How do you solve a problem like a genocide...?!

[Che Guava]

Why not ask survivors of Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Holocaust?

Forum tackles genocide prevention


A conference in the Canadian city of Montreal has been discussing ways to try to prevent genocide.

Delegates heard from survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, as well as genocidal campaigns in Rwanda and Cambodia.

Many delegates referred to the current crisis in Darfur, Sudan, which has been described as "genocide in slow motion".

"It seems that for the most part the vow of 'never again' was not taken seriously," Payam Akhavan, the conference chair, told AFP news agency.

Esther Mujawayo, a Rwandan woman who lost her mother, father and husband in the 1994 genocide, said she was sceptical about the world's willingness to prevent atrocities.

"Don't tell me you didn't know. The world did know. The world looked away. You knew but did not have the will," said Mrs Mujawayo.

"When the people were evacuating, the French, the Belgians, the Americans, all the expatriates, they even evacuated their dogs and their cats," while Rwandans were left behind, she said.

'Arm opponents'

Much of the discussion at the conference, sponsored by McGill University's law faculty, has centred on how to prevent common aspects of genocides, like media outlets demonising potential victims and foreign bureaucratic inertia preventing intervention.

But a controversial thesis was also presented by the French scholar, Gerard Prunier.

He said the only way to stop government sponsored mass killings was to give military backing to opponents of that government.

"If we decide that in fact what is going to happen is of a genocidal dimension, we have to support, including militarily, the people who are fighting against it," he said.

He told the BBC that would mean arming and assisting the rebels fighting against government-backed militia in Darfur.

Some two million people have been displaced and at least 200,000 have died during the four-year conflict in western Sudan.

link

So, according to another report on this conference (that I heard on the radio...sorry, no link!) the steps preceding state genocide usually go as follows:

(1) A group of people are identified as 'different' from the national norm.

(2) Said group is marginalized, either by isolation, harassment, exclusion through legal means, etc.

(3) A propaganda campaign against the group is launched, or intensified.

(4) Killing begins....

At what point should the international community get involved? What should they do? Is it necessary to arm the oppressed, or are non-violent options just as viable?

 

[Kozmos]

That's why you need guns...among other reasons.

 

[Che Guava]

That's why you need guns...among other reasons.

How do make sure that you don't end up with two genocides then?

 

[Arwon]

Step 1 is avoiding falling into that "irrevocable ancient hatreds" myth trap that paralyses response. It's anything but that. I mean in Rwanda they weren't even different ethnic groups, they were different "castes" of the same society, and in Yugoslavia the architects were former communists in nationalist garb.

Likewise, it's important not to see the situation as some sort of Hobbesian all-against-all situation. The actual numbers of the people doing the killing in both cases was surprisingly low.

The majority of the killing in Yugoslavia and Rwanda was done, essentially, by groups of revved-up, often drunk, young men, with legitimate authorities either condoning it or joining in. In both Rwanda and Yugoslavia alcohol was supplied for free and prisons were opened. Essentially what happened is a power vacuum where these bands of killers are the strongest force, and everyone else either goes along with it, gets the hell out of the way, or dies. The thing is, this happened because politicial leaders consciously promoted this sort of thing for basic power-politics reasons... it was only possible because the Rwandan leadership and the Yugoslavian leaderships chose to promote the violence and therefore rendered things like the police impotent at best.

The way, therefore, to stop the killing, is pretty simply to get counterveiling force on the ground. In the early 90s in Croatia the newly organised Croatian army eventually ended the killing pretty much just by showing up, and the same thing happened with a rebel Rwandan force whose name escapes me right now. Once a legitimate counterveiling force shows up, the bands of killers tend to melt away.

The danger, of course, is that arming the others simply causes a civil war, but at least then it's a fair fight... and I think the example of the European-armed Croatian army demonstrates that this isn't necessarily inevitable.

 

[Bill3000]

How do you solve a problem like a genocide...?!

Easy. If you kill everyone in the world indiscriminately, it's not genocide because it isn't targeted toward one particular group, and it is no longer possible to commit genocide because there is no one left.

 

[Che Guava]

Easy. If you kill everyone in the world indiscriminately, it's not genocide because it isn't targeted toward one particular group, and it is no longer possible to commit genocide because there is no one left.

Well, if you're volunteering to go first....!

 

[bathsheba666]

How do you catch a crowd and pin them down?

(with apologies to Maria von Trapp)

 

[innonimatu]

a rebel Rwandan force whose name escapes me right now. Once a legitimate counterveiling force shows up, the bands of killers tend to melt away.

Paul Kagame's FPR. He deliberately delayed intervention so that the genocide would be carried out. That allowed the FPR to cement its hold on power, especially by presenting themselves as the defenders of the victims to the international audience that had so far ignored them
It's still not known who murdered the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi to give free rein to the extremists in the rwandese government. Paul Kagame is one of the main suspects, but as current president and representative of the victims he's untouchable and his part unquestionable.

The problem with genocides is that often all sides believe they stand to win from them - except the intended victims, and those are chosen because they can't defend themselves.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

You smack 50,000 UN peacekeepers down in the area and tell them shoot anything that moves!

 

[ParkCungHee]

You smack 50,000 UN peacekeepers down in the area and tell them shoot anything that moves!

Wouldn't that include fleeing refugees?

 

[MobBoss]

Isnt genocide eventually self-solving?

 

[Ecofarm]

I mean in Rwanda they weren't even different ethnic groups, they were different "castes" of the same society,

Ethnic tensions in Rwanda were significantly heightened in October 1993 upon the assassination of Melchior Ndadaye, the first popularly elected Hutu president of neighboring Burundi.

A United Nations peacekeeping force of 2,500 multinational soldiers was then dispatched to Rwanda to preserve the fragile cease-fire between the Hutu government and the Tutsi rebels. Peace was threatened by Hutu extremists who were violently opposed to sharing any power with the Tutsis. Among these extremists were those who desired nothing less than the actual extermination of the Tutsis. It was later revealed they had even drawn up lists of prominent Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians to kill, should the opportunity arise.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda and was the largest atrocity during the Rwandan Civil War. This genocide was mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi, during about 100 days from April 6 through mid-July, 1994. At least 500,000 Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus died in the genocide.[1] Some estimates put the death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Ethnic tension in Rwanda is nothing new. There have been always been disagreements between the majority Hutus and minority Tutsis, but the animosity between them has grown substantially since the colonial period.

The two ethnic groups are actually very similar - they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions.

But when the Belgian colonists arrived in 1916, they saw the two groups as distinct entities, and even produced identity cards classifying people according to their ethnicity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

 

[The Yankee]

Easy. If you kill everyone in the world indiscriminately, it's not genocide because it isn't targeted toward one particular group, and it is no longer possible to commit genocide because there is no one left.

Wait, what?

We could always try actually putting real "peacekeepers" in the areas where they're deployed and give them orders to actually intervene when some force is butchering a village.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Isnt genocide eventually self-solving?

yes, but only after many many deaths. ideally, the best thing is to cut it short at the root.

 

[Tee Kay]

Just kill everyone on the planet. That's the surest way. We are more than capable to do that - all you need to do is push a couple of buttons.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Just kill everyone on the planet. That's the surest way. We are more than capable to do that - all you need to do is push a couple of buttons.

personal request: I'd like to have something of a countdown prior to that happening.

 

[Damnyankee]

Get rid of culture, and institute a one world culture. Of course, you would have to forcefully assimilate the world, so that would in effect be genocide.

 

[The Yankee]

personal request: I'd like to have something of a countdown prior to that happening.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IkWAhuXtalw

Oldies are the goodies.

 

[azzaman333]

Genoicide's will occur every time someone insane enough gets into a powerful enough position. It's impossible to prevent, or limit, if said loony is skilled enough.

 

[Ecofarm]

Likewise, it's important not to see the situation as some sort of Hobbesian all-against-all situation. The actual numbers of the people doing the killing in both cases was surprisingly low.

The majority of the killing in Yugoslavia and Rwanda was done, essentially, by groups of revved-up, often drunk, young men, with legitimate authorities either condoning it or joining in.

When Habyarimana's plane was shot down at the beginning of April 1994, it was the final nail in the coffin.

Exactly who killed the president - and with him the president of Burundi and many chief members of staff - has not been established.

Whoever was behind the killing its effect was both instantaneous and catastrophic.

Mass murder

In Kigali, the presidential guard immediately initiated a campaign of retribution. Leaders of the political opposition were murdered, and almost immediately, the slaughter of Tutsis and moderate Hutus began.

Within hours, recruits were dispatched all over the country to carry out a wave of slaughter.

The early organisers included military officials, politicians and businessmen, but soon many others joined in the mayhem.

Encouraged by the presidential guard and radio propaganda, an unofficial militia group called the Interahamwe (meaning those who attack together) was mobilised. At its peak, this group was 30,000-strong.

Soldiers and police officers encouraged ordinary citizens to take part. In some cases, Hutu civilians were forced to murder their Tutsi neighbours by military personnel.

Participants were often given incentives, such as money or food, and some were even told they could appropriate the land of the Tutsis they killed.

On the ground at least, the Rwandans were largely left alone by the international community. UN troops withdrew after the murder of 10 soldiers.

...

On 19 July a new multi-ethnic government was formed, promising all refugees a safe return to Rwanda.

Pasteur Bizimungu, a Hutu, was inaugurated as president, while the majority of cabinet posts were assigned to RPF members.

But although the massacres are over, the legacy of the genocide continues, and the search for justice has been a long and arduous one.

About 500 people have been sentenced to death, and another 100,000 are still in prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm