Preventing Genocide

The recent release of the film, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, about the relationship between two 8-year old boys, separated by a concentration camp fence, is a painful reminder of the horrific human toll exacted by genocide. The movie, like others of the Holocaust-era genre, leaves the viewer angry, frustrated, and deeply moved by the gnawing reality behind the story. And so, as people of conscience, we see such films and then rightly demand, "never again."

And yet we know that the killings and slaughter of human beings around the world continues despite the efforts of governments and private citizens over decades. We see it today in Darfur. The question is -- why?

Recently I participated in a year-long effort by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy and the United States Institute of Peace to identify practical steps that could enhance the capacity of the U.S. government to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities. The report that resulted from the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen proposes a blueprint for the next administration and for the future, to help ensure that senior officials have all the information they need to act -- and to act in time -- when faced with the next genocide. We conclude that what is needed is a comprehensive, coordinated, government-wide plan to prevent these odious crimes from happening around the world.

The first and most important ingredient to prevent genocide and mass atrocities is political will and leadership -- from the president on down. Summoning political will requires acting, not only after a crisis strikes, but before one emerges. It means strengthening institutions and systems for getting early warning of risks -- and then being prepared to interrupt these plans. It means improving the government's crisis response system in order to better mount coherent, carefully calibrated, and timely preventive diplomacy strategies before a full crisis erupts.

Prevention of genocide and mass atrocities also requires preparing our military to handle these kinds of situations. In the report we recommend that genocide prevention and response be incorporated into national policy guidance and planning for the military and into defense doctrine and training. U.S. leaders must consider how to leverage all instruments of national power to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities, including military assets. There are options between doing nothing and sending in the Marines.

The United States should be a leader in preventing genocide and mass atrocities, but we cannot succeed alone. America has an interest in promoting strong global norms against genocide so that sovereignty cannot be used as an excuse or a shield. We must make international and regional institutions more effective vehicles for preventing mass atrocities. We recommend that the U.S. launch a diplomatic initiative to create an international network for information sharing and coordinated action to prevent genocide.

Lastly, we need resources to match our priorities. The Genocide Prevention Task Force recommends increased and more flexible funding for the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. Congress should invest $250 million -- less than a dollar for every American each year -- in new funds for crisis prevention and response. A portion of these new funds would be used for diplomatic initiatives and other measures to prevent or halt emerging crises.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is also the 20th anniversary of the ratification of this treaty by the United States. As Americans consider our country's role in the world in the years to come, we can and must do more to prevent genocide, a crime that threatens not only our values but our national interests. We have a duty to find the answer before the vow of "never again" is once again betrayed.

Dan Glickman is chairman and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. (MPAA) Inc. He served for 18 years in the House of Representatives and was Secretary of Agriculture. He served on the Genocide Prevention Task Force.

Comments

[canarypapers]

First, we should refine the definition (e.g. Is it only genocide when non-U.S. countries commit mass killing and slaughtering of civilian populations?). Then, we could pinpoint where genocide is actually taking place. As-is -- and according to the criteria established by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- genocide is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Somalia, a country whose humanitarian crises rival Rwanda and Darfur. Yet, there is little to no mention or discussion of this in the U.S. media, much less in your article.

Why is this? There is no lack of evidence for genocide in Somalia -- a country whose cities are littered evidence, in the form of rotting, dismembered, decapitated corpses -- nor of the culprit. The U.S. funds, trains & arms the Ethiopian troops committing these brutalities against the Somalian population (genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, torture, imprisonment, starvation, denial of medical care, etc.)

Your plan to design a military response, assign a task force, and throw millions of dollars at genocide are just fancy ways of overlooking the problem. Until we acknowledge our own guilt, abolish euphemisms like "humanitarian intervention," abolish preemptive wars that fly in the face of international law -- and, most importantly, until we acknowledge the REASONS we justify breaking the law, which are nearly all about controlling other country's oil and mineral resources -- the U.S. will continue to be a leader in committing genocide across the globe.

[Lionsden]

We do not run or control the world and the Constitution does not give us authority to stop genocide outside the USA. Nations, sadly, make these choices for themselves.

The most important geocide to be concerned about, today, is the genocide of whites in America. If you look up the legal definition of genocide. according to International Law, you will see that what is happening in America is genocide. By definition, a native population has to be in active threat of reduce population or overthrow of culture and customs, and the state (or those perpetuating it) must be aware of what they are doing.

White Americans were never asked nor demaned to become a minority race or culture in their own traditionally white (western and Christian) nation. This is one of the two essential pillars of genocide. Politicians promised (4 decades ago) that there wouldn't be any racial or ethnic imbalances because of immigration. That has proven to be false and they know it. This awareness that they are committing genocide is the second pillar of the legal definition of genocide (even if they don't think of it in those terms).

If Americans really care to stop genocide, they will start here first.

[omahkohkiaayo]

To paraphrase Will Rogers on Calvin Coolidge, the problem is not what this person does not know which is, like all of us, considerable; the problem is what he or she "knows for sure" that just ain't so. Why not go to the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, Article II which defines it (see my other postings) and/or to the writings of Polish jurist Raphael Limkin who coined the term genocide to see what it is or isn't. Then perhaps take a basic Biology course to see the folly of "race" as a biological construct.

What a sad commentary, in this day and age, for anyone to think that skin color, especially something that one had nothing to do with, is some kind of "credential" or achievement for anything especially immigration, citizenship or even criterion of human worth.

[raechel]

Thank you. Well put, and admirably temperate.

[Lionsden]

omahkohkiaayo:

I have read the definition of genocide according to International Law and I'm sure it covers the white genocide that is occurring in America. Racial genocide is as much a part of that legal definition as is cultural or geographic genocide.

It appears to me that the leftists are only worried when it is happening to non-white populations.

The American people were never asked if they wanted their genotype reduced to minority status in their own country where they traditionally were the vast majority. And they are being intentionally deceived about the laws that are making it happen.

It really is (no pun intended) beyond the pale. And now that someone is pointing out the white genocide, suddenly, race doesn't matter. If this was happening against a black population in a black African nation, I can assure you that whites on the left would go ballistic about it.

I believe this blind-spot onthe left comes from their deep-seated, unresolved emotional problems (self-hatred and nihilism) that they have not be able to overcome.

Other racial groups are for the most part, proud of their genetic expression.

White leftists are hung-up on theirs.

[JRichardson]

On a broad policy level you are right. However, for so many years now, successive administrations have spoken in platitudes but at the end of the day, not much happened. I certainly find the Bush Administration culpable in failing to adequately address problems in the Sudan, Colombia and elsewhere. But the Clinton Administration failed, in my view to stop genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. At the end of the day, it is about what any administration does, not what is says it will do, that matters. Let’s all hope that the Obama Administration does more than talk about genocide.

See: http://globalinvestmentwatch.com/2008/11/27/coalition-issues-human-rights-reform-plan/

[newshawk14]

The one thing the US has above all other countries, is a massive airlift capability, that is capable
from operating on primitive fields. We're also excellent in field hospitals and hospital ships. I feel
we should help various regions develop their own capabilities to diplomatically and militarily
combat genocide, and if possible stay out of the armed conflict, but provide support.

[omahkohkiaayo]

The U.S. was the prime mover at Nuremberg, and Nuremberg was the prime mover in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, it took the U.S. 40 years to get around to signing the UN Conventon on Genocide and even then put in the Helms/Lugar/Hatch "Sovereignty Clause that says anything in the UN Convention that contradicts U.S. law or the U.S. Constiution, as interpeted only by the U.S. is null and void. This clause it itself in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution itself Article VI Section 2. In the debates of the 85th Congress, there is explicit mention that if the U.S. signs on to the UN Convention on Genocide, the Jim Crow Laws against African Americans and the historic treatment of Indians would lead to the U.S. being brought up on charges.

From Hitler's own mouth, his major inspirations on genocide, including how to cover it up and/or gain mass acceptance for it, came from the historical treatment of Indians. He used to call Russians "Red Skins".

To prevent genocide we need to know what it is and not cover up or equivocate on who is doing it. All victims and genocides are equal and one is more equal than others. Rank-ordering holocausts or victims of holocausts, is rank-ordering human beings which is what nazis do. Holocaust denial takes many forms not just denial of the reality and magnitude of the Nazi Holocaust.

[UnknownSoldier]

It wouldn't be the Jim Crow laws that would bring charges of Genocide against the U.S. it would be the trans-atlantic slave trade, and the U.S. would not be alone standing trial, you could throw France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and England in as Co-Defendants

[omahkohkiaayo]

The 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide, is part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" according to the Supremacy Clause, Article VI Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, is not even taught in law schools. Article II defines ANY of the following acts as constituting genocide per se:

a) Killing members of the group;

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group (sterilization; 27 U.S. states had sterilization laws aimed against Blacks, Indians and disabled that directly inspired the nazis own 1933 and 1935 "race hygiene" laws)

e) Forcibly transferring children from one group to another group (e.g. Indian Residential Schools)

Part of what causes genocide, not only ignorance of what the law and definition of genocide are, but equivocation and reference to others as if what others do somehow mitigates the nature and immorality of what we do; especially the case when we not only presume to lecture the rest of the world on human rights, while being serial human rights violators ourselves, we even presume to launch wars of carnage and destruction under the banner of the very same human rights we routinely violate and even against dictators like Saddam Hussein once trusted allies and even armed by us.

[GrainOSand]

"The United States should be a leader in preventing genocide and mass atrocities"

I am struck by much after reading that statement on December 16, 2008. I am struck most that any nation at this late date would not be fighting to lead in that effort for any (what should be) rare case of genocide. What we find in practice is genocide that is not rare, genocide that is current, and genocide ignored here in the U.S. (by any reasonable level of concern) and abroad. Until it becomes as urgent as the air we breathe to prevent, mass murder appears as if it will continue. This is not a “head-scratcher” for even basic levels of existence. Many around the world claimed to be enlightened, yet their policies are murderous, destructive and do not help but harm. Many around the world posture as if they are right, yet their approach, their policies, are wrong for the masses of lives. This to the government in the Sudan, how grotesque and ugly you appear from here and how much more so, up close and deadly? You cannot present an acceptable rationale for mass killing.

The entire world can be indicted and made to pay. In such instances of justice, minds are changed, hearts are melted, but always at tremendous cost. May we wake up before the storm, not in the storm. Time is running out and it should be on nonsense. Let us get on the same page for higher existence.

[AbrahamSadegh]

The most effective way to prevent "mass atrocities" and "genocide" and also to counteract against dictatorial individuals and governments that clearly represent only a fraction to the people they have in one form or other enslaved is to bring the statement by one of our Apollo 15 astronauts, Alfred Worden, to humanity's highest level of consciousness. Observing the Earth from hundreds of thousands of miles away, he said, "Now I know why I am here; not for a close look at the Moon, but to look back at our Home, the Earth."

This small and precious planet is truly the only home we now have in this vast Universe. We must therefore look at it at its entirety as a "Village" with each nation as a member of the community that should be concerned not only with its own welfare but that of the Village as a whole. As such every effort should be made so that if another civilization was observing us, they would be awed by how efficiently this Village in run for the good of one at all; they would be awed by how effectively the members of the Village cooperate to eliminate that which is harmful to its residents and how they cooperate as to enhance what is advantageous to all.

As a vital member of this community and the United Nation we have the greatest responsibility to contribute to make this Earth of ours a Home we can all be truly proud of.

[research]

we need to start trying new methods.

The Congo: Send volunteer female soldiers from around the world to arm and train the women to effectively resist rape.

"Troubled" ares: air drop distributed small food packets, mace, stink bombs, tazers, any and all non-lethal weapons.

But none of this will help if we are propping up dictators and tyrants with money and arms.

[UnknownSoldier]

5 million dead in the Congo.

Rape and mutalation are being used as psycological weapons, and even CANABILISM. Some of the monsters that escaped justice in Rwanda fled to the Congo and have taken genocide to the next level. They are eating people.

[paulcanning]

Rwanda and Bosnia were caused by America? Forget adult genocide and think of the unborn?

Huh?

This sounds spot on in terms of establishing practical ways to stop another Rwanda. The participants in setting up this plan are those who lived through Rwanda - and probably are living with "I should have done more".

I don't think many of the posters read what the gentleman actually wrote. Or have any real ideas about how to stop another Rwanda.

[mattheweste]

Yes the US was behind the Rwanda genocide.

Paul Kagame (current Rwandan president) was trained at Leavenworth. It wasn't the first attempted invasion by his troops. They were all in Uganda which was at the time another US backed power. They assassinated the previous president of Rwanda as they invaded. Then after that genocide died down they invaded the Congo and that war, the most bloody since WW2, has been going ever since.

Motivation: US control over resources in the Congo, move in on French dominated Africa.

As for Bosnia that is easier to Google. The US and Germany pushed the former Yugoslavian states to break away illegally instead of pursuing peaceful secession. Then they allied with the most violent factions like the neo-Nazi Croatians who attacked the Serbs in Croatia in the biggest example (200,000) of ethnic cleansing in the series of wars. The US also funded the terrorist group that attacked Serbia in Kosovo causing the Kosovo war.

Propaganda is a mile wide and an inch deep. All you have to do is check the details of these war stories your state media tells you and the stories fall apart.

The US also sponsored genocide by Turks against the Kurds while Saddam was in power and of course the US sponsored the two genocides in Indonesia in recent decades. eg. East Timor That happened while the author of this article was a member of congress, just as he was in the cabinet while Rwanda was going on.

[haydoz18]

With incidents like this (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6159757.html), no American should take the moral high ground

[SuperSam]

No mention of Iraq or Palestine..

[politicofree4all]

The "father" of modern genocide, Hitler, who legalized abortion was only too happy to get the progressive culture to discount the unborn as "non-human". Of course, only those of the perfect race were exempt from this genocide.
Human rights should be for all humans regardless of their stage of life. While genocide and abortion are the same, some are diluting this labeling by calling abortion the modern eugenics--disposing of unwanted cultures via populary culture and/or economic policies that weed out the lower class.
Eliminating groups based on their socio-economic class, religion, culture, and/or geography is wrong: no matter what stage of life they're in--born or unborn.
I think it's time our party protect the "general welfare of the people". The unborn and born. The captive and free. The poor and the rich. The weak and the mighty. The sick and the strong.
Let's end abortion/g­enocide/eu­genics: once and for ALL!

[UnknownSoldier]

take a look at what is going on in the Congo. If you are serious about this unborn stuff I'm pretty sure you'll change your mind and focus on this.

[Jsens3]

Hitler did not legalize abortion. He was a staunch Roman Catholic Austrian who maintained a close relationship with the Catholic Church. For most of the 1930's there was in effect a concordat between the Church and the Nazi's. The Nazis promoted births because "Deutschland braucht Soldaten." (Germany needs soldiers.) The Lebensborn movement bred German soldiers with girls for the purpose of producing a master race.

[UnknownSoldier]

The Na$i's aborted non Ayran babies

[omahkohkiaayo]

First of all please see Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide which defines genocide. It is defined as 5 practices involving targeting of members of a religious or ethnic group because of their inclusion or membership in a targeted group. In fact, Hitler opposed abortion by "Aryan" women (penalty was 12 years in prison for first abortion and death penalty for second) but did favor abortion among "non-Aryan" women.

When anyone misuses the term genocide, it not only denegrates and glosses over real genocide, but also impeaches their own argument when trying to assert equivalences and definitions that simply do not apply (like using the word "genocide" by protesters against killing of whales by Makah with treaty rights to hunt and long histories of hunting whales).

Now on the abortion issue, no one can "prove" with any scientific certainty and consensus when human life as we understand and define it begins. It is a matter of belief on which reasonable persons can differ. I can only say with certainty that had our (myself and those reading this) mothers had abortions, I would not be writing this and you all would not be reading it.

I'll leave it at that...

[gadoo]

How do you expect the US Government to effectively prevent genocide when it does not properly recognize all instances of genocide such as the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Government from 1915-1923. To date, the US Government has refused to call this atrocity a genocide due to the fear of angering Turkey and geo-political concerns. You have to be able to honestly acknowledge and talk about the past if there is any hope at all of making meaningful changes in policy for the future.

[steamboat]

It was a GENOCIDE of a MASSIVE scale.

[benne]

The only reform that ever happens with our government involves increased state control. The answer seems never to let well enough alone, or that without a state apparatus such as our own, we could not have many of the types of modern genocides. "Prevention" of genocide leads to death itself, as the United States continues to justify international intervention.

[Hawka]

Yeah, I'm sure the victims of Sarajevo would agree with you.... The Yugoslavia Wars lasted several years without nary a peep from the world and over 250,000 civilians dead, in less the 3 months the U.S and allied intervention forces managed to bring the whole conflict to down with minimal effort and casualties. I agree that one should take a measure of how, what, and when we should take a more active role in preventing these types of atrocities in terms of what would be a bar minimal effort compared to preposterous wars of simple ambition like in Iraq and Vietnam, but in doing nothing I feel we only make ourselves complicit in these acts I feel.

[mattheweste]

In reality what happened is that the US supported forces initiated the ethnic cleansing and did more of it than anyone else.