So check out this news bit from BBC Call to back UN genocide reform They are talking about creating reforms, which requires the UN to get involved in genocides…hmmm, I wrote a 20 page paper on this… let me add my commentary…
First of all, Amen! If it was to actually work the way we ideally envision, that’s be great. I mean, it seems to me that morally we need to get involved- through mediation of the conflict (why is one side killing/hurting the other anyway?) and protecting if need be. Act as peace makers- If we value others lives as our own- the perpatrators as well as the victims, the only logical response would to get involved.
If genocide is actually happening, then people are already being killed- shouldn’t that been stopped? It’s harder to stop a conflict once it becomes violent, but it dosen’t mean that an outside party shouldn’t intervene. In fact, many genocides started- and kept going- because no 3rd party got involved. Here is a link that contains documents that show what the UN and international parties could have done to stop genocides (namely Rwanda and the Balkan wars only as few ever discuss E. Timor or Chechnya or others because of other politics).. 3rd party analysis. It has been said Rwanda would have never happened if as little a paper from a 1st world country leader would have been sent saying that they were watching…. the 1st world pulled out instead.
Anyway, back to the reforms…I am all in agreement for them - even with the few problems that can arise. One problem is that the definition of genocide that is internationally agreed upon is complicated and leaves out certain people groups that have already died for their connections just for being associated with that group. (for the definition and to see what I’m talking about click here)
For example: Everyone knows that homosexuals and disabled were put into concentration camps/killed/maimed just for being a part of that group… and they were some of the first to be killed- but as they are not a “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, they are technically not part of the Holocaust genocide…
Nor would it be a genocide if anyone was killed, given mental or bodily harm, their children were taken away, reproduction was denied, etc. to anyone who disagreed politically. They instead have a special term, politicide, which was created only because it happens so often and it’s not in the genocide definition.
Another problem with the definition is that the perpatrators have to commit genocide with the intent of hurting people… convicting people make it extremly hard because of this…
Our definition needs to be clear and “have some bite” to make sure any reforms will do justice. Hopefully, the univseral definition could be reformed.
The reason why the definition is the way it is has to do with history… The emerging UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide took place in 1948 in response to the Holocaust… At this time the U.S.S.R. were having their Gulags, the U.S.S.R had just blockaded Berlin with what would later become the Berlin wall, NATO was formed in response to the fears that started after the Berlin blockade, Yugoslavia was splitting with the U.S.S.R. about principles of Communism, the Israeli state was delcared and violence was starting there, Daniel Malan had just been elected into office for South Africa on the basis of apartheid and hence started implementing it, African Americans-wanting Civil Rights after coming back from WWII, convinced Truman to order that army desegregated, Ireland was in the process of breaking away from the UK, and China was in a the process of a revolution which later Mao Zedong would win to make a communist state. There is more but I’ll stop…
Hmmm, with all this violence and tension, especially with strong international powers, and genocide and politicide and prejudice happening during the time of the conference, it is only logical that the convention would create an incomplete (in my opinion) definition- why would they risk making definitions and laws that would make them liable of things they were committing… and since then many historians and international lawyers have argued for a more complete definition with more weight… It’s dosen’t mean that the definition has not been helpful… just not helpful enough.
Just like the definition, the reforms that could happen in the next months are not happening in a bubble- the Sudan, Chechnya/Russia, Burundi, the Congo, Iraq/USA, and so on will all play a role in the color of the reforms, or if any will happen at all. The reforms might not help in an ideal manner- but that dosen’t mean that we shouldn’t strive for them…
I am almost done with my soap box…
So… I urge you to read and learn more. The more educated or involved we are, the better we can get mad at these injustices- and the more likely we will do something to take non-violent action. The USA will be a large deciding factor on the outcome of any reforms, and secondly, I urge you all to use your voice to write your politicians about how you feel about this. Since I know people all over the US, here’s a way to write your US representitives, your Senate, and your Executive branch…
Much love to you, as we all learn and work to make this world a more loving and less violent place…