 |
Effective Genocide Response: A Paradox |
 |
The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 occurred mostly within the span of two months, spurred on by careful preparation and mass media exhortations to murder. A tardy and ineffective international response caused thousands to die.
Every time a genocide occurs, the world says, “Never again.” And yet, they happen again. And again. And again.
Why do these things continue to happen? Very few people say outside forces should not respond to genocide at all. Genocide is defined as crime against humanity. Its definition asserts that all people have inherent rights that don’t derive their existence from the state in a grand social contract, but rather derive their existence from the very essence of being human.
If you accept that broad frame, then an act of genocide attacks all our humanity and must be met with an appropriate response. Indeed, the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, passed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, defines genocide as a crime against humanity and mandates “appropriate” actions to combat any genocide. Yet, even though genocides have been declared and the genocide convention invoked, the supposedly overwhelming international response has failed to materialize, most notably in Darfur. So, why is effective intervention to prevent genocide so hard to put into practice?
An International Paradox
The idea of an effective response to genocide is by nature contradictory.
An appeal to a higher authority distinguishes justice from simple violence. A group of peers, applying the law of the land, judge criminal citizens. Thus, citizens are accountable to the state, an instrument given higher authority by the people of the nation. But when a state commits crimes against humanity, what higher authority can be called to judge? A unilateral response to genocide isn’t justice, because one state waging a war against another, even to stop a genocide, isn’t just.
The only appropriate response to genocide is an international response. The more international the better. In a perfect world, we would all join together to stop genocide from occurring in any one state. The more nations in on the effort, the more legitimate that effort becomes. Simply compare the legitimacy of the “coalition of the willing” to the UN-backed Operation Desert Storm to see the point. When we had the world at our back, our operations were just. When we struck unilaterally, we were seen as aggressors, and rightly so.
However, genocide often happens extremely quickly, as it did in Rwanda in 1994. International agreements and actions rarely happen in this time frame. Even the simple act of passing meaningless resolutions in the UN can take 6 months or more. By virtue of the bureaucracy involved in international negotiations, these kinds of broad based efforts move at a snail’s pace.
And therein lies the basic conflict. Individual nations are reluctant to intervene on their own because they will then bear the responsibility of putting the war-torn nation back together and because often, no national interest is at stake. On a more philosophical level, individual nations just don’t have a real mandate to intervene. It takes an international effort to stop a genocide, yet international efforts move too slowly or ineffectively to actually stop much of anything. It’s a catch-22.
Untangling The Gordian Knot
There are a few possible ways out of this catch-22, but none are foolproof. Prevention, of course, is the best option, thus mollifying the need for swift intervention. In Rwanda, weapons buildups and propaganda campaigns increased tensions for over a year before genocide finally erupted. Had any international organization realized the danger, it is possible tensions could have been diffused in time. Of course, this approach depends on the international community accurately assessing the threat, an uncertain proposal.
Another possible solution uses deterrent justice. If those that perpetrated genocide were reliably prosecuted and convicted in international court, those with an inclination to mass murder might be less likely to commit crimes against humanity. Disregarding the difficulties inherent in setting up an international court system that has real teeth (and there are many), this solution assumes that genocide is a rational crime that can be deterred with certain punishment. While less people murder because punishment in the U.S. is swift and certain, murders still occur and criminals who commit crimes of passion aren’t dissuaded by rational concerns. (And who’s to say genocide isn’t at least slightly irrational in nature.)
A Pure Conflict
Genocide is, in a sense, a very pure problem. It puts human right and sovereign rights in direct conflict, and it often occurs outside the corrupting influence of national interest politics.
I’m not sure I have a great answer to the problems I’ve highlighted. The best minds in the world have tried to craft an international doctrine that would effectively respond to genocide and so far they have failed. Certainly, if time allows for an international response, one should be mounted. The genocide in Darfur has been raging for years, more than enough time for us to move as one. However, mustering the kind of swift and overwhelming response that is often called for to prevent genocide seems nearly impossible.
Perhaps there are other ways to get around this paradox. Any suggestions?
You get close to the answer yourself–the solution is to stop genocide before it starts. Genocides are years in the making–even if the killing sometimes happens more suddenly. The warning signs of arms buildups and propaganda are but the end stages of a longer process. The leaders of genocides–and their followers–are born of fear, instability, ignorance, and economic insecurity. The US, and other economic winners in the world economy, need to be willing to step in with a level of aid–food, development, education, medicine, and cold, hard cash–far beyond the current crumbs from the rich man’s table.
As for moral authority, it wouldn’t hurt if the US chose to abide by the ICJ and the Geneva Conventions. It wouldn’t hurt of the likes of Russia, France, and Germany. . . and China. . . also had a larger moral component to their foreign policy, as well.
And, there’s always our GWOT–exacerbating ethnic tensions wherever it may go. We gotta knock that shit off.
I agree that prevention is the best medicine. And certainly, there is a case to be made that we may have prevented many genocides already. I mean, if we had, how are we to know?
Of course, it’s hard to trust the international community to intervene before a genocide happens if there is no national interest at stake.
There *is* no simple international solution to stop genocide. Simple as that. They happen too fast for the UN bureaucracy to operate to stop it.
The answer is a culturally ingrained right to keep and bear arms, as well as a European enlightenment based philosophy based on the respect for the individual.
In the last century, there have been 170 million lost to genocide and other state actors - and a paltry 10 million lost to simple murder. In a well-armed society, any one person lost to “gun violence” is simply the price a society pays to prevent 17 others from being genocided. You might not like it, but it’s the truth. Genocides don’t happen to well-armed minorities, no matter how much the rest of society wants them dead. You have to disarm them before you can genocide them.
You’re going to have to come up with facts to support that statement before anyone will take you seriously. I don’t think without them you can prove more guns = more peace.
Which is easier to kill off or throw in concentration camps or summarily execute?
A) a gay musician intellectual?
B) a gay musician intellectual with a rifle?
My friend and neighbor is in group B. He’s a history professor and violinist at an Ivy League college, and has a bad knee. He owns a full power semi-auto battle rifle with an 800m range.
In other words, he’s a flaming queen with an M14. (hey, that rhymes!)
He knows what the Nazis did, and knows that an armed populace of “undesirables” like himself are a barrier to genocide.
You’re going to have to bring the facts, grf. To me, it’s common sense that more guns create more violence.
You can’t ever “prove” anything with statistics, all you can do is establish correlations.
Ten seconds with Google, including the *actual laws* banning guns preceding each genocide:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/genocide.html
MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES — THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code
Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code
Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18
China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group
Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283
Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act
Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code
TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
Yeah…that’s not going to do it for me. Most countries have gun control laws. Most countries are not genocidal.
Now, the presence of lots of weapons on both sides might tend to turn genocides (which we usually define as one sided killing) into civil wars (with two well armed sides), but really, that’s semantics. I don’t think more guns stops killing.
Which is easier to kill off or throw in concentration camps or summarily execute, A or B? You have 3 armed men, and your directive is to drag A or B out into the street and shoot him in the head. Which one are you going to choose to maximize yout chances of going home to your wife?
Again, for me, more guns lead to more violence. Instead of one person killing another, you have two people killing each other. I’m not sure you read the article. Do you believe genocide is a completely rational act that can be dissuaded by things like punishment or retaliation? I’m not so sure…
The Rwandan genocide was done without the use of guns at all, so the availability of civilian owned guns can’t be the problem!
So, which person is better equipped to defend against genocide, A or B?
Now hold on. I NEVER said guns were the problem or cause of genocide. But you said they were a solution. So let’s turn back the tables. In Rwanda, a lot of violence was caused by freely available knives. Why would guns have helped?
Because knives are a close-in weapon that rely on strength, speed, and viciousness to work.
If a young thug with a knife goes up against a granny with a kitchen knife, granny loses.
However, if you’re a thug with a rifle, and granny has a rifle, the outcome is less certain. Additionally, Granny can now whack you from 300m away while she’s still in her wheelchair. As a thug, it’s much preferable that Granny doesn’t have that rifle.
Guns are equalizers, therefore organized genocide is much harder.
Facts please.
Better yet, if you were a person in a hated group, you were too poor to leave the country, and you were boxed in with armed government troops closing in, would you say “Thank goodness that we have gun control laws!”… or would you rather have a good rifle, so you could take some of the bastards with you?
You’ve really gotta lay off the strawman arguments. If you want to make the argument that guns stop genocides, then give me facts. These common sense scenarios are strawmen and complete baseless.
Gotcha.
http://www.kimel.net/resist7.html
“Almost without weapons, sometimes with one pistol per fighting group, the fighters decided not to seek survival through escape but to stay in the ghetto to put up a fight.” On April 19, 1943, which happen to fall on the first night of Passover, a detachment of Nazis arrived in the of Nazis arrived in the ghetto to deport a number of Jews and their families, they were greeted with pistol shots and hand grenades.”
http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors/resistww.html
“Contrary to popular myth, many of those fought survived to tell their stories. Indeed, when you track the Jewish partisan groups, you discover that the survival rates of those who fought back, despite the odds against them, was significantly greater than the survival rates of those who passively accepted going to the camps or cooperated with the Germans. In Slovakia, for example, the general Jewish survival rate was 7.8% (7.2% after post-liberation trauma casualties), while the survival rate among the Jewish partisans was approximately 85%. And of the dozen-plus Sobibor escapees who reached the Mietek/Chil partisan group, all but one survived until liberation.”
Armed resistance to genocide = 85% survival rate.
Unarmed acquiescence to genocide = 7.8% survival rate.
I don’t think you quite made your point. Clearly, the presence of guns did not prevent the Holocaust. Again, how do guns prevent genocide? You really think he Nazis were dissuaded or would have been if the Jews had been better armed?
Well, there *were* no guns in the hands of the Jews and other targeted minorities - because they had been removed by gun control laws! And the guns that the partisans *were* able to get were extraordinarily effective in securing the survival of those that chose to resist, such that armed resistance was over ten times as effective in securing one’s survival as unarmed (or no) resistance!
Answer that yourself - remember my A or B question? If you’re Gestapo, which Jew are you going to go after first - the armed one or the unarmed one? What state would you prefer the Jew to be in when you come to drag him out into the street? Unarmed, or sitting in his living room with a loaded rifle? What town would you rather try to kill Jews in - one that’s disarmed or one where there’s a bolt-action rifle with an 800m range hanging over every fireplace? You’re the government. You already have the guns, and the best ones made at that. Which *country* would you rather try and genocide - a disarmed one or one where there’s a bolt-action rifle in every household? What ethnic group would you prefer to genocide - a disarmed one or an ethnic group that practices at the range every month? Remember, as the erstwhile genociders, you have a girlfriend, wife, and family to go home to. How would you prefer your victims, armed or unarmed?
If you’re a heavily armed Nazi, which person, town, country, or ethnic group would you genocide first - an armed one or a disarmed one?
Look, I’ve presented personal anecdotes, hard data, and though experiments.
You have nothing except “well, I think guns create more violence”. Did it ever occur to you that one hoping to enact genocide deserves more *violence* than he can possibly handle or even survive?
Armed minorities don’t get genocided.
Disarmed minorities can only hope for the “international force” (more men with guns) to show up, if it ever does at all.
Armed individuals versus the military force of the state is an inherently unequal contest. In most cases, the individual will lose.
Your example of the Jewish partisans treats guns as though that were the only independent variable. But organization is surely a factor as well. One man with a gun against a force of armed government men is going to lose in most cases (you don’t have to look very far to find examples of that). So maybe organization is a bigger factor than arms. That means that maybe an “armed population” isn’t going to be the solution you think it will be.
Your example of the Jewish partisans is also revealing in that the date you give for the story is 1943 - after large segments of the population were well aware that the genocide was taking place, and had time to formulate a response. That doesn’t really answer Jason’s original question about Rwanda - how to deal with a genocide that unfolds, start to finish, in 100 days?
Placing responsibility on the population to save itself is inherently unfair. How were poor, unorganized Rwandans supposed to fight back against genocidal militias without international support?
“In most cases, the individual will lose.”
Iraq. Vietnam.
You’re correct in that you need both guns and organization in order to successfully resist genocide from the get-go.
“Placing responsibility on the population to save itself is inherently unfair. “
Who cares if it’s unfair? It’s realistic. They’re not to *blame* if someone wants to genocide them, of course, but they do have responsibility to themselves for their own self-preservation.
“how to deal with a genocide that unfolds, start to finish, in 100 days?”
My point is that, internationally, you can’t do anything in 100 days to head off a genocide *unless* the population has already taken steps to protect itself.
Read this:
“Seven stages of genocide”
http://www.genocidewatch.org/7stages.htm
Generally speaking, if you are a member of a dehumanized group (stage 2) and are forced to wear an identifying mark or garment (late stage 1), it’s time to begin arming yourselves, organizing resistance units, liquidating financial assets, and preparing to go underground.
Civil war is preferable to genocide.
Why?
Because it lasts longer, costs less lives per unit time, and is more visible to the international community. There’s a reason that civil wars are often called “low-intensity warfare”.
Genocides are quick, cost more lives per unit time, and are often mostly invisible to the international community. Genocide is the *highest intensity warfare there is*.
Here we go again…prove it. And beyond prove it, why is less lives per time unit better? I mean, are we really arguing which way of slaughtering people is better? They’re all bad.
You’re right, they’re both bad. But civil war is *less* bad.