Idolatry

There is a statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo.

And there is a George W. Bush St. in Tbilisi, Georgia.

Clinton in Bosnia, Kosovo

There's something rather condescending about Westerners traveling to post-conflict areas devastated by genocide and giving a pep talk.

I'm reminded of Philip Gourevitch's slam against the international community in post-genocide Rwanda (that would be the genocide with Tutsi victims, not the recently reported cleansing of Hutus -- more on that, and Gourevitch's discussion of it in the New Yorker, later). Gourevitch quotes a UN diplomat based in Rwanda: "relief workers in Rwanda were often heard making statements such as 'Yes, the genocide happened, but it's time to get over it and move on,' or 'Enough has been said about the genocide, let's get on with rebuilding the country.'"(206)

Enter Hillary Clinton into Bosnia. Here's a paragraph from her remarks at a townhall meeeting with students in Sarajevo:

So the progress is encouraging, but it is far from complete. Yes, people can now go to work and children can go to school, but there are not enough good jobs. Hatreds have eased, but nationalism persists. And the promise of greater stability and opportunity represented by integration into Europe still remains out of reach.

The take-home message: get over your nationalist differences and integrate so you too can join the party that is the EU! Get it together folks, get over those difficulties!

It's an odd message to give in Sarajevo rather than in Republika Srpska, where threats of secession are a common political theme. Likewise, it ignores the American culpability in creating a system with the Dayton Accords that organized institutions and territories in such a way that mitigates ethnic integration. The Guardian slyly points to this in its coverage: "'I came to see how the Americans are viewing us now,' said Aleksandra Vejnovic, 20, a law student. 'They have started this project, they wrote our constitution and it doesn't work.'" (I need to teach my students such effective quoting of sources!)

And the assessment of the hatreds is what seems so insipid. The Clinton administration (Bill, clearly) hid for awhile behind the ancient hatred canard in their early framing of the conflict, partially as a way to avoid intervention. It seems rather paternalistic to congratulate a society on the diminishment of "hatred" after the experience of ethnic war, cleansing and genocide.

“I guess you could say that’s when the U.N. woke and said, ‘Hmm, we can accomplish something here.'”

The above title is taken from the last line of a recent New York Times article, and are the words of an unidentified senior U.N. official. The senior official is referring to the U.N.’s overdue investigation into the humanitarian crisis that has occurred in the Congo, formerly Zaire, in the ten years following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda—an investigation that yielded an official U.N. report just two days ago. Drafts of this report were released in late August, and they accused Congolese rebels and Tutsi-led forces from Rwanda of committing genocide against Hutu populations in U.N.-administered camps in the Congo. The final report offered less direct accusations regarding acts of genocide, as told in the latest Times article on the matter.

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and his government are furious about the accusations in the drafted reports and the final report. Though this is the case, Rwanda decided not to follow through on its threat to remove the thousands of its committed troops from ongoing U.N. peacekeeping missions—including a significant number currently contributing to the peacekeeping efforts in Sudan.

The validity of the U.N.’s accusations and findings are still to be evaluated, but there is one aspect of these findings that one should question. The U.N. refugee camps that were established in what was then Zaire, housed and protected an abundance of Hutu extremists and Interahamwe soldiers who participated in and led the genocide. The U.N. either made little effort to extract these genocidal perpetrators from the camps or made little effort to consider the nature of the refugees that they were housing in their camps. Either way, the negligence of the U.N. caused the new Tutsi-led government in Rwanda immense frustration, knowing that many of the leaders and militants who slaughtered masses of their ethnic brethren were in U.N. safe havens.

The Rwandan government and forces took it upon themselves to try to apprehend the genocidal participants and encourage Hutu populations to return to Rwanda. I do not know whether the U.N. accusations of genocide carried out by the Tutsi-led Rwandan government against Hutus in the Congo are accurate, but I do know that the U.N.’s misguided actions after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda were one cause of the atrocities. And it should also be noted that because of its mishandling of the situation, the U.N. may have a vested interest in casting blame away from themselves and on another actor for these atrocities in the Congo (the report was investigated and written by the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, despite requests from Rwanda to include a second independent source for investigating the conflict).

Now to consider the title of the post. After several attempts to investigate incidents in the Congo, the U.N. was finally able to gain access to the Congo in order to look into the post-genocide humanitarian disasters and the following decade of atrocities in the broken down country. The senior U.N. official said to this breakthrough, “I guess you could say that’s when the U.N. woke and said, ‘Hmm, we can accomplish something here.’”

If only the U.N. were to wake up and utter that phrase when genocide, mass murder and other crimes against humanity were happening. The types of investigations, like the one on the Congo, are helpful for studying humanitarian crises, finding solutions for these calamities and obtaining justice, but the U.N. needs to do more than that. Why didn’t the U.N. realize that they could accomplish something in Rwanda during the genocide? Why, when the U.N. supposedly takes action, its soldiers standby and allow slaughtering to continue, as in Srebrenica? The peacekeeping missions that the U.N. employs, like those in Rwanda and Bosnia, during humanitarian disasters and genocides do not accomplish anything in respect to protecting lives and combating the perpetrators of atrocities.

The U.N. fails to produce effective policies and action at the times of the greatest humanitarian crises—genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and the like. Moreover, despite its total lack of contribution to solving these crises, the U.N. has the audacity to point fingers at groups for their brutal acts without claiming any shred of responsibility for itself. Rwandan officials are particularly upset, because, in spite of the evils that the Tutsi forces may have committed after the genocide, they were the contingent that put a stop to the genocide. The U.N. stood by and did nothing. In dealing with humanitarian crises, the U.N. needs to be more than a post-catastrophe analyst.

If Tutsi forces and Congolese rebels committed the atrocities delineated in the U.N. report, then the proper diplomatic and legal steps should be taken by the international community. But for the U.N. to be a credible source for making accusations and solving problems regarding humanitarian crises, it needs to prove that it can actively effect outcomes of humanitarian disasters in a positive way. That means protecting lives and stopping genocidal and inhumane regimes, whether it be diplomatically or militarily. The U.N. must also acknowledge and take responsibility for its plethora of disgraceful decisions in times of great humanitarian need.

The Dangers of Reckless Reading

I was sitting on the floor in a Barnes and Noble the other day, gazing down at one of the bottom shelves of the history section to see Hitler’s Mein Kampf. At first I was surprised that it was just there, at a book store, ready to be bought and read by anyone. I was simply fascinated, knowing all I do about the racist ideology of the Nazis and the Nazi genocide, to realize that the hateful, repugnant, destructive and propagandized words of mass murderer and tyrant Adolf Hitler were just there, for sale.

Mein Kampf has been banned in Germany since the end of World War II and in many other countries at different points in time. Most recently, it was banned in Russia due to a spike in violence by far right extremist groups thought by the government to be aided on some level by Hitler’s text. It is of course, legal to publish and sell in the United States, as well as various other countries; it is an important historical text that scholars and the like can use responsibly to study Hitler and the Third Reich—of course some will use the text irresponsibly, but as is the case with any political text, thinking or idea.

When the 2015 cutoff for the ban in Germany rolls around, the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich plans to release a version of Mein Kampf that includes critical commentary and annotations. In Germany, although the ban is in place, those who really want to read the work can get their hands on it—multiple unofficial versions are available online. Lifting the symbolic ban and taking steps to release the annotated version as well as regular, unannotated versions will be positive steps for the German government; the annotated version will inform the reader of the brutal realities and dangerous nature of the text, while the unannotated versions will preserve freedom of thought for the reader, a concept of fundamental importance. In other words, balance is key when the German government releases a new policy on the matter. (The different takes on the planned ban lift are outlined in a New York Times Article from February).

In the same breath that I say Mein Kampf should be made available for the public in Germany and elsewhere, I must address various news articles that sprung up earlier this year discussing this topic and India, which leave me back at a point of utter confusion. The headline on the Huffington Post’s website from April reads, “Hitler’s Mein Kampf Seen as Self-Help Guide For India’s Business Students.” I have not read Mein Kampf, but the knowledge I have of it allows me to say, with conviction, that Mein Kampf should not be used as a tool for self-help or self improvement—as the Daily Telegraph put it in the original story—personal guidance or career advancement in any way. The Daily Telegraph article cites that the book’s popularity in India may also be due to the political convictions of some Hindu nationalist and fascist organizations. Whatever the mix of factors be that contribute to the rise of popularity, these articles show probable connection between Mein Kampf, Indian business students and misuse of a dangerous text—one which prompted genocidal violence and ideology.

It is considered, by a growing number of business students in India, as a guide to management, and as the Daily Telegraph cites the owner of an Indian company that publishes Hitler’s text, “[Students] see it as a kind of success story where one man can have a vision, work out a plan on how to implement it and then successfully complete it.” Knowing the racist and destructive contents of Mein Kampf, the eventual Nazi policies of eradicating all “Non-Aryan” peoples, which reflected Hitler’s views in Mein Kampf, and the genocide committed by Hitler and his regime all make the previous statement perplexing and disturbing. This “plan” that the owner mentions was one centered around mass murder, taking over the world and attempts to create a superior race. Hitler’s plan and the words behind his actions in Germany—Mein Kampf—should not be looked to in hopes of emulation for any purpose. Hitler's writing, which is so entrenched in racist hatred, is particularly dangerous due to its deep connections with genocide. It is this connection with the most horrific and terrifying type of human catastrophe that forces particular notice be taken of Mein Kampf and its potential reckless mishandling.

Suing the UN?

Sorry for the hiatus.

A recent article in the NYT mentioned that a group of victims of the Srebrenica massacre had attempted to sue the Netherlands and the UN for their failure in defending that "safe haven" from Bosnian Serb forces in 1995. A Dutch court found that they could not, noting further that, if sued, the UN would desist arming its peacekeeping missions worldwide. One does wonder how the UN, as a body, could be held accountable for its blunders. Or if it should.

On another note, the discussion of the roles of homosexual soldiers in the Srebrenica massacre is being appropriately mocked.

Thoughts on "Linguicide"

The 1948 Genocide Convention doesn't specifically enumerate the intentional destruction of a group's culture as an act which constitutes genocide. When speaking of destruction of the group, the Convention specifies that this destruction is "physical" in nature. While it does cite "mental harm" intentionally inflicted upon members of the group, this has generally been interpreted as psychologically warfare as most often associated with terror campaigns, torture, and rape (as noted here and here). Thus, the language of the Convention does not specifically cite cultural destruction as an act of genocide.

However, Raphael Lemkin - the principle force behind the Convention - wrote at length about the importance of culture in the sphere of genocide. The devastating consequences reaped by genocide, he argued, far exceeded even the most heinous forms of physical destruction, because genocide involves wiping out a people's memory, as well as countless individuals who may otherwise have contributed greatly to the world's culture (let alone the specific group's culture). This, even if one does limit the scope of the discussion to physical destruction, it is difficult to deny the cultural implications of the elimination of an entire people. Entire cultures are lost to the world, and this, Lemkin argues, is as powerful a reason to resist genocide as the physical elimination that causes the devastation of culture.

Bearing these arguments in mind, I would like to introduce the concept of "linguicide," pondered by various scholars, including Skutnabb-Kanga and Ngugi wa Thiong'o. The word refers to the destruction of language: as so many have argued across time, language is the key to culture itself and the transmission of cultural mores. In his 2009 book Something Torn and New: An African Renaissance, Ngugi asserts that the destruction of colonized people's languages imposed by colonialism constitutes a significant destruction of the very group itself. In the case of the English colonization and - arguably - genocide against the Irish in the late 16th century, the elimination of Irish names and most aspects of Irish language disconnects the Irish people from a sense of identity and their own cultural history. The history that comes to replace it is that of England's construction of Irish history: yet, as Irish identity is destroyed with the elimination of names and language, Irish history becomes a lost concept. Ngugi gives examples which imply that this emphasis on the destruction of language and the original names of peoples can be found in many genocides throughout history, in a variety of geographic and sociopolitical contexts. Social memory is lost when language is lost; if social memory is lost, identity is lost; if identity is lost, can it not be argued that the group itself has been lost, or rather, destroyed? Thus, can genocide be committed through making it illegal to speak one's native tongue; educating people only in foreign tongues that their parents do not speak; or imposing new names to replace old family names, as in the case of African slaves and (on occasion) immigrants arriving at Ellis Island? I will leave it up the reader to evaluate these questions.

Genocide by... Abortion?

While perusing the internet during my finals week for news on genocide (as, alas, I am prone to do), I found a post which accuses President Obama of beginning a genocidal policy against African Americans in the United States. What's the argument for this? It is based upon two principal notions: the first is the assertion that the health care provisions Obama is struggling to get would encourage abortions, and the second is that an exceptionally large number of African women already have abortions per year, and encouraging this would be tantamount to genocide.

For the sake of this posting, I want to leave aside the debate surrounding health care and abortion per se. Rather, I wish to focus simply on the alleged relationship between abortion and genocide. This claim asserts that encouraging - not necessarily forcing - abortions among a certain group can constitute genocide. (It was not made clear in the posting whether this allegation is supposed to be taken in context of the historical [and contemporary] oppression of African Americans in the United States. ) According to the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, genocidal acts do include "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." This is thus dependent upon the debate I said I would avoid - whether Obama's health care proposals will, indeed, encourage abortions or - more significant to this argument - whether it is intended to do so. I've said that I won't get into this here, and I won't, because I see a larger point here (I'm sure there are many).

The argument presented on the post I am referring to did not refer to the economic situation which does, indeed, lead many African American women to get abortions. I would argue that it is economic class, rather than a 'racial identity,' which fuels high rates of abortion, particularly in young women. Thus, if one wants to argue that imposing situations where abortion is encouraged amongst members of a group constitutes genocide, I think the argument can be better made on the level of class rather than racial categorization. This is somewhat sticky, though, because the Genocide Convention does not list 'class' as a protected group.

This raises the question: do members of groups that are not 'national, ethnical, racial, or religious' not receive protection under the Convention? Are those four groups meant to be exclusionary of other groups, like 'political' or 'economic class'? In the context of the time that the Convention was drafted, this certainly was the case (as the Soviet Union feared that its actions could be perceived as genocide if 'class' or 'political groups' were considered explicitly). Are documents of international law ones whose interpretation is supposed to change over time, or are they supposed to be destined to remain, forever, trapped in the context of their original ratification?