Tweet
WHEN CAN IT BE CONSIDERED GENOCIDE AND WHY IT MATTERS
Voice of America News
August 25, 2009
Historians today recognize the Holocaust of the mid-20th century
in which victims of Nazi Germany were killed " based on their
ethnicity, religion, or nationality " as the quintessential example of
"genocide." Six million of those victims were Jews.
But what about other ethnic or religious groups targeted for extinction
during the 20th and 21st centuries? Can their deaths also be called
genocide? And why does that designation matter so much?
The Definition
Bridget Conley-Zilkic, project director of the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience, says Rafael Lemkin, an
international lawyer at the Nuremberg War Trials after World War II,
first used the term "genocide" in 1944 in a book describing patterns of
destruction in Nazi-occupied Europe that he believed were unique. "He
was trying to describe the cumulative effect of multiple attacks
against a people. And in his mind this included cultural genocide,
murder, and destruction of religious and other cultural artifacts."
But later, the legal definition of genocide would change, Conley-Zilkic
explains, and it would be restricted to "the intent to destroy " in
whole or in part " an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group
as such." But the emphasis on intent makes genocide very difficult
to prove, she notes.
Armenians in World War I
Lemkin's understanding of genocide was greatly influenced by his
study of what had happened to more than one million Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. And in his later work he cited Armenia as an
example of atrocities, of genocide," Conley-Zilkic says. But Turkey,
the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, denies the genocidal intent
of the mass murder of the Armenians, beginning in 1915 and continuing
beyond the end of World War I. Armenia is a controversial case today,
but the Holocaust Memorial Museum has not taken a stand one way on
the matter, Conley-Zilkic points out. Part of the controversy centers
on historical discussions between the Turkish government and the
relatives of survivors in other countries. "But another part of the
controversy is political," she notes. "Although determining what the
facts are should be a matter of study for historians," she emphasizes,
"history is not without political consequence."
"There is a lot at stake in being able to say that genocide happened,"
Conley-Zilkic explains. Group identity often gets caught up in the
question. "What is at stake for a lot of groups is an existential
threat to their existence " the sense that the entire group's
capacity to survive has been put at risk," she says. "Genocide is a
crime that not only kills individuals but also involves an attempt
to erase a group's record from society. And that's what makes groups
extremely protective of the historical record around their suffering,"
she observes.
Roma and Sinti in World War II
Conley-Zilkic notes that the Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) were also
targeted in a systematic way during the Nazi period. Based on their
belief in a superior "Aryan race," the Nazis justified getting rid of
other targeted non-Aryan groups. The events of World War II raise the
question of what to do with this history, Conley-Zilkic says. "I think
there is a lot we can " and must " learn from these other histories."
Under the legal definition, those acts that constitute genocide
are biological. But other questions linger, Conway-Zilkic says. "For
example, can you destroy a group by enforced assimilation, by changing
languages, or blocking access to cultural identity?" Bosnian Muslims
in the Former Yugoslavia The International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia has ruled that only one incident from the
1992-1995 war constitutes genocide " Srebrenica. In 1993, the United
Nations declared the small town in eastern Bosnia a safe haven for
Bosniaks. Conley-Zilkic says, "When the Bosnian Serbs took the town
in 1995, they systematically executed some 8,000 men and boys."
Tutsi Minority in Rwanda during War of 1994
For too long, atrocities that occurred against civilians in Africa were
treated almost as if they were a natural phenomenon, Conley-Zilkic
says. During the 1994 war in Rwanda, for example, world leaders
described the killing as tribal conflict. But she calls Rwanda the most
thorough and brutal and clear-cut case of genocide since the Holocaust.
Darfur Region in Sudan Today
Conley-Zilkic says that for the 10th anniversary of the genocide
in Rwanda, she and her colleagues at the Museum worked together on
projects to ensure that Rwanda was remembered and that the real lessons
of history had been learned. By 2004, she says there was widespread
agreement that what was happening in Darfur constituted crimes against
humanity. When civilians are targeted in large numbers, it is never a
natural phenomenon. It takes enormous planning and organization, and
the role of leaders is of extreme importance. Issue of Responsibility
by Governments
Although political leaders alone cannot create genocide, they can
choose the basic dynamics. They can choose to escalate the level
of rhetoric and hate speech. They can also choose to arm militias,
Conley-Zilkic says. Holding them accountable for those decisions
afterward is important. Some historians have suggested that other mass
atrocities bear a resemblance to genocide " for example, Stalin"s
forced famine in 1932-32 resulting in the death of seven million
Ukrainians, Japan"s killing of an estimated 300,000 Chinese in Nanking
in 1937-38, and the murder of two million Cambodians by the Khmer
Rouge in 1975-79. Other historians have raised questions about the
Trail of Tears, the forced march of the Cherokee Indian nation from
America"s southeastern states to Oklahoma in the early 19th century.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that
requires member nations to prevent acts of genocide during times of
war and peace. But the U.N. treaty was passed with the proviso that no
claim of genocide could be brought against signatory nations without
their consent. So, there are still barriers to enforcement.
There is probably no country on this earth, Conley-Zilkic says,
that does not have some history in its formation of some atrocity or
assault against minority groups. Facing our own difficult history is
the starting point for protecting human rights today.
Voice of America News
August 25, 2009
Historians today recognize the Holocaust of the mid-20th century
in which victims of Nazi Germany were killed " based on their
ethnicity, religion, or nationality " as the quintessential example of
"genocide." Six million of those victims were Jews.
But what about other ethnic or religious groups targeted for extinction
during the 20th and 21st centuries? Can their deaths also be called
genocide? And why does that designation matter so much?
The Definition
Bridget Conley-Zilkic, project director of the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience, says Rafael Lemkin, an
international lawyer at the Nuremberg War Trials after World War II,
first used the term "genocide" in 1944 in a book describing patterns of
destruction in Nazi-occupied Europe that he believed were unique. "He
was trying to describe the cumulative effect of multiple attacks
against a people. And in his mind this included cultural genocide,
murder, and destruction of religious and other cultural artifacts."
But later, the legal definition of genocide would change, Conley-Zilkic
explains, and it would be restricted to "the intent to destroy " in
whole or in part " an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group
as such." But the emphasis on intent makes genocide very difficult
to prove, she notes.
Armenians in World War I
Lemkin's understanding of genocide was greatly influenced by his
study of what had happened to more than one million Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. And in his later work he cited Armenia as an
example of atrocities, of genocide," Conley-Zilkic says. But Turkey,
the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, denies the genocidal intent
of the mass murder of the Armenians, beginning in 1915 and continuing
beyond the end of World War I. Armenia is a controversial case today,
but the Holocaust Memorial Museum has not taken a stand one way on
the matter, Conley-Zilkic points out. Part of the controversy centers
on historical discussions between the Turkish government and the
relatives of survivors in other countries. "But another part of the
controversy is political," she notes. "Although determining what the
facts are should be a matter of study for historians," she emphasizes,
"history is not without political consequence."
"There is a lot at stake in being able to say that genocide happened,"
Conley-Zilkic explains. Group identity often gets caught up in the
question. "What is at stake for a lot of groups is an existential
threat to their existence " the sense that the entire group's
capacity to survive has been put at risk," she says. "Genocide is a
crime that not only kills individuals but also involves an attempt
to erase a group's record from society. And that's what makes groups
extremely protective of the historical record around their suffering,"
she observes.
Roma and Sinti in World War II
Conley-Zilkic notes that the Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) were also
targeted in a systematic way during the Nazi period. Based on their
belief in a superior "Aryan race," the Nazis justified getting rid of
other targeted non-Aryan groups. The events of World War II raise the
question of what to do with this history, Conley-Zilkic says. "I think
there is a lot we can " and must " learn from these other histories."
Under the legal definition, those acts that constitute genocide
are biological. But other questions linger, Conway-Zilkic says. "For
example, can you destroy a group by enforced assimilation, by changing
languages, or blocking access to cultural identity?" Bosnian Muslims
in the Former Yugoslavia The International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia has ruled that only one incident from the
1992-1995 war constitutes genocide " Srebrenica. In 1993, the United
Nations declared the small town in eastern Bosnia a safe haven for
Bosniaks. Conley-Zilkic says, "When the Bosnian Serbs took the town
in 1995, they systematically executed some 8,000 men and boys."
Tutsi Minority in Rwanda during War of 1994
For too long, atrocities that occurred against civilians in Africa were
treated almost as if they were a natural phenomenon, Conley-Zilkic
says. During the 1994 war in Rwanda, for example, world leaders
described the killing as tribal conflict. But she calls Rwanda the most
thorough and brutal and clear-cut case of genocide since the Holocaust.
Darfur Region in Sudan Today
Conley-Zilkic says that for the 10th anniversary of the genocide
in Rwanda, she and her colleagues at the Museum worked together on
projects to ensure that Rwanda was remembered and that the real lessons
of history had been learned. By 2004, she says there was widespread
agreement that what was happening in Darfur constituted crimes against
humanity. When civilians are targeted in large numbers, it is never a
natural phenomenon. It takes enormous planning and organization, and
the role of leaders is of extreme importance. Issue of Responsibility
by Governments
Although political leaders alone cannot create genocide, they can
choose the basic dynamics. They can choose to escalate the level
of rhetoric and hate speech. They can also choose to arm militias,
Conley-Zilkic says. Holding them accountable for those decisions
afterward is important. Some historians have suggested that other mass
atrocities bear a resemblance to genocide " for example, Stalin"s
forced famine in 1932-32 resulting in the death of seven million
Ukrainians, Japan"s killing of an estimated 300,000 Chinese in Nanking
in 1937-38, and the murder of two million Cambodians by the Khmer
Rouge in 1975-79. Other historians have raised questions about the
Trail of Tears, the forced march of the Cherokee Indian nation from
America"s southeastern states to Oklahoma in the early 19th century.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that
requires member nations to prevent acts of genocide during times of
war and peace. But the U.N. treaty was passed with the proviso that no
claim of genocide could be brought against signatory nations without
their consent. So, there are still barriers to enforcement.
There is probably no country on this earth, Conley-Zilkic says,
that does not have some history in its formation of some atrocity or
assault against minority groups. Facing our own difficult history is
the starting point for protecting human rights today.