Comments on: Genocide and the UN

By: yabonn

yabonn — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:22:26 +0000

But am i wrong in assuming that it is no coincidence that France as a (negative) subject pops up about everywhere where Darfur is discussed and thus also here? Well, there is a bias. The us are still on a nationalism high, and france was about irak, unforgivably right. As the situation in irak gets worse, the – slightly pathetic – bitterness will increase, and you’re likely to see more “freedom fries” in congress and more “Bad French” moments overall, not only about darfur. So, bad france in darfur is probably diplomatic posturing, bad france in rwanda is certainly not, and at any case, french should be careful about not caring at all about this little u.s. francophobic neurosis, as long as serious matters are at stake, imho.

By: james

james — Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:16:04 +0000

shaun – Under a Democracy, wouldnt citizenship grant the right to demand government action without requiring actual participation of the citizen? There is no internation right to intervention. For a truely international right, there must be 100% agreement on what a right is and how it can be carried out. This does not exist. There is the right of the individual to determine action based on local morality. Nation states may be driven to action based on this individual morality. Of coarse conflict between oppossing strongly held beliefs can lead to violence.

By: Shaun Evans

Shaun Evans — Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:05 +0000

With respect to genocide, I see three major questions: When can the international community kill to save human life, when must the international community kill to save human life, and who should do this legally sanctioned killing? The first question addresses the RIGHT of the international community to kill to stop genocide, the second the DUTY (moral or legal, take your pick) to kill to stop genocide, and the third asks, who among the international community pays the PRICE for enforcing the international law against genocide. I am completely unwilling to resign from my comfortable symbolic analyist research job to kill and risk death and PTSD to stop a genocide. Given that I am unwilling to pay the price myself, do I have the moral right to criticize others for making the exact same decision I made? For me, the answer is clearly NO, I do not have that right. So, if I’m not willing to stop the genocide, and no one else is either, for the same reasons, how can we reasonably expect genocides to be stopped? But the most basic question of all, is, “When can, and must, the international community kill to preserve human life?” Until this question has a commonly accepted answer, genocides will continue, and people like us will whine about it, and blame other people for this horrid state of affairs.

By: Luc

Luc — Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:04:10 +0000

But the worst consequence of this would be if french began to go “lalala just a bunch of french haters” when legitimate concerns are raised. It is, imho, the case for rwanda, and the few francophobe epiphanies along the road don’t really matter. True. But am i wrong in assuming that it is no coincidence that France as a (negative) subject pops up about everywhere where Darfur is discussed and thus also here? It isn't about whether France is right or Bush vs. Chirac as leader of the free world. It is about why the Darfur story is being discredited by all kinds of allegations, true or not, that are not directly related to the genocide or killings that are happening there. Note how Matthew Yglesias links to Kristof's article. Gives a nice contrast between his recent line "how to spot an unsound argument" and Kristofs "Does the Chirac government really want to show the moral blindness to Sudan's genocide that the Vichy regime did to Hitler's?" As both persons above don't tend to dabble in malice why was that ugly comparison created and propagated?

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:52:01 +0000

luc, What I object to is the common theme of shifting responsibilities. [...] “the denial [of] France .. just adds more shame.” I think there is simply more to rwanda/france than the kristol, choumarteau & buddies ravings. True that they can be relied upon for your daily francophobic spin. More generally, you may find, here and there in the us media, some remains of irak’s smear campaign. The french : a-ha! Say no more! But the worst consequence of this would be if french began to go “lalala just a bunch of french haters” when legitimate concerns are raised. It is, imho, the case for rwanda, and the few francophobe epiphanies along the road don’t really matter.

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:20:09 +0000

The New York Times says that the term ‘genocide’ “was used by the Clinton administration to describe atrocities in Yugoslavia and Rwanda” – I don’t know that this is true. My very strong recollection is that Madeline Albright bent over backwards to avoid describing the murders in Rwanda as genocide, for fear that the UN Genocide Convention would be invoked. It was a quite disgusting episode in US foreign policy. It wasn’t just the Clinton admin that comes out poorly in this episode, some genocide scholars and military historians demeaned themselves by either refusing to acknowledge that a genocide was taking place and talking instead of ‘tribal violence’ with the connotation that somehow one could not expect anything better from obscure parts of SSA. I think Katz and Keegan were prominent examples of this phenomenon. The ‘acts of genocide’ incident was a particular low-point though in this whole grim affair, diplomatically speaking. I also don’t see what is so great about the US ‘retrospectively’ declaring the mass killings a genocide; since doing so when they did was well after the time period when any direct intervention would have been called for and to insist that one had not occurred would have been pretty much impossible. It is hard to deny that a genocide has occurred once it has been completed or carried out; relatively easier to do so when it is in the process of being implemented. Re the French involvement, I assumed that this was pretty well known; there was a reason that survivors of the genocide dubbed the French troops with the sarcastic and derogatory title of “Mitterhamwe”. Says it all really. Though I would caution drawing any easy conclusions as to how this might influence prevailing attitudes towards France, UK and US today. Most African govts aren’t under any illusions about the French or their actions before and during the Rwanda genocide, so it says something when a minister in the ZA govt can say apropos of Blair and Chirac “Better the man who wants to rape you than the missionary who wants to convert you”. On other material wrt Rwanda, I can also recommend Mamdani’s book “When Victims become Killers” it provides a good background and history to the events that led up to the genocide. Prunier also has a good article in a recent issue of African Affairs that looks at the links between the LRA in northern Uganda and the Khartoum regime and the involvement of the central govt and the SPLA in the DRC conflict and how this links up to Sudan’s own civil war. Re Darfur, as far as I know, respected organisations like HRW and Amnesty International have refrained from calling what is happening in Darfur a genocide. As De Waal has pointed out, when there was a clear cut genocidal campaign being carried out by Khartoum in the Nuba mountains during the early 1990s the response from the US and other states, was very muted. Certainly, though, because of the deniability of State-perpetrators, the 1948 treaty makes it easy to classify genocides as such before the levels of violence reach their full potential. The only reluctance comes from an unwillingness to intervene; arguably a realist stance would perhaps say that the only thing worse than denying a genocide is taking place, when one is occurring, for fear of having to intervene, is to say that one is occurring and then to do nothing, apart from talk about it. This really would undermine the 1948 treaty, and I think Lemkin’s thinking was that States do have memories and do observe how the international community reacts to preceding genocide-events and a weak or non-existent response could only encourage repetitions in other contexts by State regimes willing to use this instrument. Therefore, once acknowledged, some form of intervention and strategy for stopping the genocide must be implemented

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:26:38 +0000

Why don’t we try to solve this one:

Muslim clerics call US-led strikes ‘genocide’ TALL AFAR, Iraq, (AFP) – US-led assaults on insurgents in Tall Afar and Fallujah killed at least 57 people, prompting top Muslim clerics to accuse the US-led coalition of “genocide” in Iraq (news – web sites). [...] As US-led operations to rid Tall Afar of “terrorists” continued, Sheikh Abdel Ghaffur al-Samarrai told worshippers the assault on the small mainly Shiite Turkmen northern town qualified as genocide. “What have the residents of Fallujah and Tall Afar done to deserve these atrocities? The occupation forces are committing genocide,” he said. “They came to Iraq to kill, destroy and strip its resources. Where is the UN Security Council?” the leading cleric asked. Calm returned to Tall Afar Friday after a 13-hour air and ground assault the previous day, which medics said left 45 people dead and that US commanders said killed up to 57 “terrorists.” “These savage bombardments make no distinction between unarmed civilians and those equipped with weapons,” Sheikh Salah al-Jaburi said in the nearby city of Mosul, accusing the US-led coalition of committing an “enormous” crime. With the town sealed off since Thursday, dozens of residents, many of them women and children, have fled to a makeshift Iraqi Red Crescent camp.

By: Luc

Luc — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:23:10 +0000

jr, No, I wasn't suggesting the US should take the lead. In a sense they already do. I do appreciate Powell's more realist stance on the Darfur issue. But I would call his position clear, not vague. What is vague is the instant peace fantasy that some people express. If only China, France, UN, sanctions etc. then all would be well. What I object to is the common theme of shifting responsibilities. The UN is not an organization that can "solve" Darfur. Neither can the US. Though not related to any nefarious motives at all, this blogentry started with the title "Genocide and the UN" and ended with "the denial [of] France .. just adds more shame." There is an undercurrent of subjects floating around in this discussion. A fine example is today's op-ed by Kristof:

So I salute the Bush administration for formally declaring on Thursday that the slaughter is a genocide. ... Does the Chirac government really want to show the moral blindness to Sudan's genocide that the Vichy regime did to Hitler's?

This is no coincidence. (Seeing that ugly name I long back to the days of Godwin's law.) It also includes a bit of hate for the UN/Kofi Annan. And a barb for the Islamic world. (Not the Arab world this time.) But it fails to propose a solution other than pressure, sanctions and maybe a no-fly zone. Which is exactly what Powell is trying. Along with a good part of those who are cast in the role of the accused. And a large part of this is going on through the UN. To the question So, what do you have in mind? I would say - That what is being done is being done now, there will be no magical solution tomorrow. I know of no country that is prepared to fight a war in Sudan, and I doubt that will change. So I would say support those that are working towards relief, instead of throwing around old accusations and Hitler's name.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:06:18 +0000

In france, the story keeps on resurfacing from time to time, a few buzzes and then gone. But it keeps coming back, to meet each time one of these very loud official silences that go with the worst. I suppose the u.s. doesn’t really want the role of kagame/uganda to be examined, and as the others won’t care, i don’t see a diplomatic push to fully, officially, investigate the genocide coming. I suppose the best we’ll get is an official “sorry” in some years. It’s pretty much meaningless now, but as the u.s., the u.n. and belgium have already expressed their remorses, the denial france is in just adds more shame.

By: JR

JR — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:16:08 +0000

Luc, I’m not playing the blame game. I’m asking what how the United States ought to respond to an ongoing genocide. Powell’s testimony explained clearly why he used the term genocide, but it did not strongly suggest the direction of US policy. China has two reasons to be unenthusiastic about sanctions. It sees international intervention as a violation of sovereignty, mostly becuase it worries about the international response to its own human rights abuses. It also imports oil from Sudan, although I don’t know how much it depends on Sudanese sources. The tenor of your comments suggests that you feel like it is the U.S.’s responsibiltiy to take the lead. So, what do you have in mind?

By: Pierre

Pierre — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:43:48 +0000

Dan, I assume you read “Shake Hands With the Devil” by Roméo Dallaire (for those not familiar with the name, he was the Canadian officer in charge of the U.N. peacekeepers before and during the genocide). He’s especially bitter about how the Belgians cut and ran after ten of their soldiers were killed—and then blamed him for placing them in harm’s way. I have some quibbles about the book—it’s a personal memoir and he’s very defensive about his role—but he’s a brave and decent man whose warnings went unheeded and whose pleas were ignored, and when I met him last year he seemed more willing to admit to underestimating how quickly and catastrophically the situation would deteriorate.

By: Luc

Luc — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:23 +0000

Colin Powell has correctly used the word genocide, but the policy response is somewhat vague. Assuming that Powell determines US policy these quotes from the mentioned NYT article are clear enough for me:

“Some seem to have been waiting for this determination of genocide to take action,” Mr. Powell said. “In fact, however, no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act responsibly. So, let us not be too preoccupied with this designation.”
A moment later, he added: “Call it civil war. Call it ethnic cleansing. Call it genocide. Call it ‘none of the above.’ The reality is the same. There are people in Darfur who desperately need the help of the international community.”

I do appreciate a realist Powell. Better than the “war is peace” neo-con crowd. Many prefer the blame game. Some of you here are still stuck on France, but since they showed some support for the latest proposed UN resolution, the blame has passed on to China. Here is the new cue line:

On Thursday evening, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, John C. Danforth, expressed impatience with the resistance to sanctions from China, Pakistan and others. Any country that vetoes a resolution calling for sanctions, he said, “would have to explain the continuing tragedy of Darfur” and explain why it favored “stepping back and letting people die and be shot down by helicopters and raped.”

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:24:29 +0000

Dan, I don’t need to go to the library – I have a copy. Looking through it I would say that your latest comment is a pretty good summary: “Certain elements of French government supported a grotesquely violent and racist element within the rather violent and racist Juvenal Habyarimana government, some elements didn’t and were ignorant of what happened.” And: “there is a scholarly consensus that the genocide would have been much less likely and perhaps unthinkable had not the ‘Power’ faction in Kigali been encouraged, financed and armed by various sectors of the French state.” The open question, so far as I am concerned, is the extent to which the behaviour of French officials was criminal as opposed to stupid. For the moment I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that – granting however that there must have been some criminality involved. I hope you will alert us to your paper on the Great Lakes wars when it’s done. Pierre, I pretty much agree with your 4.46 comment. I took it from your earlier comment that you were endorsing Paul Kagame’s charges, but I take it you are not. I’m not setting myself up as a sort of posthumous defence counsel for Mitterrand & Co. If getting the record straight makes them out to be worse than I thought, so be it.

By: Pierre

Pierre — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:56:29 +0000

Oops, sorry Dan, I must have tried to post at the exact instant you were providing a far more elaborate answer. But my position is clear: next to the actual killers and their instigators, the biggest criminals were (some elements of) the French.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:54:41 +0000

Kagame, by the way, seems to me to be largely right when he had a go at the laughable Alliot, French Minister of Defence. But the fact is that Kagame too has a lot of blood on his hands from Zaire/RDC, and is at least in part attempting to use French guilt over the genocide as a smokescreen for his own military adventurism. And Claire Short chucked a lot of money at Kagame’s Rwanda whilst not raising a peep about what its troops were doing over the border. Again, disgusting.