Robert
A. Pape argues that the term genocide
discourages countries from intervening in government sponsored massacres. Pape states
that quickly stepping in to cease state-approved homocide is more useful than
trying to prove a nation is committing genocide according to the definition and
should therefore be stopped. He states that, if a political institution is on a
killing spree, “a coalition of countries…should intervene to stop it, as long
as they have a viable plan, with minimal risk of causalities for the
interveners,” regardless of whether it can be defined as genocide. He uses the
US aid during the war in Libya between Colonal Qaddafi and the rebels as an
example. The United States entered with “the narrower objective of preventing a
‘humanitarian catastrophe’.” This low-risk intervention helped the rebels in
defeating Qaddafi “and saved thousands of lives,” preventing it from becoming a
UN-definited genocide. Pape concludes that trying to stop the massacres in
Syria is not yet an option because a way to end it “without unacceptable loss
of life is not yet available.”
Although
I agree that the international community is so focused on the definition of genocide
that the term actually inhibits intervention in mass homocides, I also wonder
if nations would intervene in crises in the first place if a term did not exist.
Judging by what we have learned in class thus far, the focus on terminology
detracts from the reality of mass murder because academics and country leaders
do not want to blame or offend others. In essence, we forget about the horrors
that we are talking about. I believe this is problematic because the individual’s
connection to basic human rights motivates the intervention. On the other hand,
I wonder if international intervention happens because we have vocabulary to
discuss state-led massacres. Since coining the term genocide, countries as well
as the UN are more aware of and talk about government-sponsored massacres. Citizens
have participated in anti-genocidal activism in an attempt to stop mass
killings. Although the global
community sometimes decides to intervene solely based on the definition of
genocide, I question whether the international community would interrupt
massacres at all had Lemkin not created the term.
Furthermore,
I do not support Pape’s use of the Libyan war as a prime example of successful
intervention. Although it highlights the United States’ aid in the rebels’
success, I question why if the country decided to enter in the first place
because Libya is rich with resources. Before the war, CNN reported that Libya
produced 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, and, in 2011, IBM estimated that
Libya had $8.69 billion in gold.
Was the United States invested in saving lives as well as trying to
profit?
Bibliography
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/why-we-shouldnt-attack-syria-yet.html
http://www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/paper5.shtml
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-gold-does-libya-have-302983
I found this blog post to be particularly interesting because I am also torn on whether a precise definition of genocide makes the international community more or less likely to act in cases of mass murder. Accusing a country of committing genocide comes with significant consequences (as seen by the Armenian genocide). These consequences may deter the international community from becoming involved and therefore, deny help to those who need it.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to predict what would have happened had Lemkin not coined the term ‘genocide.’ However, given that we do have this legal definition of genocide, it is important to take it with a grain of salt – to recognize that not all atrocities will fall under this definition. Terms such as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “discrimination” are all vast generalizations. To categorize and lump together individually unique examples of such events under these headings can be misleading and not useful in deciding whether or not the international community should act.
In class we discussed the differences between the “how” and the “why.” These two questions have a lot of room for different interpretations and different implications of a specific event. Therefore, when deciding whether the international community should intervene in a certain case, we should focus on the “what” – a question easier answered with concrete facts. What is actually happening to the victims? Are they being killed? Are they being deported? Are they going against their will, etc? Looking at factors such as the perpetrator’s superficial intent versus masked intent, the ways in which perpetrators implement these actions, and whether the event classifies as genocide or not, does not deny the fact that if masses of people are being killed, the international community should help. Based on the victims’ experiences, the international community can decide whether the situation is severe enough to get involved. Academics can later ponder whether the incident should be classified as genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, or none of the above. When the incident is actually occurring, however, the international community should not turn away if the incident does not fall under its definition of genocide. The term “genocide,” therefore, can be helpful for reflection and after-the-fact implications, but in the moment, when deciding whether or not to get involved, it may not be useful.
I do appreciate that the term genocide has given us a way to talk about such events and not just sweep them under the rug. When applying the definition, however, it is critical not to limit your perception of, or deny the importance of atrocities that occur outside of the narrow definition of “genocide.”
Like Ms. Kuhr, I agree with Robert Pape’s assertions that countries with the power to intervene in mass murder too often hesitate when faced with definitions of genocide. Ms Kuhr’s question of whether or not countries would choose to intervene anywhere without a definition on hand is valid. No country, especially a military superpower like the United States, wants to viewed again in the eyes of history as a state that allowed for genocide to occur under their noses. Having the term ‘genocide’ means that instances of mass murder causes states to consider intervention where before they might have tried to look the other way.
ReplyDeleteStill, in certain situations, an absolute definition of genocide can allow for countries with the power to intervene to deny intervention on the basis of specifics. Intervening in a dangerous situation is demanding on any state in terms of money, politics and sheer manpower. Countries such as the United States can easily use the technicalities and restrictions that come with the definition of genocide to remain isolated and deny help to countries experiencing anything less than what has been legally defined. In fact, as Ms. Kuhr pointed out, intervention often is only supplied when it appears convenient for the intervening country (as indicated in the case of Libya).
What Pape’s argument appears to hinge upon, however, is the fact that intervention is dependent on a situation being specifically labeled. “By setting the bar for intervention so high — unmistakable evidence of clear intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group — the international community has stuck itself in a Catch-22: by the time it is clear that genocide is occurring, it is often too late to stop it.” What Pape fails to touch upon is that the term ‘genocide’ was not simply coined to gauge a time for intervention. It is a legal term and, when used properly, defines the legality of certain events and the punishment or reparations that will follow. While there’s no doubt that the definition of genocide needs to be reevaluated to allow for certain cases to be formally recognized (such as the Armenian genocide), a country’s decision to intervene does not need to be solely determined by a definition. In this case legal action and intervening action should be viewed on two entirely different spectrums. Where intervention occurs, legal action may not need to. If a country with the means to help is waiting for a formal definition, they should undoubtedly end up on the wrong side of history. Whether or not they will, will be determined by our ability to recognize genocide and mass murder as two distinct, but equally horrifying crimes.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Is the Term Genocide Useful?
From my understanding, the term genocide in relation to the international community is more significant as a retrospective term. As evidenced by the U.S.’s (albeit minimal) intervention in Libya, a crisis that results in large-scale killing does not need to be classified a genocide to attract the international community’s attention. (Admittedly, an event would probably attract more attention and aid if it is termed a genocide, however, a crisis in which many are killed is unlikely to go unnoticed or unpunished, even if it is not a “genocide”.)
The problems with the term are rooted more so in which countries are powerful enough to manipulate its meaning so that their actions are not labeled as genocide. The United States is a good example of a powerful nation that has the ability to condemn other countries as having committed genocide, while denying its own history of mass deportation and killing of targeted groups. If influential nations like the U.S. are essentially defining loaded legal terms to cover their own criminal actions, therefore exerting and maintainging their power over less wealthy and influential nations, how can we hope for any semblance of nation equality or trust?