Category: Genocide

Introduction

This paper delves into the crime of genocide which is the systematic destruction of a particular group of people based on their religion, race, or ethnicity. It is described as an act of heinous barbarism since it violates an individual’s basic human right to live (Shaw, 2012). This paper will thus delve into the cases of Darfur and Rwanda and will investigate the shortcomings of the ICC and ICTR in bringing justice to the victims of such massacres. This paper assumes that international institutions as they are now lack sufficient authority, the means of enforcing their decisions, and the presence of a sufficient framework for the administration of justice which results in their dubious record in administering justice in cases involving genocide.

The Nature of the Cases

In the cases of Darfur and Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in what can only be described as a systematic annihilation of a people for no reason other than racial bias. In their attempts to prosecute those responsible, the ICC and the ICTR attempted to resolve such cases utilizing the tools that were made available to them.

Issues with the Administration of Justice in the Case of Darfur

When examining the case of Darfur, it can be noted that three specific factors prevented “true justice” from being administered, these encompass: the abstained votes from the U.S. and China in voting for a resolution for the administration of punitive actions, the lack of jurisdiction of the ICC in Sudan and lastly the lack of enforceability wherein the incumbent President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan could be brought to justice (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

Abstained votes from the U.S. and China

The main issue with the abstained votes from the U.S. and China when it came to administering a resolution to the issue of genocide within Darfur originates from the fact that neither nation would willingly want to set sufficient precedent for an outside organization to interfere in the domestic affairs of a state (Totten & Markusen, 2006). What must be understood is that without the approval of two of the most powerful members of the security council, no effective action could be done to commit to any form of enforcement of the ICC’s judgment through either economic or military means.

This is based on the theory of realism in international relations wherein it is stated that states are the primary actors in international relations and, as such, their actions cannot be unilaterally dictated by a mere organization that is not a state. In the case of China, it advocates a foreign policy initiative of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and repeatedly utilizes such a position in all its international dealings (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

One of the reasons behind this is due to the fact it has its history of human rights violations in the form of the Uighers in the Xingiang region which the Han majority within China practically forced out of their native region. Thus, in the case of China, it would not want to set sufficient precedent for its actions to be judged. While such a situation does not exist in the case of the U.S., the fact remains that its domestic policy agenda is thoroughly against outside interference and, as such, this creates the problem of enforceability if two of the most powerful nations in the world refuse to intervene (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

Lack of Jurisdiction

Even though numerous charges were leveled against former Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmed Haroun, incumbent President Omar al-Bashir, and Anjaweed leader, Ali Kushayb for supposed crimes against humanity in the form of numerous acts of genocide, the fact remains that the warrants of arrest that were filed by the ICC and given to Sudan were unilaterally refused with Sudan stating that it did not recognize the authority of the ICC within the country (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

This is one of the main problems when it comes to the ICC since its lack of jurisdiction in certain cases impedes its ability to carry out successful sentencing. It should also be noted that even in cases where a country does recognize the arrest warrants of the ICC, it could still unilaterally refuse to hand over the person that they are charging due to a variety of possible reasons ranging from stating that it is a “domestic issue” to outright refusal on what the country would state is a violation of its sovereignty (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

The fact is that the ICC simply cannot be able to impinge on a country’s sovereignty and demand that justice is applied. It is usually the case that it relies on either the country agreeing to the demands of the ICC or relying on external actors in the form of states to help carry the verdict out. Unfortunately, such instances rarely happen and, as a result, many question the continued relevancy of the ICC given its lack of sufficient jurisdiction to bring people guilty of genocide to justice.

Lack of Enforceability

One of the main differences between the ICC and a court that you would normally see in countries such as the U.S., U.K., and France is the presence of a mechanism of enforceability for judgments that have been carried out. For example, if a man has been found guilty by a local court of law, his sentence is enforced by local authorities wherein he is either imprisoned for life or summarily executed in time. This method of enforceability is enacted through the authority placed upon the police by state law.

Such aspects also encompass factors related to the issuance of warrants, the establishment of restraining orders, etc (Totten & Markusen, 2006). Basically, the law allows the police to enforce justice by bestowing upon them the authority to do so. In the case of international relations, there is no overarching authority to bestow the ability to enforce justice on individual states. This means that even if the leader of a country was, in fact, complicit in acts of genocide there is presently no such thing as an international police force that could bring him/her to justice. This was one of the problems in the case of Darfur since despite the numerous warrants placed on local leaders; there simply was no way for them to be arrested within their country without the permission of the state, which the ICC never received (Totten & Markusen, 2006).

Such limitations reveal a significant problem in the case of the ICC since not only does the court lack sufficient authority to impose its will on states but it also lacks the ability to sufficiently enforce its decisions. This reveals the necessity of developing some means in which the problem of authority and enforceability can be addressed to prevent acts of genocide in the future.

Issues with the Administration of Justice in the Case of Rwanda

When examining the case of Rwanda, it is immediately apparent that the main issue in this particular case is that the court system that was established to handle the issues related to genocide was simply overwhelmed with the sheer amount of cases that needed to be handled (Mukeshimana, 2012). There were thousands of possible prisoners, hundreds of different cases, and an assortment of different testimonies that needed to be taken into consideration before a proper trial could be commenced (Mukeshimana, 2012).

The result was that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that was established to deal with these cases simply could not finish its mandate within the prescribed amount of time given by the United Nations. This means that the proper administration of justice was not implemented and shows how present-day international organizations are ill-equipped to be able to handle incidences of international crime and crimes against humanity in cases where thousands of potential individuals are involved (Mukeshimana, 2012). There is simply a lack of a sufficient system in place that can help to resolve such issues as compared to what is present in many western countries at the present.

Conclusion

This paper proposes that to handle future cases involving genocide, it would be necessary to develop an external organization that has the express authority to investigate and render judgment on issues related to genocide. While the international court of justice has charged several individuals with acts of genocide, the fact remains that so long as such individuals remain in power within their respective states it is impossible if not highly unlikely that they will be brought to justice.

One clear example of this comes in the form of the Kim dynasty within North Korea who has been accused of facilitating acts of genocide within the various internment camps within the country, yet, despite such actions, no member of the family has been brought to trial. The reason behind this is quite simple, based on the theory of realism states are the primary actors in international relations and, as such, cannot be commanded or compelled into action without their consent or through the interference of a more powerful state.

The presents a considerable dilemma in addressing human rights concerns on the issue of genocide since it is unlikely that the leader of a state that has been accused of facilitating acts of genocide will be brought to justice without the cooperation of the state. Taking such factors into consideration, it is the recommendation of this study that the theory of neoliberal institutionalism is utilized as a guideline in establishing a proper institution/organization to deal with the issue of genocide. Neo-liberal institutionalism acknowledges the fact that states are the primary actors in international relations; however, it also states that institutions can be utilized as a means of facilitating cooperation and collaboration (McQuiston, 2009).

Based on such a perspective, this paper proposes that several institutions be created that facilitate international collaboration on issues related to the investigation and the imposition of the necessary punishment on states or individuals that have been noted as facilitating acts of genocide. The reason behind creating several institutions instead of one large institution is to prevent the process of “red tape” wherein the approval of all members of the organization is needed to make a decision.

Such a process takes a considerable amount of time and effort which in the process can impede efforts to prevent and act of genocide from getting worse. Thus, such institutions will be created on a regional level with several key states acting as the “primary collaborators” (i.e. states with significant resources in terms of military and economic might) with “secondary collaborators” being composed of states with weaker and smaller economies and militaries.

Through such an arrangement, this can help to facilitate the creation of leadership roles for select countries within such institutions that will help to guide the member countries towards enacting some form of judgment against a state/individual that has been guilty of genocide within their region of the world. In cases where multilateral action is needed across several continents, inter-institutional collaborative practices can be implemented to enable institutions from various regions across the world to collaborate on a specific issue of genocide that may be beyond the capacity of the institution within that specific region.

The main purpose of such organizations is to institute an effective means of collaborative action on the part of multiple states within a specific region towards the prevention of genocidal activities. As indicated earlier, one of the main problems when it comes to bringing particular states or individuals to justice is the fact that as the most powerful actor in international relations a state cannot be ordered around by a mere institution. However, in cases where multilateral action is taken between several different states for the express purpose of preventing or addressing a topic of significant concern, then the state in question would need to yield or face possible economic sanctions or at worst a military intervention.

From this alone, it can be seen that the proposed mechanism for dealing with acts of genocide within specific regions of the world gets around the lack of sufficient authority of the ICJ through the use of multilateral agreements of cooperation and collaboration towards the prevention of acts of genocide. The main problem really with the ICJ or even the U.N., in general, is that the lack of sufficient authority in the case of international courts of law and the lack of enforceability of decisions makes it so that any decision that they come to can be considered severely lacking in actually creating an effective solution.

Not only that, the time it takes for them to come to a decision results could result in even more lives being lost. This was seen in the case of Rwanda and Darfur wherein the inaction of multiple state actors resulted in thousands dying of genocide. The main problem really with United Nations is that states are often unwilling to give up their sovereignty resulting in the U.N. being unable to create an immediate impact with its decision-making process.

It is due to this that a regionally specific external entity that has come about through multilateral collaboration is necessary in order to immediately intervene and administer justice based on the concerted decision of the states who are part of the regional institution. Such organizations will utilize a multilateral decision-making process to agree with the actions that must be pursued on a case-by-case basis to ensure that no “hijacking” of interests occurs. It is expected that through the establishment of such institutions, proper intervention and justice can be administered in cases involving the violation of human rights in the form of genocide.

Reference List

McQuiston, J. (2009). The Aral River Basin Crisis, Neorealism, and Neoliberal Institutionalism. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1.

Mukeshimana, E. (2012). Bearing Witness to the Rwanda Genocide. Juniata Voices, 12122-134.

Shaw, M. (2012). From comparative to international genocide studies: The international production of genocide in 20th-century Europe. European Journal Of International Relations, 18(4), 645-668.

Totten, S., & Markusen, E. (2006). Genocide in Darfur: Investigating the Atrocities in the Sudan. (1st ed., pp. 5-45). Washington: Routledge.

Introduction: Genocide Definition and Historical Background

This paper provides a review of genocide causes as well as the strategies of its elimination. Global history provides multiple examples of this anti-humanity crime. Although each particular case has its implication, genocide as a notion can be defined as “the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group” (Jones 2010, p. 10). The term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940s and served as a direct reference to Holocaust. The concept was developed with an advent of the Enlightenment age. According to its doctrines, the world society could be refined through the process of state engineering. In other words, the theory said that such factors as race, character, ethnicity, and social positioning were susceptible to control and reformation. The ultimate goal of the dogma’s supporters was to create a new community of deliberately chosen citizens. As an outcome of this tendency, some ethnic groups such as Armenians and Jews were considered to be the representatives of the inferior community and had to be eliminated by the domineering society (Maritz 2012). These nationalities were identified as the primary targets of genocide.

The ways of conducting genocides differed in their strategic platforms. Specifically, this type of global crime referred not exclusively to killing people but to the society sterilization as well. Moreover, some ethnic group members were exposed to terrible living conditions, which did not leave the citizens any chances for survival. According to the official UN convention that concerns genocide, the act includes the following processes: direct ethnicity eradication through killing people, a transfer of children from the inferior communities into the prosperous ones, inflicting conditions that prevent child-bearing, imposing physical or mental destruction on the members of “worthless” ethnic groups (Genocide Background 2003).

Therefore, in this paper, we dwell on the theories and significant instances of genocide so that to prove that the global eradication of ethnicity is the payoff of psychological disparities both on a personal and on a collective scale. Moreover, in this work, a prevention approach to genocide treatment, which is based on the psycho assumptions, is developed.

Genocide Motives

Originally, genocide roots at the destruction of particular communities. Thus, the history recollects such atrocious ethnic eradications as Moriori Genocide, Irish Potato Famine, Aboriginals’ Stolen Generation, Armenian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, etc. However, every separate crime roots at the ordinary motives that inflict the deadly consequences for multiple nations. Mainly, all global genocides intersect in four essential factors. Therefore, the primary reasons for genocide are revenge, benefit and convenience, pollution prevention, and fear.

The factor of vindication accounts for the war experiences, which arose between diverse nations throughout global history. Thus, if a particular ethnic group succeeds in gaining much power and dominance or evolves into a stable state community, it is capable of inflicting damage on their rivals. Moreover, the aspect of revenge often concerns the issue of national pride. Typically, the countries that possess powerful military forces, and external support tend to reveal immediate reactions to any evictions of insult that is demonstrated by weak states. Such acts often lead to genocides. The argument can be supported by an example of the Herero genocide that occurred in Southwest Africa at the beginning of the 20th century.

The case refers to the rebellion that was initiated by Herero troops and aimed at the destruction of the German army, which controlled the African colonies. Since the suppressed community was not powerful enough to accomplish the goal, the German government released a fierce reaction to the uprising. Specifically, all inhabitants of the Southwest African colonies were pushed from their homes into a desert, which led to the starvation and subsequent eradication of Herero ethnicity (Chirot & McCauley 2006). Therefore, the revenge factor roots at power and authority of the leading world countries.

Quite often, genocides are predetermined by the issues of convenience. In this case, the powerful states that possess common borders with weak administration units adopt a hostile attitude towards their neighbors. In this way, the domineering government takes precautions against the possible rebellions or encroachments that can come from the side of the nearby communities. Thus, the leading states reveal their absolute imperviousness. The case may be supported by a well-known instance from the history of Normans. William the Conqueror, who took authority over England in the 11th century, managed to produce a striking influence on the British Isles citizens, which worshiped the nobility of a new king. However, the residents of Yorkshire remained entirely unresponsive to the politics of William. Consequently, he decided to inflict genocide on this community since he realized that passive silence could one day turn into fierce opposition.

Pollution is used as a justification for genocide as well. The contemporary history critics claim that some ethnic groups viewed the mere existence of the different nations as a threat. In other words, the biased assumption of certain races and ethnicities being prevalent over the others gave birth to the so-called pollution fear. The leading societies could afford to destroy the rival communities so that to prevent blood mixtures between the members of different ethnic groups. The most evident example of the factor is the issue of Jews. Thus, Hitler claimed that this country threatened the Aryan race, for it was inferior and degenerate. That is why a lot of his military actions were directed on inflicting genocide on the Jewish community.

Finally, the factor of fear refers to the most common explanations of genocide. It dwells on the multiple political disparities among the world states and identifies the leading powers that rule the subordinate communities and destroy the threatening ones. Despite the fact that the peril may be imagined, the very existence of certain state formations is damaging for the well-being of dominating countries. Since the whole world traced the consequences of the bloody Rwanda genocide, the global community is well-acquainted with this factor. In this case, the government of Hutu took a direction on the eradication of Tutsis in 1990 since the conflict between two communities seemed rather unresolved after the Belarus ruling campaign. Thus, the Hutus launched a genocide against their old rivals so that to exclude the possibility of future political conflicts.

The Principal Genocide Theories

The theorists of all times have been seeking for some consistent platforms that rule the behaviors of people, who become the initiators of genocides. As a result, a variety of approaches have been created which verify the social, moral, and historical backgrounds of the criminal act.

The principal theory of genocide is a comparative doctrine, which integrates the major factors that influence decision-making in the context of anti-humanity crimes. The argument relies on three categories that concern the individual and group motives, the patterns of structural destruction as well as the identity interest. Due to the first principle, genocide is stipulated by group action that arises as a payoff of a certain decision of an individual. In this respect, one may refer to the theories of monarchism ad absolutism, which predetermine the usage of collective power as a tool of personal manipulation. Second, there is the idea of structuralism, which regards the complex integration of several influencing factors that include social positioning, ethnicity concerns, the concept of race, regime, and ideology disparities, etc. Finally, the category of identity construct refers to the study of the origins of genocide as a consequence of human belonging to particular state formations (Hiebert 2008).

In contrast to the comparative genocide theory, which concerns logical explanations of genocide in their integration, Waller’s theory target the behavioral specifications of communities that launch genocides. In his theory, the scientist reflects the patterns of social behavior that show the process of genocide initiation. Waller does not regard the issue of character in his work, though. He rather dwells on behavior since the expert considers that the acts of genocide are initiated by people who are ‘purely evil.’ Thus, he concludes that there is no use in contemplating their morality or psychological abilities. In other words, the author regards the leaders of dominating states as the machines that perform the anti-humanity crime. He dwells that it is impossible to justify genocides. Therefore, Waller aims at exploring the patterns of genocides evolution so that to create preventive plans for the future. The scientist differentiates three dimensions of human behavior that stipulate genocide inclinations.

First, he dwells on personal predispositions that identify ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and dominance desire as the driving forces of community destructions. Waller argues that these traits are inborn and can not be cultivated in the course of one’s personal development. Second, the expert states that there are some cultural clichés and trite beliefs that provide a favorable ground for the arousal of genocides. These are rationality concerns, striving for authority, and moral disengagement. Third, Waller refers to separate institutes that support the idea of genocide and assist the leading states in fostering anti-humanity crimes. The domains are mass conformity, personal role in society, and occupational socialization. In addition to three categories, the author adds the dimension of the identification of victims as ‘the others’ (Adelman 2005).

Although it is acknowledged that the two mentioned theories constitute a fundament of genocide analysis, this work emphasizes the doctrine of psychological disparity, which is a subject for arguments among the leading historians and scientists. Due to the theory, the guiding force of any genocide is a manipulation of global thinking. Thus, it is claimed that the authorities of certain countries, as well as individual citizens, tend to divide the world society into few parts. Among these parts, one always finds the communities that are regarded as ‘foreign’ or ‘rivaling.’

The payoffs of such divisions can be quite contrastive, while the states with human social values tend to connect to their rivals so that to create a mutual collaboration between the leading communities, the countries of disruptive and cruel philosophy aim at destroying the opposing groups. It is claimed that genocide-prone states are underestimated by the dominating communities since the latter position their ethnicity as superior. Due to the psychological theory of genocide, the tendency is a direct consequence of the political leaders suffering from megalomania. It is well supported by the politics of Nazi propaganda, which revealed the extensive imposing of Nazi values on other countries as well as the suppression of the marginalized states.

Besides, the factor of psychological cognition explains the social biases that separate concern states create the imitation patterns for the world communities. In other words, the community members that are often victimized by one state are likely to become a target for the global society. This factor accounts for the tendency of attribution error as well as the desire to blame the victims of genocides. Thus, the concept of anti-humanity crime is not solely a consequence of arguments between separate communities but a general psychological marginalization idea. For instance, the community of Jews, the status of which was disrupted by Nazi propaganda, turned in a social target for the whole world and had remained a victimized group until today.

The psychology of genocide is based on a stable scheme of violence increase, which dwells on seven stages. The steps are typically realized by the governments of the dominating states that target genocide development. In this respect, the states go through the following procedures:

1. The stipulation of negative attitudes towards outer social groups.
2. We are closing the access to essential community services for the outcasts.
3. You are depriving the marginalized state citizens of fundamental civil rights.
4. We are providing administrative isolation for the victims of genocide.
5. You are depriving the citizens of the primary human rights, which are education, health care, and provisions.
6. They are performing the actual genocide actions that include murder or sterilization.
7. You deny the existence of genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer 2005).

Genocide Prevention: Exploring Complex Plan of Destroying Mass Violence

The core of prevention programs aims at the development of stable legal state systems that would not allow the political leaders to manipulate the military forces of the countries with the aim of destroying separate communities. Thus, the central world initiative that targets genocide elimination includes several steps. First, it emphasizes the significance of impunity ended. In this way, it is claimed that any anti-humanity outrage has to be properly investigated, which implies the necessity of inflicting guilt on people who are accountable for the act. Moreover, the program of prevention usually contains the issue of warning systems setup as well as the usage of military forces with the aim of protection from genocide attempts (Outreach program on the Rwanda genocide and the United Nations 2003).

In this work, the adaptation of the typical genocide prevention plan is verified against the principles of psychological theory. Thus, the ultimate component of the genocide eradication project accounts for value fostering. In other words, it is crucial to initiate ideological movements within separate states that would target the policies of social inclusion and challenging life conditions treatment. Moreover, it is important to develop a culture of diplomacy and positive orientation so that to exclude the possibility of inter-state conflicts. Since the primary source of genocide initiation is the problem of collective thinking, the project of eradication should foster the improvement of individualism. Thus, world education has to take an orientation on the learner-centered approaches (Staub 2013).

It is acknowledged that the individual political boundaries of any state are comprised of a congregation of separate institutions functioning. Therefore, the efficient program of genocide eradication has to involve the reformation of every social, economic, and ideological dimension of the country. Specifically, one may refer to the media instructions that support piece and positivism as well as political organizations mentoring, which aims at the creation of consistent work principles that stipulate peace and justice (Staub 2006).

The development of a successful prevention project might include the inclusion of Special Advisors into the work of particular state organizational units, who would monitor the values of every public statement as well as assess and report the risks of genocide eruptions.

Conclusion: Summarizing the Anti-Genocide Values

The work evaluates the principles of genocide development as well as reviews the typical patterns of anti-humanity behavior. The complex of ultimate motives that stipulate abnormal genocide inclinations is assessed. The paper differentiates the ideas of fear, pollution prevention, revenge, and community as the principal reasons for genocide initiation. Moreover, in this work, we evaluate three main theories that explain the origins of anti-humanity criminality. In this context, the doctrine of psychological specifications is claimed to be the primary stimulator of genocide behavior. Finally, the study provides a final prevention project that targets the principles of genocide eradication. The central schemes of prevention programs are taken into consideration. On the basis of the general control techniques, the paper dwells on personal and community psychology as the basic sources of monitoring practices. As the outcome of this theory, it was concluded that the principles of just and learner-oriented education, as well as the peaceful values support, can account for successful genocide prevention.

Reference List

Adelman, H 2005, ‘Theories of genocide: The case of Rwanda’, Emeritus York University, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1-59.

Chirot, D & McCauley, C 2006, Why not kill them all? The logic and prevention of mass political murder, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Genocide background 2003, Web.

Hiebert, M 2008, ‘Theorizing destruction: Reflections on the state of comparative genocide theory’, Genocide Studies and Prevention, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 309-339.

Jones, A 2010, Genocide: A comprehensive introduction, Routledge, London. Maritz, D 2012, The main causes of genocide, Web.

Outreach program on the Rwanda genocide and the United Nations 2003. Web.

Staub, E 2013, ‘A world without genocide: Prevention, reconciliation, and the creation of peaceful societies’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 180-199.

Staub, E 2006, ‘Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing, or intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psychological recovery, and steps toward a general theory’, Political Psychology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 867-894.

Woolf, L & Hulsizer, M 2005, ‘Psychological roots of genocide: Risk, prevention, and intervention’, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 101-128.

Introduction

The Rwanda genocide of 1994 is regarded as the largest genocide since the mass killings of the Second World War. While the killing of the Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana in April 6, 1994 sparked this event, historians assert that ethnic differences and identity politics played a significant role in this genocide, which resulted in the death of over 800,000 people in the span of a few weeks. This paper will present the anthropological elements that led to the horrendous Genocide of 1994 in Rwanda. It will describe the Tutsi-favored political system and land distribution system that contributed to the occurrence of the Genocide. The paper will conclude by comparing the Rwanda and Tasmania genocide in order to show their similarities and differences.

Historical Background

Rwanda is an African state located in the Great Lakes Region of central-east Africa. The country was first colonized by Germany but the responsibility for governing it was passed along to Belgium following Germany’s defeat in WWI (Amstutz 543). It has three ethnic groups: the Hutu majority, and the Tutsi and Twa minorities. The early European who encountered the Rwandese people noted the pronounced differences between the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups. The Hutus were Bantus and their primary economic activity was farming while the Tutsis were cattle-herders. Historically, Rwanda was ruled by a monarchy headed by the Tutsi leading to a condition where the Tutsi ruled over the Hutus around. This created the perception that the Tutsi rulers were the superior group. However, De Heusch notes that there was little difference between the Hutu elite and the Tutsi upper class (3). The social structure in Rwanda was flexible and people could move from one ethnic group to the other since it was a mixed society.

The Colonial Political System

The Colonial powers failed to see the fluid and mixed aspect of the Rwandan society. Instead, they focused on the differences among the people and established social structures on this basis. The Europeans were of the opinion that the Tutsi did not originate from the region. Instead, they theorized that the Tutsi were not indigenous Africans but a superior people who had migrated to the region. Hintjens declares that during colonial rule, “Church, school, administration and the army were organized around the assumed racial superiority of the Tutsi people” (253). The policies adopted by the colonizing power greatly advantaged the Tutsi minority. This led to a situation where this ethnic group considered itself inherently superior to the Hutu in Rwanda.

The Belgian colonial powers radicalized the ethnic identities of the Rwandans in a number of ways. To begin with, the Belgian administrators came up with a method of ascribing a single ethnic label to each citizen. Cohen argues that this single label, which was traced though the male line, ignored the complex ways in which social identities were traditionally constructed by the people of the Region (87). Before the Belgians came up with this administrative device, an individual could be both Tutsi and Hutu due to intermarriages. However, the official imposition of a single label led to the development of a more rigid ethnic identity. The colonial administration was responsible for introducing the identity card system in Rwanda.

Belgian bureaucrats introduced this system to enable them to easily distinguish the ethnicity of the Rwandese subjects. Hintjens observes that contrary to popular assumptions, it is not easy to differentiate the Hutu majorities from the Tutsi minorities primarily based on physical appearances (247). These two tribes share physical attributes, language, and religious beliefs making it difficult to tell them apart. Belgium introduced these cards in 1935 as a way of identifying the Tutsi and providing them with preferential treatment over the other groups. After attaining independence, the African rulers choose to maintain the colonial identity card system. The identity cards played a part in the genocide as they helped the Hutu militia to identify the Tutsi minority.

Land has always been a crucial asset in Rwanda as a big segment of the population relies on it for sustenance. Historically, the Tutsis owned most of the land in Rwanda and they operated a feudal system where poor Hutu farmers worked for their Tutsi masters in return for access to land. During the colonial era, the Belgians perpetuated the land inequality policies by placing the Tutsis as administrators. The Tutsi took the opportunity to seize land from the poor Hutu farmers leading to greater inequality. This created great resentment against the Tutsi by the Hutu who felt exploited and disenfranchised. Boudreaux asserts that historical land inequality grievances contributed to the genocide as Rwandan farmers stood to gain the land resources of the Tutsis once they killed them (86).

Post Independence Rwanda

Amstutz notes that when Rwanda gained its independence in 1962, the Hutu ethnic group gained political ascendance (544). After independence, the Hutu started to gain some power from the Belgian trusteeship power system that had until then benefited the Tutsi. One of the actions undertaken by the new government was to impose reverse discrimination. Since the colonial authorities had favored the Tutsis, the Hutu leadership engaged in policies aimed at disadvantaging this group. Tutsi’s were denied access to civil jobs and politically marginalized. The Hutu government stated to impose strict secondary and tertiary education quotas to ensure that the Tutsi had limited access to higher education.

In the years following the Independence of Rwanda, thousands of Tutsis fled to Uganda to escape repression. These refugees were resentful of the social, political, and economic discrimination perpetrated against them by the Hutu rulers (Cohen 87). They formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which was a political party representing Tutsi concerns. This party formed an armed wing and engaged in incursions into Rwanda in 1990. The Hutu elite viewed the RPF as a threat to their rule and the signing of the Arusha Accords of 1993 reinforced this views. The Arusha Accords were essentially a power sharing deal between the Tutsi and the Hutu making it undesirable to Hutu radicals. The Hutu elite used the rigid ethnic identities created by the colonizers to promote the genocide.

Process and Outcome of the Genocide

The colonial introduced notion that the Tutsi were not indigenous Africans contributed to the genocide of 1994. During the colonial era, this argument was used to demonstrate the superiority of the Tutsi and justify the economic and political privileges given to this ethnic group. The Tutsi held to this notion as a defense for their natural right to rule over the Hutu and Twa. Hintjens notes that the genocide planners used this notion of foreign origins, perpetuated by the Belgium colonizers, to justify their plans to eliminate the Tutsis from Rwanda (256).

By early 1994, Rwanda was a country at the brink of a civil war due to the poor economic conditions in the country and widespread insecurity. The government had been using the historical animosities between the Hutus and the Tutsi to encourage hatred in the country. The assassination of the Hutu president by suspected RPF fighters led to the start of the genocide (Cohen 88). The Hutu led government started the genocide with its primary perpetrators being the national army and government backed Hutu militias. At the onset of the genocide in April 7, 1994, the military and militia forces carried out the quick execution of Tutsi leaders who were in government. Hutu leaders who sympathized with the Tutsi or held moderate views were also killed. After this, the forces set out numerous checkpoints through which Tutsis were identified and killed. In addition to this, ordinary Hutu citizens were incited to engage in violence against Tutsis and any Hutu who sympathized with the Tutsis (Amstutz 544).

The most significant outcome of the genocide is that it led to the death of about a million Rwandans, most of who belonged to the Tutsi ethnic group. Amstutz remarks that in a period of 100 days, some 800,000 persons were killed in a genocide that had been planed at the national and regional levels (541). The war also led to an end of the Hutu domination of Rwanda’s political life, which had taken place since the country gained independence. The RPF, which had played a significant part in ending the genocide and saving the lives of many innocent civilians, became a dominant political party in the country.

Comparison with Tasmanian Genocide

A significant genocide carried out in the 19th century was the Tasmanian genocide. In this case, the British settlers engaged in the killing of almost all of the 6,000 native Tasmanians in Australia. A similarity between the two genocides is that they were both aimed at eliminating an entire population based on ethnicity or race. The intention of the Rwanda Genocide was the complete elimination of the Tutsi, who were considered a racial enemy. Verwimp confirms that the Main organizers of the genocide were Hutu elite who sort to achieve regime survival by eliminating the Tutsis (327). In the Tasmanian genocide, the British settlers set out to eliminate the Tasmanian aboriginals from the land. Through this mass elimination, the British would have complete control of the land previously owned by this group.

A key difference in the two genocides is that while the Tasmanian genocide was perpetrated by foreigners, the Rwandan was carried out by citizens against each other. The Tasmanian aboriginals were brutally attacked by British settlers who were foreign to the country. On the other hand, people who were native to the land carried out the Rwanda genocide. Both the Tutsi and the Hutus had occupied the geographic region that makes up Rwanda for centuries in harmony (Cohen 87). The genocide was therefore a civil affair where citizens of the same country turned on each other.

Conclusion

Over the years after 1994, different explanations for the occurrence of the Rwanda genocide have been provided. This paper set out to discuss the anthropological elements that included Tutsi position in society and the effects of measures instigated by the Belgium powers in colonial Rwanda. It began by providing a historical account of Rwanda and the impact that Belgian rule had on the society. The paper then showed how the Hutu majority marginalized the Tutsi after independence. A review of the process and Outcome of the Genocide was then provided. The paper has concluded by showing that the Rwanda genocide is similar to the Tasmanian genocide in that both were aimed at eliminating one ethnic group. The two differed in that foreigners carried out the Tasmanian genocide while citizens of the country carried out the Rwanda genocide.

Works Cited

Amstutz, Mark. “Is Reconciliation Possible After Genocide? The Case of Rwanda.” Journal of Church & State 48.3 (2006): 541-565. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Boudreaux, Karol. “Land Conflict and Genocide in Rwanda.” The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1.3 (2009): 85-95. Print.

Cohen, Herman. “Rwanda: Fifty Years of Ethnic Conflict on Steroids.” American Foreign Policy Interests 34.1(2012): 86–92. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

De Heusch, Luc. “Rwanda: Responsibilities for a Genocide.” Anthropology Today 11.4(1995): 3-7. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Hintjens, Helen. “Explaining the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 37.2 (1999): 241-286. Print.

Verwimp, Philip. “Development ideology, the peasantry and genocide: Rwanda represented in Habyarimana’s speeches.” Journal of Genocide Research 2.3(2000): 325–361. Web.

Background of the Rwandan Genocide

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda was caused by the civil war and the economic crisis that was a basis for the population’s growth as well as its battle for power in its own country. The end of the 1980s, when the economy of the country faced an economic free-fall, was the prelude to genocide. With food shortages caused by poor harvests, high density of population, hunger, and the rise of corruption within the elite sphere, the country was on the verge of genocide.

Furthermore, the politics of the Rwandan president Habyarimana were not accepted despite the fact that there was no freedom of speech in the country. The country’s political structure had also been influenced by the French government that pressured the president of Rwanda to create a multi-party system of organization (Haperen 102).

By the year of 1990, approximately a million citizens from the Tutsi population were exiled and ignored by the government. Thus, an emancipation movement was created in order to overcome the regime of President Habyarimana as well as to return the exiled Tutsis to the country. The proponents of the emancipation movement called the Rwandan Patriotic Front returned to the country in the fall 1990 to live within the population of Tutsi.

In 1992 the militants from the Rwandan Patriotic Front occupied the northern parts of Rwanda, attacking the Tutsi population that was scared of the attacks from both governmental and Patriotic Front armies. The governmental army killed hundreds of Tutsis without being punished for it. In 1992, the Rwandan army that was backed up by the French supporters halted the Rwandan Patriotic Front militants. During this time, the region of Central Africa had been experiencing social instability.

With the deep concerns from the United Nations, President Habyarimana was encouraged to begin negotiations with the Patriotic Front leaders to solve the issue. This was the time when the president was forced into a complicated position in which he was expected to make his political behavior moderate. However, his domestic affairs and rhetoric became extreme (Haperen 102).

Hate Campaigns and Propaganda

President Habyarimana encouraged the campaign of propaganda that was targeted at separating the Hutu population from the Tutsi population. The Tutsi population was a primary target of the hate campaign in which it was criminalized. The criminalization method of propaganda was already tested by Hitler and Lenin. Furthermore, the most influential Rwandan newspaper called Kangura or Wake Up published the ten commandments of Hutu that represented a set of strict guidelines on how to contact the Tutsi population.

With the ten commandments, the government perpetuated an image of the Tutsi as being the enemies of the Hutu population. Furthermore, governmental propaganda had brought together images of injustice, war, cruelty, and oppression.

The Role of Radio

However, the illiteracy of the population had prevented a broad spreading of the newspaper, so the government used radio as another tool of propaganda. The only radio station that existed until 1992 broadcasted the presidential announcements, addresses, as well as explained the bulletins of propaganda. On the other hand, the Rwandan Patriotic Front created its own station that gained major popularity among the Rwandan population.

To respond, the government created another station called Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines which drew the audience with the help of the widely popular musician Simon Bikindi as well as other personalities that came from the presidential elite. In addition, governmental propaganda also largely influenced the intelligent population that was exposed to the government-funded lectures (Haperen 106).

The Role of the Church

With the arrival of the Belgians to Rwanda, the Catholic Church had played the role of the state church. The Hamitic ideology of the superiority of the white population over the ‘inferior peoples’ was predominantly influenced by the white Catholic priests who were able to endorse their racist views to Rwandan children they taught. With support from the Belgians, the Catholic priests were able to institutionalize the ethnic identities of the Rwandan populations in order to influence the political relations within the country.

The proposition that the polarization of society with the use of ethnic stereotypes would further become a crucial component of the public life of Rwanda. Combined with the other factors that already existed within the Rwandan society, the ethnogenetic theories led to the devastating consequences (African Union 12).

Rwandan Genocide

Genocide is defined as “a form of one-sided mass killing in which the state or another authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are identified by the perpetrator” (Hintjens 246). However, some may have a view that genocide can be implemented as a form of self-defense within the timeline of civil war. Thus, the responsibility for the genocide should be put on trial for the war crime, not a crime of genocide.

However, very few view the 1994 killings in Rwanda as genocide at the very beginning of the actions. The government, led by the proponents of President Habyarimana, reserved for genocide as the only solution to the issues that existed in the Rwandan society. With the killings that started in the season of planting crops, the 1994 harvest resulted in being more than two times less than the 1993 harvest. Furthermore, by the middle of 1994, the majority of the Rwandan cattle were dead (Hintjens 258).

Kigali as the Primary Point

The killings of the Rwandan population started as a result of the president’s Habyariamana’ assassination. On April 6, 1994, as the presidential plane was approaching the town of Kigali, two missiles were fired into the airplane, hitting the tail and the wing of the missile. With the president dead, the Rwandan Prime Minister Sgathe Uwilingiyimana became the head of the country; however, her rule did not last long.

Within a few hours after the president’s assassination, the military forces of Rwanda had marched through the town of Kigali, killing the Tutsi elite as well as the moderate Hutus that occupied influential positions. One of the first victims were the Prime Minister and her husband, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Agriculture. The streets of Kigali were captured by the armed Hutu population that forbidden anyone to escape the city as well as killed all moderate Hutus and the suspected Tutsis (Haperen 110).

Genocide in Rural Areas

The fact that the week after the Kigali killings the military forces began mass violence in rural areas demonstrated that the genocide was planned in advance. The above levels of power passed down orders to the prefects, then mayors and sub-prefects, and then to militants that made sure that the orders were implemented. In the majority of cases, the directors of hospitals and schools along with the local businesspeople were closely involved in the planning of murders. Contrast to the killings in Kigali, where the troops were armed with grenades and automatic rifles, the murders in rural areas were much bloodier because the murderers were not experienced enough and were killing with knives or machetes.

The genocide lasted approximately one hundred days, between 6th of April and June 1994. During that period, only a one-fourth of the Tutsi population was left alive. The estimated number of victims ranges between 1.3 million and 507 thousand people (Haperen 113).

International Intervention and Prevention

The inability of the international community to prevent the atrocious acts also contributed to the devastating results of the Rwandan population mass killings. Instead of the term genocide, the international community used the notion of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the first days of the mass murders. In the beginning, the most-known witness of the genocide, the UN General Romeo Dallaire, held an opinion that despite the murders being appalling, the army attacked the political opponents of the president’s regime. It took the officials under a week to understand that all Tutsi population was targeted (Haperen 115).

Sadly, the genocide in Rwanda could have been entirely prevented. Furthermore, even if the mass murders was allowed to start, the devastating results could have been mitigated in a significant way. The military forces from the international community could become peacemakers between the population and violent militants, enforcing an agreement to make peace (Thompson 26).

Furthermore, the United States could also become a major player in the process of genocide prevention. Despite the fact that the federal government knew about what was happening in Rwanda, it chose to ignore it. The domestic affairs were viewed as a priority over the helpless African population that suffered from mass murders (Thompson 26).

Jewish Genocide in Germany

Holocaust was one of the darkest times in the history of Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler. It was a systematic murder and prosecution of the Jewish population by the regime of Nazis as well as its proponents. The Nazis believed that the German population was superior over other nations, especially the Jews who were viewed inferior and threats to the racial community of Germans (“Introduction to the Holocaust” 1).

The genocide of the Jewish population in Germany and later in Europe was caused by antisemitism that was perpetuated by a tradition of fear and hatred of Jews as social and cultural groups. Furthermore, the Christians deemed the Jews “Christ-killers” who should have been responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (“Nazi Ideology and the Holocaust” 111).

Background

In 1933, the Jewish population made up less than one percent of the German population. This minority group was slowly assimilating with the dominant population. The Jews were prominent in poetry, writing, and artistry, more than a hundred thousand German Jews served in the military during the World War I. In addition, the Jewish minorities were well-integrated into the academic sphere by teaching at universities, occupied respectable positions in the public offices, and were awarded fourteen Nobel Prizes.

The first third of the twentieth century also popularized the practice of intermarriage; the Jews often converted to Christianity to raise their children in a faith that was dominant within the society. Thus, despite the fact that some Jews were still discriminated against, the majority of them integrated within the society and were confident about the future of their children. Jews also spoke German and saw Germany their homeland (“Nazi Ideology and the Holocaust” 114).

Nevertheless, their confidence was negatively influenced with the spreading of the Nazi ideologies and Hitler’s come to power as the German chancellor. Within Hitler’s framework of antisemitism as a central rationale of hatred towards the Jews, his proponents were able to justify their opinions and build the basis for their further actions against the Jewish minorities. Once Hitler came to power, he started encouraging the wave of anti-Jewish attitudes in order for the policies of isolation and murder to take place.

Despite the fact that nowadays Jewish genocide in Germany is viewed in the context of the World War II, it is important to remember that half of the Holocaust took place before the War’s beginning. Between the year when Hitler was elected as the counselor of Germany (1933) and the year when Germany invaded Poland (1939), the rule of the Nazi was trying to revolutionize Germany with its anti-Jewish ideology.

1933-1934 Nazi Revolution

Hitler’s first target were the Communists who were chosen very carefully since he was guaranteed to have allies against them. He arrested thousands of German Communists, tortured them and murdered. With these actions, the Communist power in Germany was significantly crippled.

Within the timeline of the Nazi Revolution, the German Jews had become another target. A combination of legislative rules and a tactic of intimidation was used to create the hostility attitude towards the Jews. Even Jewish children were abused and harassed in schools by their teachers as well as students. The activists started staging public campaigns of the humiliation of the Jews and those protecting them. The Protestant Church authorities also expelled pastors who were previously Judaist (Bergen 58). Intermarriage was banned under the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor which also redefined intimate relationship among individuals and deemed them crimes of ‘racial defilement.’

The reaction of the German public was mixed. While some Germans began exhibiting signs of violence against the Jewish minorities, others viewed interactions with the Jews as an honor. There was the third population that complained about the Nazi forced disrupting their lives without taking any other factors into account. Despite the boycotts organized by Nazi radical forces against the Jewish shop owners, many German citizens still continued to go to their favorite shops regardless of who their owners were.

1934-1939 German Jews Genocide

The passing of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 designated a blow in the history of the German Jews. Any child born within a Jewish or a German-Jewish family was not accepted as the German citizen, being viewed as an inferior and not worthy of the ‘title.’ The Aryan children, on the other hand, were accepted into various Nazi youth groups with 90% of children belonging to such groups by 1939. Hitler’s goal in focusing on the children was to “create a violently active, dominating, intrepid, and brutal youth” (qtd. in Bergen 2).

The establishment of concentration camps became a completely new level of violence against the Jewish minorities sponsored by the Nazi government. People of the Jewish descent were detained in camps against their will as well as against the legal norms of imprisonment that exist in a democratic society. However, the Nazi regime of Hitler destroyed all signs of democracy. The major camps were established in Oranienburg, Esterwegen, Dachau, and Luchenburg. In the concentration camps, prisoners were made to work on various construction projects, including the building and the expansion of the camps themselves.

Furthermore, concentration camps were the main sites where the Jewish minorities were systematically killed. In the majority of cases, the European Jews were not even registered as prisoners within the camps they were killed within a day of their arrival in the gas chambers.

Outside Support

Despite the fact that the majority of anti-Jewish attitudes were focused in the Nazi Germany, anti-Semitism was supported by mobs and parliamentary forces that also were guilty of murdering the Jews that escaped Germany to get away from the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi movement called the ‘Iron Guard’ in Romania and the ‘Iron Wolf’ in Lithuania killed thousands of Jews that lived in those countries.

The Western-European forces also showed support for the Nazis. For instance, the Vichy Premier, Pierre Laval, cooperated with the German government in the deportation of the Jews that fled Germany and sought shelter in France. Up to eighty thousand people were forced into the trains that took people to concentration camps where they were murdered. Furthermore, Pierre Laval also wanted to deport the Jewish children that were left in France because of the lack of space in the death trains (Anti-Defamation League 7).

Could the Holocaust Have Been Prevented

Denmark is a bright example of the way Jewish Genocide could have been prevented. The percentage of the Jewish population in Denmark was small, but the society decided that they would not put them in danger. The Danes hid Jews in their own families and changed their surnames, quietly smuggled them to safer places like Sweden. This means that the Holocaust could have been prevented if the German society decided to prevent it.

On the contrary, the society supported Hitler and his anti-Jewish propaganda, showing the government that there was no opposition to the mass murders and oppression of the Jewish minorities.

Furthermore, the modifications in the anti-immigration policies imposed by the United States could also prevent the genocide of the German Jews. The restrictions in the immigration policies concerning the Jewish refugees that were looking for shelter from the Nazi regime in the States. Within the policy, professionally-trained refugees were allowed in the country as a labor force while the others were not. In addition, such regulations were also influenced by the anti-Semitic ideologies that were also present in the U.S. State Department (McDermott 2).

Another prevailing opinion on stopping the Jewish Genocide is that no one could have prevented it apart from Adolf Hitler himself. The aftermath of the World War I left Germany defeated and in lacking the resources to rebuild the country. The Germans supported Hitler because of his promises to rebuild the country and guide it to prosperity. If Hitler had decided to focus on the prosperity of the country rather than on the destruction of its population, the Jewish genocide would not have taken place at all.

Works Cited

African Union. Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide. 2000. Web.

Anti-Defamation League. Overview of the Holocaust: 1933-1945. 2012. Web.

Bergen, Doris. The Holocaust: a Concise History, Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009. Print.

Haperen, Maria. The Rwandan Genocide. n.d. Web.

Hintjens, Helen. “Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 37.2 (1999): 241-286. Print.

Introduction to the Holocaust. n.d. Web.

McDermott, Caroline. Should the United States Have Done More in Response to the Holocaust? n.d. Web.

Nazi Ideology and the Holocaust. n.d. Web.

Thompson, Allan. The Media and the Rwanda Genocide, Ann Arbor, MI: Fountain Publishers, 2007. Print.

Some people call this process genocide, and other people are inclined to discuss the issue as the cleansing within the nation. Despite the fact, all the people are born different and free, the governments of many states feel responsible to decide who is worthy of living here and now. Red-haired persons as well as black persons or Indians differ significantly from other people. This difference is the source of the controversy and fears experienced by the other people who belong to the majority within the country.

From this point, genocide is a violent method to guarantee definite security for the majority. Any divisions of the society into groups and genocide actions directed toward the minorities are associated with a certain degree of violence which can lead to unexpected consequences, and my task as a policeman is to follow the authorities’ directions and perform my job well, without references to the ethical questions.

Being a policeman, I am obliged to follow the orders of the authorities and definite guidelines provided by the leaders of the state. The focus on the order is the main duty of a policeman even if the order is based on organizing the raid to find the red-haired men as the representatives of the minority. Despite the controversial purposes for the raid, all the means are good to achieve the final goal and realize the effective cleansing within the nation.

Thus, the first stage of the raid is a successful organization. I should act according to the developed plan, and I cannot be distracted by some insignificant details. If the final goal is the red-haired man, it is impossible to concentrate on the other persons who can prevent me from realizing the basic plan. The house, in which I can find the red-haired man, should be surrounded by the group of the other policemen, and the raid should be realized actively.

If violence is necessary, aggressive techniques and methods will be used. There is no time to pay attention to, for instance, the man who smokes a crack pipe when the operation is under the threat of being prevented by the people who are against the procedure of cleansing (“M.I.A., Born Free”).

The next stage is the transportation of the detainees to the place where the act of cleansing should be realized. I cannot hear the detainees’ thoughts while we are on the bus, these young men are usually silent, but I can see their glances, and there is a real threat in their eyes. To prevent possible violence, I should act decisively and even aggressively. The desert is the best place for realizing the procedure of cleansing. The public should not be affected by the procedure, that is why the desert is chosen as the best territory to complete the operation. The public can suffer only when people try to prevent policemen from doing their work.

The red-haired detainees, as any other representatives of minorities do not see any harmful or provocative aspects in their activities or styles of living that is why they are inclined to oppose the actions of the policemen who are organized to control the detainees. To make these people act according to the order, I often have to use extreme methods. The death of one of these detainees can be discussed as an effective stimulus to make these people follow the order. I can choose to kill the youngest red-haired man first. The order of these persons’ deaths does not matter because all of them will die finally. The cleansing operation should be performed effectively that is why my task is to make these people run down the live minefield. I agree that this way to implement the cleansing procedure is one of the most effective methods.

A lot of people do not support the idea of genocide because of its immoral character, and these people state that everyone was born free despite the differences in race, appearance, and culture. I am inclined to believe that all people are different that is why they have different rights. It is the fate of the red-haired minority to be killed in the desert to provide me and the other policemen with the opportunity to prevent the possible revolutionary actions of this aggressive group. As a policeman, I am responsible for preventing the situation when these people decide to realize their slogan “Our day will come” (“M.I.A., Born Free”).

If genocide is still part of our society, it is the evidence to state that the authorities and governments support this situation and see some advantages in it. Being a policeman, I can only follow the order and wait for further directions to realize the next raid and find people who differ from the other persons in the color of their hair or their race.

The Statement

My work depends on the understanding of human nature in all its varieties and on the effective interpretation of personal thoughts, ideas, desires, and intentions. From this point, it is always important to concentrate on the individual’s personality. There cannot be two similar persons as well as there cannot be two similar approaches to discussing and resolving the problems of different persons.

My practice is based on a definite theoretical background, which is rather stable but it is my task as a professional to choose the unique approach to different persons to be able to assist in overcoming problematic situations. Moreover, the world in constant change, and I should follow modern trends if they are helpful for my work.

Each person is not only a part of the community, but he or she can be discussed as the whole world in oneself. That is why the individual approach to interpreting and analyzing the person’s beliefs, values, and desires is fundamental to my work. I should satisfy the person’s needs in away.

It is important to concentrate on every detail to receive the opportunity to see the whole picture. The aspects of the person’s surroundings are as important as the aspects of the person’s inner world to cope with the definite issue for resolving which my assistance is necessary. As a result, my work is in analyzing the whole picture and focusing on a lot of aspects to be able to pay attention to the smallest detail, which is often the main key to the individual’s inner world and the person’s hired thoughts and desires.

Works Cited

M.I.A., Born Free. 2010. Video file. Web.

Any historical case has several explanations or points of view, since at least two sides are involved in them. The events of the First World War could have dozens of versions if one asks their witnesses as this war has drawn into the battles many countries and continents. Scientists summarize the results of the first global war by collecting and analyzing the facts, and they call it a turning point, which launched events that changed the world.

However, most of these cases are explained by different parties in different ways, even if they led to the same global consequence. An example of such events is the genocide and deportation of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire, since it ended in the numerous deaths; however, it was a victory for some people and a disaster for others.

Quite often, people use differences in nationality, religion, or appearance to hate others. This feeling is illogical, imposed by manipulation and lies, and eventually, it leads to deaths and losses. Such hatred based on ethnic differences is called genocide and is one of the known facts about the First and Second World War. However, even in such events, there are two sides, such as the victims of genocide and their persecutors. The history of genocide and deportation of Armenians by the Turks also has several explanations of its course and causes. This feature can be noted in two primary sources written by a witness to the events of 1915 and a government representative.

Both documents have many differences regarding the display of events and their justification, although they also have several shared points. The first feature expressed is the words of Talaat Pasha, head of the Ottoman Empire, that all the data and rumors about the genocide are extremely exaggerated (Overfield, 2013). At the same time, a letter from Mary Graffam, who was an eyewitness to the early deportation of 1915, describes completely different circumstances.

Graffam mentions the mass arrests of men and some women, the robbery, beating, and killing of Armenians, as well as the hopelessness of the situation in which they found themselves (Overfield, 2013). Graffam writes, “I counted forty-nine deaths, but there must have been many more. One naked body of a woman was covered with bruises” (Overfield, 2013, p. 85). Today, the historical evidence demonstrates that Talaat was wrong; however, from the context of his notes, the reader cannot say whether he actually believed that the data was exaggerated or only lied to protect himself.

The second feature is the causes of the genocide described by different authors. Talaat notes that the blame for this event falls on Armenians themselves, since they were robbers who killed the innocent Muslim population, so arrests and deportations were preventive measures (Overfield, 2013). At the same time, Graffam describes many examples showing that it was the Turks and Kurds who robbed Armenians during their movements, beat them, and murdered (Overfield, 2013).

Current data demonstrate that the main reason for the genocide and deportations was not the Armenian threat to the safety of Turks and Kurds. Nevertheless, it is most likely that some local incidents did occur, and the Ottoman government used them for propaganda.

The shared part for these two sources is the admitting of some officials’ crimes. Talaat notes that some government officials may have abused their position, resulting in arrests and deaths. However, he says that the central government was not involved in these crimes (Overfield, 2013).

Graffam’s letter does not confirm or refute with this statement, since the woman could not know what and who was behind all this violence by being a witness to those events. However, in the letter, one can find a lot of evidence that officers at various levels used power to arrest people, take their property, and humiliate (Overfield, 2013). Consequently, the sources confirm cases of abuse of power, but cannot name the roots of these crimes.

Both documents have the same audience, but the different origin and context in which they were created. Graffam’s letter is a way to share the memories of the horrors of those events that she had to witness. She published her notes because she wanted people to see the injustice of deportation and genocide and drew attention to the cruelty and truthfulness of hatred. Her story was formed in the specific political and cultural context, since at that time she was part of the Armenian people, although she did not belong to them ethnically.

At the same time, the notes of Talaat were also published for the general public, but their purpose was to justify the actions of the government and its head. His worldview was formed under the pressure of his position. He was supposed to ensure the prosperity of his empire, so he had to blame someone else for its decline, precisely the Armenians who were at the stage of their rise. Consequently, the documents have a significant difference because their authors were on different sides of the same events.

These documents are contradictory; therefore, they are useful to represent the opinion about the situation. However, if they existed out of context and without other facts, they would only interfere with the display of events. In this case, people could accept one story as false and the other as true.

However, both letters carry valuable information about the perception of genocide by both Armenians and Turks. Scientists can study the causes and circumstances of this tragic event, and although these documents are only part of the puzzle, without them, it would be difficult to understand the story correctly. The stories of the authors are biased, but with their help, historians can create a more objective general picture. Besides, these documents record the first large-scale case of genocide, which was condemned by the public and became a precedent in history.

In conclusion, the primary sources that talk about the Armenian genocide show how the same consequence of World War I can be read in different ways by its participants. The global result of the genocide is the death of thousands of people just because they belonged to a different nationality than their persecutors. However, some Turks or Kurds might consider those events to be positive and fair for their country as the composition of the population has changed significantly.

Political manipulations forced them to believe that these changes were for the better. At the same time, the Armenians went through the tragic events for their families and nation. Thus, historical documents prove that World War I had severe consequences for all countries of the world; however, each state and person can judge their justice and benefits in its own way.

Reference

Overfield, J. H. (2013). Sources of global history since 1900 (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Topic Defined and Thesis Statement Created

Incidences of genocide have been witnessed in various parts of the world (Arabie, 2012). Contextually, this proposal discerns various aspects of Darfur Genocide. It commenced in February 2003 in Darfur region, Sudan. In this astounding incidence, several civilians were killed and numerous people were rendered homeless. This indicates the need to investigate extensively on this incidence despite the challenges. Evidently, Darfur genocide was a civil war where non-Arab Sudanese accused the then government of establishing and embracing inequality among the citizens (Levy, 2009). The Sudanese Arabs were favored by the government more than their fellow non-Arabs (Collins, 2008). This created a critical controversy amid the concerned parties leading to eruption of various conflicts in the area. It is crucial to research and understand why the war started. Additionally, it is important to unveil the underlying issues behind the whole phenomenon and how normalcy was restored in the area (Kiernan, 2007). This forms the critical mandate of this research as indicated earlier. Genocide incidences have been condemned internationally despite their enduring occurrences. It is against the human rights provisions stipulated by the international community. This research intends to unveil what really happened in the Darfur Genocide. It is crucial to agree that various issues led to the development of Darfur Genocide in 2003; nonetheless, understanding deeply on the matter is critical.

Evidently, this topic is interesting since it provides considerable provisions of the mentioned genocide. The incidences that occurred were astonishing. Besides, numerous lessons can be learned from the entire incidence (Jewish Wold Watch, 2012). This creates a substantial factor in the realms of Darfur Genocide. Historically, Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) as well as Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) staged a coup against the then Sudanese government to fight for equality (Steidle & Wallace, 2007). Consequently, the concerned civil war created various instabilities in the Darfur region. As indicated earlier, researching extensively on this topic will uncover various facts that characterized the menace.

Outline/Roadmap

This research will follow precise and considerable steps so as to enhance its execution in the realms of data collection, analysis, and presentation among other considerable steps. Firstly, the research will require a credible design (research design) meant to create and unveil a precise roadmap on how the entire study will be executed (Grzyb, 2009). This will incorporate creation of a research problem, thesis development, literature review, and other considerable research provisions. The next step will be the development of research methodology. Research methodology contains research methods at every step. For example, the data collection stage will employ viable methods to ensure that the collected data are practical and contains the required research provisions. This is a vital provision when considered critically (Kane, 2006). Precisely, this research will involve problem development, research design, data collection, data compilation, data analysis, conclusion, and presentation of results to the concerned audience. It is important to understand various aspects of research methodology so as to provide a credible research roadmap. This is a vital consideration in regard to research execution.

A list of possible interview sources

Evidently, data collection in this research will incorporate structured interviews (interviewing relevant research groups). Concurrently, it will incorporate distribution of questionnaires, and secondary data analysis from viable sources. Precisely, at least one interview will be executed for the development of the forthcoming dissertation. Additionally, utilizing other sources of data will help in this research.

References

Arabie, B. (2012). Darfur-road to genocide: Road to genocide. London: Authorhouse.

Collins, R. (2008). SUDAN: Darfur’s sorrow: A history of destruction and genocide. The Middle East Journal, 62(1), 166-166.

Grzyb, A. (2009). The world and Darfur: International response to crimes against humanity in western Sudan. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Jewish Wold Watch. (2012). Darfur Genocide. Web.

Kane, O. (2006). Darfur: The ambiguous genocide. Political Science Quarterly, 121(2), 322-323.

Kiernan, B. (2007). Blood and soil: A world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CA: Yale University Press.

Levy, J. (2009). Genocide in Darfur. New York, NY: Rosen Pub.

Steidle, B. & Wallace, G. (2007). The devil came on horseback: Bearing witness to the genocide in Darfur. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Genocide is the intentional death of a large population, typically members of a specific ethnic group or country. Several unmistakable signals can alert a nation to impending strife before a genocide, such as the dehumanization of particular groups, classification, and symbolism. The issue is how people in these nations can ignore warnings of approaching genocide. In certain instances, large numbers of individuals are killed in quiet, isolated locations in secret, so the citizens do nothing. A broad definition of genocide is the deliberate eradication of a particular ethnic, racial, or religious community. Compared to war crimes and crimes against humanity, awful crime is widely considered genocide. Genocide, at its worst, can set one person against another or even husband and wife. Genocide targets an individual’s identity to eliminate a group of people, in contrast to war, where the attack is generic, and the goal is frequently the control of a specific geographic or political region.

Judging from a personal perspective, I believe that the denial of genocide is the fundamental problem with the subject. Trying to downplay or deny the scope and gravity of genocide is known as genocide denial. Denial is a crucial component of genocide and comprises covert planning, propaganda while the genocide is happening, and the eradication of mass murder proof. Denial is the last stage of a genocide process and one of the most reliable signs of additional genocide massacres. Banishing and suffocating memory are necessary for a person’s total extinction. Falsification, trickery, and half-truths turn what was into what may have been or even into something that never was.

Conflicts that lead to crimes of genocide frequently have long-standing historical origins in their primary causes. Prejudice and stereotypes can grow over many years. People of different races, faiths, or cultures often develop in-group and out-group thinking due to ethnic and cultural differences, which causes them to perceive one another as unique, foreign, and different. Such thinking leads to the formation of identity groups. People from many identity groups develop conflict-prevention techniques in other geographical areas for mutual benefit. However, relations may deteriorate where resources are scarce, or communities are under pressure due to political or economic unrest. This may cause one group to believe that the other group’s existence is the root of many of its problems and that eliminating that group will solve all of its issues. The more powerful group prefers to destroy the other since coexistence and power sharing is impossible. A well-organized, ruthless elite frequently supports genocidal activities and is led by a tyrant who enjoys the backing of the masses. Such movements are more likely to take shape when major political institutions are composed of people of a single ethnicity and minorities are oppressed.

Similar to any ethically significant action, genocide can be defended, condemned, or disregarded. Different responses to genocidal crimes will depend on one’s moral beliefs. Genocidal perpetrators frequently believe their actions are justified and may use regional cultural or political views to win support (Waller, 2017). This can prompt an affirmative reaction, which would encourage illicit activity. Even if they are not personally involved, others may support the acts through political or financial means, while the third type of people may adopt a disinterested, neutral position (Fein, 2020). Nevertheless, because of international law and historical precedence, it is exceedingly risky for necessary parties to try and watch. The neutrality of Switzerland during World War II is an illustration of this conduct.

Swiss banks were brought to justice in the middle of the 1990s for serving the financial needs of Nazi party members and failing to resolve financial obligations to Holocaust victims or their surviving family members. It would seem that those with the power to stop genocide but choose not to do so should be prepared for adverse consequences (Breitman, 2022). Per international law, the international community occasionally attempts to halt genocide either in its early stages or when it is happening (Kressel, 2019). However, frequently, there is little that can be done that is useful. Another strategy is post-conviction punishment, which is meant to both exact justice or vengeance and serves as a deterrence to future genocides. However, it is questionable if the deterrence effect exists.

Genocide prevention has grown in importance as a subject of study for those who study peace. Understanding genocidal motivations and how organizations grow powerful enough to impose their agenda on their victims is necessary for preventing genocide. Understanding how ethnic and political values interact in potentially hazardous ways, as well as how elite genocide planners attain state power, is essential. Prevention calls for the capacity to spot warning indicators of genocidal plans and react to them as soon as feasible, in addition to establishing working theories of how genocidal acts start and progress. Government investigating agencies, the United Nations, and independent human rights organizations use some early detection techniques (Lindert, 2019). Preventive diplomacy and violence reduction are typically utilized in genocide prevention efforts.

In reality, there are complex issues with all types of punishment. Since economic sanctions can quickly impact the entire country’s economy and may be seen as punishing innocent civilians for the sins of their government or of a dominant party, many dispute the efficacy and morality of economic sanctions. The inability to identify the perpetrators of genocidal atrocities can hinder legal punishment. The fact that the perpetrators of the crimes are frequently so numerous as to make a trial enormous, expensive, and unfeasible further complicates the situation. In addition to the time lag between the time that military action is thought required and the time that the international community authorizes it, the challenges of military action include how to engage, when to intervene, and how long to remain after hostilities have ended.

Threats of punishment can sometimes make a dispute last longer. Even though they know they cannot win, one side may continue fighting if they fear prosecution if they end the argument. Offering amnesty to all parties, as was done in South Africa with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is one way to allay this worry. In this case, it was thought that forgiving people after they testified about their horrible deeds rather than prosecuting them would make reconciliation and stability much easier to achieve (Jones, 2004). Many contend that this has made it possible for the intractable issue to be resolved far more successfully than it might have if white people had been threatened with prosecution for crimes against humanity or other transgressions of international law.

Genocidal acts force people to flee hazardous locations, either as refugees or internally displaced persons. Large populations of refugees moving to nearby nations can have an adverse social, political, and economic impact on those nations. Refugees frequently face persecution in host nations and may not have an option but to live in camps while unsure of their futures. They do not, however, know if their homes and belongings will still be there when they eventually return. This is just one of the numerous issues people, communities, and civilizations encounter following a genocide.

The rebuilding, reconciliation, and healing must start once the acts of genocide are brought under control and responsibility for the crimes is upheld. It makes sense that victim groups would harbor significant resentment for their oppressors. If relations between rival ethnic groups can not become better, retaliatory violence is all but guaranteed. It is appropriate to work to improve relations between groups and to give the victim group more influence. Realistically, true reconciliation will probably take a long time because the acts are so heinous that they are almost beyond forgiveness. Rebuilding a society after genocide is the biggest obstacle since a conflict that once might have been settled may now be impossible to win. The foremost step in preventing genocide is raising awareness of the problem, but it requires first comprehending what it causes and its motivations. This entails researching ethnic differences, their origins, and how they affect a population. It also entails researching different political systems to identify those most likely to create anarchy in a country. For example, totalitarian regimes and regions with high poverty rates are a recipe for genocide.

References

Breitman, R. (2022). The architect of genocide: Himmler and the final solution. Plunkett Lake Press.

Fein, H. (2020). Scenarios of genocide: Models of genocide and critical responses. In Toward the understanding and prevention of genocide (pp. 3–31). Routledge.

Jones, A. (2004). Genocide: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge.

Kressel, N. J. (2019). Mass hate: The global rise of genocide and terror. Routledge.

Lindert, J., Kawachi, I., Knobler, H. Y., Abramowitz, M. Z., Galea, S., Roberts, B., Mollica, R., & McKee, M. (2019). The long-term health consequences of genocide: Developing GESQUQ – A genocide studies checklist. Conflict and Health, 13(1). Web.

Waller, J. (2017). Holocaust and genocide lecture series – April 4, 2017 – Professor James Waller, Ph.D. [Video]. YouTube. Web.

The given assessment will primarily focus on the Armenian genocide of the 20th century, where the Ottoman Empire imposed mass-scale oppression and aggression invoked by a small resistance upon the entire Armenian population. The given historical instance was a controversial and intricate one since it was not as widely recognized as it should have been. It is a case of genocide since it matches the precise definition of the UN.

It is important to note that the term genocide needs to have five major elements in order to be recognized as such. According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the United Nations, genocide is a process of killing members of a religious, racial, ethnic, and national group (UN, 2021). It also involves causing severe mental and bodily damage to the members of a group, intentionally imposing conditions of life, which leads to the destruction of the group, transfer of children, and prevention of the latter’s birth (UN, 2021). The historical events of the Armenian genocide took place in 1915, when the Ottoman Turkish Empire killed at least 1.5 million Armenians (Mangassarian, 2016).

The instance was triggered after the Battle of Sarikamish, where the entire population of Armenia was out under the blame for treason. The majority of the population was destroyed through death marches, and many of these people were old individuals, women, and children.

The majority of the latter two groups were transferred to Muslim families and countries (Alayarian, 2018). One of the main issues of the genocide was the fact that it was not properly recognized immediately, and Turkey is still in denial of the massacre events (Alayarian, 2018). Therefore, the Armenian genocide matches the definition of the crime because a particular group was deliberately killed by imposing conditions of life, which lead to physical destruction. In addition, children were transferred to other Muslim groups, which also showcases the key features of genocide.

I chose the instance of the Armenian genocide because it was widely unrecognized, with Turkey still continuing to do so in the present moment. One should be aware that the case matches almost all definitions of genocide, but only 32 countries recognize the historical events as such, which is why I decided to illuminate the issues by shedding light on the given discussion (Alayarian, 2018). In addition, the Armenian genocide left a major scar on Armenian culture and nation, and its relationship with Turkey is highly complicated due to the latter’s denial. It has both direct and indirect connections to the readings because the cases of historical massacre and oppression need to be recognized by the descendants of the oppressors.

Until now, the main argument of the Turkish Genocide denial package, which Ankara responded to the accusations, is that the Turks allegedly did not have a premeditated genocide program, they deported the Armenians because of their unreliability in relation to the Ottoman Empire at war (Alayarian, 2018). On the way, every rabble attacked the caravans of deported Armenians, as a result of which “accidents” occurred, which, according to official Ankara, cannot be equated with genocide.

In conclusion, the Armenian genocide can be categorized as one of the highly prominent instances of such a crime, but the main issues revolve around the lack of recognition from Turkey as well as other nations. The case matches all direct definitions of genocide because the members of the group were killed, deliberately put under harsh conditions, children were transferred to Muslim households, and the procreation process was halted, which scarred the given population irreparably.

References

Alayarian, A. (2018). Consequences of denial: The Armenian Genocide. Routledge.

Mangassarian, S. L. (2016). 100 years of trauma: The Armenian Genocide and intergenerational cultural trauma. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(4), 371-381. Web.

UN. (2021). Genocide. United Nations. Web.

According to the documentary, genocide is the outcome of mass hysteria (“Genocide”). However, initially, it emerges as a consequence of murderous passions in the course of which people lose control of themselves and are not responsible for their actions. Nonetheless, genocide is the result of hysterics that pushes people to resort to violence and kill other humans.

Such events have a fast developing dynamics. At first, they have a seminal character that later leads to mass massacres. Perpetrators believe that their victims should be annihilated including women and children since their lives are worthy of nothing. According to the video, they also think that victims should be dehumanized and brutalized, which is evidenced by measures to which they resort (that far exceed simple killing) (“Genocide”).

Political leaders and organizations, as well as governments, are responsible for genocide since they allow harassment to occur (“Genocide”). Their role in instigating genocidal acts is immense; however, it varies from state to state. Nonetheless, one person is always responsible for initiating discrimination while his or her closest circle of people support it and plan an agenda for commencing genocide.

One of the common strategic tools of genocide is the political regime. It allows shaping the setting in a way that will be convenient for the ruling party. Relying on the governmental strategy, genocide supporters instigate mass killing, sexually harass individuals, introduce concentration camps (an illustrative example is Holocaust), force deportations, and culturally repress certain population groups (“Genocide”).

By renaming genocide, it became possible to outline that any attempt to discriminate and assault any population group should be considered eliminationism. According to the author of the video, this phenomenon stands behind every mass murder, and it includes such veiled attempts as humanitarian interventions (“Genocide”). Mass exterminations are a structural feature of the world since anthropological racism has been observed almost in every country and different social and political constructs.

The main similarity in the various discriminating episodes lies in the fact that they are always initiated by a small circle of people. Besides, the displayed atrocities are targeted at killing a certain population group either in whole or in part. However, the differences are connected to the goals pursued by various leaders (for instance, in Rwanda, the leaders wanted to ensure a political dominance of Hutu while in Germany, Hitler wanted to ensure the political superiority of the master race) (Diop 57). Also, violent episodes can be different (extermination of males or annihilation of everyone including females and minors).

The UN did not play any decisive role in the genocide crisis. It has happened due to the absence of their political will (“Genocide”). However, their aim should be to prevent atrocities through cooperation with government leaders so that their incorrect (discriminating) decisions are inhibited.

The international community fails to intervene due to the lack of will. The role of national interest is quite ambiguous. On the one hand, it should protect the sovereignty of countries when other states try to impede it. On the other hand, the national interest cannot intervene when people are eliminating citizens of the same state (“Genocide”). Therefore, the role of international organizations has been reduced to zero since they have remained ignorant of the recurring genocidal acts.

To reshape the global political structure, it is necessary to change the way people perceive genocide. It is critical to understand that eliminationism takes different forms, and the international community should be able to recognize them. To change the setting, the “international orientation towards intervention and genocide” should be altered (“Genocide”). After that, the international community will be able to have an impact on the decisions of political leaders.

Each government is responsible for ensuring the sovereignty of its citizens. The state should provide people with protection and assistance so that citizens are safe (“Genocide”). Importantly, if the government cannot do it, they should ask the international community for help.

Works Cited

Diop, Boubacar Boris. Murambi, the Book of Bones. Translated by Fiona Mc Laughlin, Indiana University Press, 2006.

“Genocide: Worse than War | Full-length documentary | PBS.” YouTube, uploaded by PBS. 2010, Web.