who’s preparing to pursue a PhD in genocide studies (with a particular interest in Africa) I have to applaud USC’s efforts. It’s impossible to do a comparative analysis of genocides without intensive primary source material, and in many cases modern genocides don’t come with the kind of methodical documentation used by the Nazis, putting the onus on survivor and witness testimony.

Posted on

Rwandan survivor sues Belgium

A survivor of the 1994 genocide in Rwandan has taken the unusual step of filing a civil lawsuit against the Belgium government. The suit is being brought against the government for withdrawing the soldiers who were protecting her family during the height of the violence.

The summon underlines responsibility of Belgium soldiers in the massacre of approximately 2, 000 Rwandans who had placed themselves under the protection of the peacekeepers at the Official Technical School (ETO) Don Bosco, situated in Kicukiro. The ETO was at the time one of the main barracks, nicknamed “Beverly Hills”, of the Belgian battalion of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) headquartered in Kigali.

The plaintiff and her family had found refuge there on 8 April, just two days after the bloodbath began on April 6 following assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana.

“It was decided by Colonel Marchal, then head of the Belgian battalion KIBAT of the UNAMIR to withdraw during the afternoon of 11 April 1994 peacekeepers(92) from ETO,” claimed the summon.

It added:” By abandoning Rwandan refugees who were there and the fact that the site was encircled by armed militiamen (Interahamwe) of which everyone, including the Belgian soldiers knew that they [Interahamwe] were going to proceed to commit the massacres.”

Belgium decided to withdraw its contingent of UNAMIR peacekeepers following the assassination of ten of its soldiers on 7 April 1994.

The various charges that may result from the trial would likely include violations of international humanitarian law and the “omission to act” to prevent murder, extermination, and persecution of an ethnic group.