It is imperative to call Myanmar’s Rohingya persecution by its legal name, GENOCIDE
It is imperative to call Myanmar’s Rohingya persecution by its legal name, GENOCIDE
Gregory Stanton
BA (Oberlin College), MTS (Harvard Divinity School), MA and Ph.D. in Anthropology (U. of Chicago), and J.D. (Yale Law School)
Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention, George Mason U., USA
The press and spokespersons for governments have called the Myanmar government’s aggression “ethnic cleansing.” This is a term invented by Slobodan Milosevic as a euphemism for forced displacement and genocide. It is an insidious term because there is no international treaty law against it, whereas there are international laws against forced displacement and genocide.
Genocidal massacres are acts of genocide. Genocide consists of acts of genocide intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide is precisely what the Myanmar government and supporting militias are committing against the Rohingya. Myanmar is committing both “ethnic cleansing” [forced displacement] and genocide. The crimes often go together. Genocidal massacres are used to terrorize a victim group into fleeing.
The so-called “international community” (which exists only in mythology) will avoid calling the crimes “genocide.”
There are several reasons:
Lawyers have gutted the word “genocide” of its preventive effect by insisting on judicial standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than a prosecutor’s preponderance of the evidence standard. British Foreign Office, US State Department, and Dutch Foreign Ministry lawyers have even claimed that only a court can invoke the word “genocide,” a view that ignores the very name of the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Courts always come after a genocide is over, too late to prevent it.
China will block forceful action by the UN Security Council. ASEAN, the relevant regional organization, could Act under UN Charter Chapter Eight, as it did in East Timor. But it won’t because normally ASEAN governments leave each alone.
“Genocide” is a more powerful word than “ethnic cleansing” but governments in the UN prefer to do nothing, rather than take more forceful action to stop genocide.
Why does it make a difference whether these crimes not be named “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes,” and instead be called “genocide?”
Ethnic Cleansing is a euphemism for forcible displacement. “Ethnic cleansing” is not a term used in the Rome Treaty of the International Criminal Court. It has no legal meaning in international law.
In 2007, three epidemiologists and I conducted a study of the effect of using the words “ethnic cleansing” rather than genocide in four of the most recent genocides: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. Our team counted the number of uses of the terms “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in The New York Times, UN press releases, law journals, and statements by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
We came to four important conclusions:
Use of the terms has no relationship to the number of people who have been killed. 8000 killed at Srebrenica was ruled “genocide” by the ICTY. Yet a U.N. Commission of Inquiry ruled that over 100,000 killed in Darfur (now over 300,000) was not sufficient evidence of intent to commit genocide by the government of Sudan.
Choice of the term to be used is determined by willingness to take action to stop the killing. When the terms “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity” were used, it indicated unwillingness to take forceful action to stop the crimes. These weak words have never motivated the use of force. Indeed they were probably chosen because the decision whether or not to use force had already been made.
It was not until the term “genocide” was applied to the crimes, that force was used to stop them.
This occurred three months into the genocide in Rwanda when the State Department finally acknowledged on June 10, 1994 that “acts of genocide” in Rwanda were the same as “genocide”, which is defined in the Genocide Convention as “acts.” This declaration came after the US had voted in the UN Security Council to pull UNAMIR troops out of Rwanda on April 21, 1994 and voted against sending in UN forces in May, when the killing was still underway. By June 10, the Rwandan Patriotic Front had won the civil war and stopped the genocide. 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered. The US and other world powers were not willing to risk the life of a single soldier to protect them. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has convicted over fifty leaders of genocide and courts in Rwanda have convicted hundreds more.
The same denial emerged in Bosnia, as the world press and the US government called the massacres “ethnic cleansing” from 1991 until the Srebrenica massacre on July 11 – 13,1995, which provoked a NATO conference on July 21, and resulted in NATO bombing of Serb forces on August 30. The bombing brought Serbia to Dayton to agree to a ceasefire, division of Bosnia, and a NATO peacekeeping operation. The Bosnian civil war came to an end. The ICTY and International Court of Justice have ruled that the massacre at Srebrenica was genocide.
Kosovo was called “ethnic cleansing” until US War Crimes Ambassador David Scheffer noted “indicators of genocide” on April 7, 1999, followed immediately by bombing of Belgrade, which brought Serb surrender and NATO occupation of Kosovo. Six Serb leaders were convicted of crimes against humanity by the ICTY and the Kosovo Tribunal has convicted other perpetrators.
Regarding Darfur, following a careful empirical survey of evidence of genocide among Darfuri refugees, on September 9, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that “genocide has occurred and may still be occurring in Darfur. We believe the evidence corroborates the specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy “a group in whole or in part.” He also said, “However, no new action is dictated by this determination.” A decision had evidently been made by the President not to involve US or NATO military forces in stopping the genocide, so all that followed were ineffective increases in the African Union monitoring force, but no direct military intervention by NATO or the US. Although the International Criminal Court has charged Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and two others with genocide in Darfur, they have never been arrested and brought to trial. Sudan has three active genocides today. It is an example of the failure of the UN to stop genocide, and of the African Union and states-parties to the ICC Treaty to enforce international criminal law.
When the term “genocide” is used to describe crimes against humanity, use of force is
possible. When the crimes are only called “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity,” it is a sure indicator of lack of political will to take forceful action to stop them. Since 2000, the term “atrocities” has replaced “crimes against humanity” as an indicator of absence of will to take forceful action to stop them.
Genocidal massacres are acts of genocide. Genocide consists of acts of genocide intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide is precisely what the Myanmar government and supporting militias are committing against the Rohingya. Myanmar is committing both “ethnic cleansing” [forced displacement] and genocide. The crimes often go together. Genocidal massacres are used to terrorize a victim group into fleeing.
The so-called “international community” (which exists only in mythology) will avoid calling the crimes “genocide.”
There are several reasons:
Lawyers have gutted the word “genocide” of its preventive effect by insisting on judicial standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than a prosecutor’s preponderance of the evidence standard. British Foreign Office, US State Department, and Dutch Foreign Ministry lawyers have even claimed that only a court can invoke the word “genocide,” a view that ignores the very name of the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Courts always come after a genocide is over, too late to prevent it.
China will block forceful action by the UN Security Council. ASEAN, the relevant regional organization, could Act under UN Charter Chapter Eight, as it did in East Timor. But it won’t because normally ASEAN governments leave each alone.
“Genocide” is a more powerful word than “ethnic cleansing” but governments in the UN prefer to do nothing, rather than take more forceful action to stop genocide.
Why does it make a difference whether these crimes not be named “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes,” and instead be called “genocide?”
Ethnic Cleansing is a euphemism for forcible displacement. “Ethnic cleansing” is not a term used in the Rome Treaty of the International Criminal Court. It has no legal meaning in international law.
In 2007, three epidemiologists and I conducted a study of the effect of using the words “ethnic cleansing” rather than genocide in four of the most recent genocides: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. Our team counted the number of uses of the terms “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in The New York Times, UN press releases, law journals, and statements by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
We came to four important conclusions:
Use of the terms has no relationship to the number of people who have been killed. 8000 killed at Srebrenica was ruled “genocide” by the ICTY. Yet a U.N. Commission of Inquiry ruled that over 100,000 killed in Darfur (now over 300,000) was not sufficient evidence of intent to commit genocide by the government of Sudan.
Choice of the term to be used is determined by willingness to take action to stop the killing. When the terms “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity” were used, it indicated unwillingness to take forceful action to stop the crimes. These weak words have never motivated the use of force. Indeed they were probably chosen because the decision whether or not to use force had already been made.
It was not until the term “genocide” was applied to the crimes, that force was used to stop them.
This occurred three months into the genocide in Rwanda when the State Department finally acknowledged on June 10, 1994 that “acts of genocide” in Rwanda were the same as “genocide”, which is defined in the Genocide Convention as “acts.” This declaration came after the US had voted in the UN Security Council to pull UNAMIR troops out of Rwanda on April 21, 1994 and voted against sending in UN forces in May, when the killing was still underway. By June 10, the Rwandan Patriotic Front had won the civil war and stopped the genocide. 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered. The US and other world powers were not willing to risk the life of a single soldier to protect them. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has convicted over fifty leaders of genocide and courts in Rwanda have convicted hundreds more.
The same denial emerged in Bosnia, as the world press and the US government called the massacres “ethnic cleansing” from 1991 until the Srebrenica massacre on July 11 – 13,1995, which provoked a NATO conference on July 21, and resulted in NATO bombing of Serb forces on August 30. The bombing brought Serbia to Dayton to agree to a ceasefire, division of Bosnia, and a NATO peacekeeping operation. The Bosnian civil war came to an end. The ICTY and International Court of Justice have ruled that the massacre at Srebrenica was genocide.
Kosovo was called “ethnic cleansing” until US War Crimes Ambassador David Scheffer noted “indicators of genocide” on April 7, 1999, followed immediately by bombing of Belgrade, which brought Serb surrender and NATO occupation of Kosovo. Six Serb leaders were convicted of crimes against humanity by the ICTY and the Kosovo Tribunal has convicted other perpetrators.
Regarding Darfur, following a careful empirical survey of evidence of genocide among Darfuri refugees, on September 9, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that “genocide has occurred and may still be occurring in Darfur. We believe the evidence corroborates the specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy “a group in whole or in part.” He also said, “However, no new action is dictated by this determination.” A decision had evidently been made by the President not to involve US or NATO military forces in stopping the genocide, so all that followed were ineffective increases in the African Union monitoring force, but no direct military intervention by NATO or the US. Although the International Criminal Court has charged Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and two others with genocide in Darfur, they have never been arrested and brought to trial. Sudan has three active genocides today. It is an example of the failure of the UN to stop genocide, and of the African Union and states-parties to the ICC Treaty to enforce international criminal law.
When the term “genocide” is used to describe crimes against humanity, use of force is
possible. When the crimes are only called “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity,” it is a sure indicator of lack of political will to take forceful action to stop them. Since 2000, the term “atrocities” has replaced “crimes against humanity” as an indicator of absence of will to take forceful action to stop them.
Dr. Gregory Stanton is Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia. He was the President (2007 – 2009) and First Vice President (2005 – 2007) of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). Dr. Stanton is the founder (1999) and chairman of Genocide Watch (http://www.genocidewatch.com), the founder (1981) and director of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and is the founder (1999) and chairman of the Alliance Against Genocide, which has 65 member organizations in 24 countries. Dr. Stanton served in the State Department (1992-1999), where he drafted the United Nations Security Council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and wrote the options paper on ways to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice in Cambodia. He holds a BA (Oberlin College), MTS (Harvard Divinity School), MA and Ph.D. in Anthropology (U. of Chicago), and J.D. (Yale Law School.)
Comments
Post a Comment