learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. Raphael Lemkin dedicated himself to advocating for an international law, the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines and calls on the global community to act in the face of genocide. In the film he says,“Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law.” What does he mean? Why is the establishment of this international law an important step? More importantly, why is the enforcement of this law even more important?

2. Although Lemkin’s efforts led to the the Genocide Convention, its effects remain limited. Why? How does the issue of sovereignty continue to make it challenging to prevent genocide? Should limits on sovereignty be established and modified in order to make is easier to stop genocide? How? By whom?

3. What role do individuals, like Lemkin, Henry Morganthau, Romeo Dalliare and Samantha Power play in holding people accountable for the crime of genocide? Are the efforts of individuals and human rights organizations equally as important as the roles of nations in preventing, stopping and punishing genocide?

Word Count Requirement: 350-500 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least two of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least two of the question sets.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations, 1948)

Preface to “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

Clip 1 from Watcher of the Sky

Clip 2 from Watcher of the Sky

The uses of the Genocide Convention remain limited due to the varied circumstances regarding their effectiveness. There are many reasons why a country might not want to intervene with another country and wouldn’t want to stop a genocide. For example, a country might play a big role in the world and no one wants to mess with their relationship to said country. Another example is that the countries rely on each other for resources or materials, and neither of them wants to mess up that relationship. The Preface to “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide illustrates to the reader how countries might have the opportunity to step in and stop a genocide, but they don’t. The preface specifically mentions the United States in many cases and how with the power that it has, a lot could’ve been stopped. But due to the conditions mentioned above, the US did nothing in many cases. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states what must be stopped and what can be considered a genocide, but it does not take into account how hard it would be to inforce these principles. The issue of sovereignty makes it hard to prevent genocides because countries want to be able to run without interference from anyone else. It is not the business of other countries how a government wants to run, which sometimes is regardless of the atrocities going on within the borders. Establishing limits on sovereignty could be a crucial step in preventing future genocides, but it is hard to set those limits with complete agreement. If these limits were to be set, it would be from steps taken by organizations such as the UN.

Individuals such as Lemkin, Morganthau, Dalliare, and Power play an important role in preventing future genocides because of the individual work that they have done. This said, it is not the efforts of individuals that inevitably will be what is stopping genocides, it much more likely would be the efforts from nations and organizations due to the amount of power they have over other nations and governments. However, individuals can be the ones responsible for pushing for change and starting movements that would eventually make their way to nations in order for steps to be taken. Collaboration and coordination among individuals as well as nations is what would be able to stop future genocides from taking place, if anything.

The idea that genocide is a crime that can take place within a country during a time of peace is one that has been difficult to recon with, since in the eyes of many it is a crime so horrific that no government could undertake it against their own people. Citizens have a hard time recognizing genocide in other countries because they are unable to grapple with the reality that their own government is simply standing by while such an egregious crime takes place, and governments have a hard time acting against genocide because they either firmly believe that no western country could do such a thing, and therefore its not a problem, or that it is simply the “savegry” of an “uncilvilized” county, and therefore they can do nothing to stop it. The Bosian genocide was covered under the comfortable story of age old tensions that could not be changed, describing the history of the nation as “A Problem from Hell.” Diplomacy doesn’t work against genocide because diplomacy assumes that the people being talked to are reasonable, but no reasonable person would commit a genocide. As Raphael Lempkin said, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of an individual?” and the answer to this question is that the killing of an individual can be proved easily, has few perpetrators, and is a crime so common that people have come to cope with the idea that that is a thing that people are capable of; but no one, no matter how many times it happens, believes that a group could be capable of genocide, and every person clings to the idea that genocide and mass murder is a problem of the past, and could never occur in a civilized world like the one we live in today.

Part of this willful ignorance stems from the fact that genocide is so difficult to prove and punish: While many nations accept the genocide convention, they are still unwilling to make any moves against a country who commits because of genpolitical issues, social issues if they have citizens from that country in their own borders, or even simply because they are afraid to be wrong; genocide is difficult to prove for a reason, and it is fair for the prosecutors to have to jump through a number of hoops to get there, but that can sometimes cause people to shy away from calling something genocide because they fear the humiliation if they turn out to be wrong. Human rights groups don’t face the same sort of backlash if they accuse someone of genocide, meaning they are much more likely to take action, but they also have much less ability to make any changes. All a person or organization can do is provide aid, or attempt to convince a country to act, the real power to stop a genocide lies solely in the hands of countries, a power which they have proved to be unable to use

The 1948 Genocide Convention not only defined genocide but also established that it must be punished by law. Raphael Lemkin spoke on this concept in the film Watcher of Sky, claiming, “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law.” In making this statement, he maintains ideas presented in the Genocide Convention that genocide is a crime that has a legitimate legal weight and must be punished by law, not simply advocated against by survivors or their descendants. The establishment of this international law and the international responsibility to enforce it further solidifies genocide as a crime that the international community must be careful to prevent and then punish as soon as it is flagged. In making this change to the legal language around genocide, the world now takes it more seriously, which will help prevent genocide (as well as war crimes as a whole) in the future.

However, even if the expectation is that genocide is fought against more in the future, what matters is the action taken against it. The enforcement of the Genocide Convention is thus even more important than its actual establishment, as it sets a standard for how genocide is regarded and how its perpetrators are viewed and punished. If the Genocide Convention is not enforced at all and becomes merely an empty promise, then the world will only regress, as perpetrators of genocide won’t fear its consequences. A real-life example of this is the Bosnian Genocide. In this event, Bosnian Serb forces feared very little consequences as they committed genocide against Bosnia’s Muslim population. This was largely because, even though the Genocide Convention had already occurred decades prior, the international community was too concerned with other issues and gave little thought to the violence in the Balkans that minimal action took place to protect this population until after the genocide was carried out.

Furthermore, while certain countries tried to do what they could (which was very little) during the Bosnian Genocide, individuals have had a very powerful role as well. People such as Raphael Lemkin and Samantha Power have served as a link between victims of genocide and the general international population. For instance, Samantha Power’s work as a war journalist helped document what was going on in Bosnia. As this information spread to the US (and other countries) both during and especially after the genocide, people have become increasingly aware of what genocide can look like and how they can prevent it. Additionally, human rights organizations can act as neutral third parties that aid the victims of genocide. However, while individuals can propel change, human rights organizations often have less of an impact on politics and the actions taken by nations against genocide due to their neutrality. The fight against genocide is ultimately one that must be a collective effort, joining entire governments with individual activists with human rights groups, as we fight against such horrors.

“It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on” (Power XXI). Examining the genocidal acts of the 20th and 21st centuries after 1948, there is an astounding number of occurrences across a multitude of religions and nationalities throughout the world. When considering Raphael Lempkin’s question, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of an individual?” heads turn to the legal framework behind prosecution for murder versus genocide. The killing of an individual is much easier to assess and subsequently charge one with, but the killing of a million lacks historical precedent on ways to address it. Lemkin’s solution to this was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, passed in December 1948, that labeled genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as a crime under international law and “condemned by the civilized world.” In Watcher of the Sky, he states that “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law.” He believed that crimes that were once only talked about by victims, begging the world to see the horrors committed against their people, and their ensuing desperate acts of individual revenge against perpetrators, must be punished instead by the global community. The establishment and enforcement of international law are so incredibly important because they prevent victims (and possible victims), often displaced and already having suffered a lifetime of horrors, from struggling, yet again, to get recognition. It also sets an expectation for the world that genocide is a crime against humanity and is not, under any circumstances, excusable.

The convention, while revolutionary and absolutely necessary, is sadly limited in its effectiveness. Why, after Lemkin’s lifetime of effort put into it, is the Genocide Convention so weak? Samantha Power explores this in the context of the United States’s inaction. Despite “countless opportunities to mitigate a prevent slaughter,” ultimately “we have all been bystanders to genocide” (Power XVI - XVII). The answer lies within multiple things: the language chosen to describe situations of war and possible genocide, the history of inaction and lack of a precedent to act, the inefficiency of the UN and US government, geopolitical desires, and the terrible truth that “no US president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no US president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence” (Power XXI). The effects of the Genocide Convention and the responses of the international community have thus remained limited, and the issue of sovereignty also continues to challenge efforts to prevent genocide. Nations who have signed onto the Convention are reluctant to take action in the face of their fears; they worry that accusing another nation of genocide or attempts to intervene will be seen as undermining the rights of the other government to handle its internal affairs. Gaius adds that powers “shy away from calling something genocide because they fear the humiliation if they turn out to be wrong.” They fear that they may interfere with another power’s sovereignty, and then for it to somehow end up as unjustified. This fear is what prevents so much action from happening, and what permits genocides to continue to be committed today. Limits on sovereignty should be established and adapted to make the prevention of genocide an achievable task. It should be permissible and necessary for foreign powers to have the right to intervene in other countries in situations of genocide, but also in situations where the other acts punishable by the genocide convention are proven to be taking place: conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and attempt to commit genocide. The one remaining act Lemkin mentioned, complicity in genocide, is what governments will be committing if they do not take action.

Samantha Power writes how the US “has never in its history intervened to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred” (Power XV). It is imperative that we all, as citizens of the United States, activists, and members of the global community, speak up. We must advocate for a change in how the government treats issues of possible or definite genocide, and work towards a world in which genocide is a warning from the past, not a reality taking place in the present.

“We need deeds not words” (Lemkin, Watcher of the Sky). In and around 1948, Lemkin called on the global community to see the need for and create a legal framework where the repercussions of genocide did not fall solely on the victims. As rica.junction concisely states, “the killing of an individual is much easier to assess and subsequently charge one with, but the killing of a million lacks historical precedent on ways to address it.” Lemink’s goal was to create this historical precedent in the form of a universally recognized set of rules both defining genocide and mandating action from the international community. Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention lists a classification for what actions fall under the category of genocide and makes a note that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy.” The idea of intent and an action as deliberate are central to acknowledgement and punishment of genocide through the convention. While the ideas behind the 1948 Genocide Convention marked a crucial step in acknowledging the gravity of genocide and committing nations to prevent and punish it, it lacks enforcement mechanisms, leading the convention to largely remain a symbolic gesture.

One of the reasons that the impact of the 1948 Genocide Convention has been limited is due to the principle of sovereignty. Nations, for the most part, think it is their right to have exclusive authority over their internal affairs. While this principle occasionally adds to a nation's patriotism, in this case it undermines international intervention in genocide. Nations are able to invoke sovereignty as a way to resist interference from the United Nations and other countries, even when egregious acts against human rights are being committed. Additionally, many nations are reluctant to enforce the convention depending on the circumstances because an accused nation could be strategically important or not important at all, both of which motivate little response from the international community. The world as we know it feeds off of seeing repercussions for actions, so both countries and the United Nations should see it as allowed and necessary for them to intervene in situations of genocide. The only way to effectively prevent genocide is for countries to see that if they do engage in genocide, other nations will act and the nation comminting genocide will be punished. As stipulared in Article III of the 1948 Genocide Convention, “genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, complicity in genocide” are all punishable. Nations need to start to both see their role in aiding the international community away from genocide and to see that they are punishable if they stand aside and let genocide occur. Between 1948 and 1995 “the United Nations had not oiled its rusty parts or rid itself of the anachronistic practices and assumptions,” leading to further complicit actions in genocide. Prior to 1995, “the United States had Never in its history intervene to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred” (Power, XV). Response to genocide is all of our responsibility, nations are unable to function without people who speak up and advocate for response and change. Currently, the world still needs and relies on the efforts of individuals and human rights organizations to stop and punish genocide, we can not let genocide be a concern of a select few or fall prey to the “human phenomenon of wishful thinking” (Power, 255).

The term “ genocide” is held loosely. The current events that are happening in the world are heavily relied on social media. There is a misconception of what genocide is, it undermines the gravity of what genocide entails. The Holocaust is seen as the mother of genocide, it stands as a monumental part in history, but because it is so widespread, people tend to compare current events to the Holocaust. In Watcher of the Sky, Lemkin’ s purpose in creating the Genocide Convention was for countries to understand how a genocide can happen, and witness it quickly enough to stop it. However, the political ties between other countries are so important to these political benefits that countries are more prone to watch it happen, than terminate their political ties. The issue of sovereignty plays into what country holds the power where other countries do not go against their doings. It is difficult to set limits on sovereignty because a country’s power can waver as time passes. Establishing limits on sovereignty is difficult to do because no country wants to be limited of their power. Once that happens, it is difficult to stop wars from happening between countries. The Genocide Convention remains a fundamental part in history, contributing to the hope that the world does not experience another atrocity.

When Raphael Lemkin Lemkin said “crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law,” he understood that the power of survivors is outweighed by the power of the international community. For example, some Turkish officials who were involved with the Armenian Genocide were killed by surviving Armenians, their victims. However, because the international community did not formally hold those officials responsible, Hitler ended up reportedly saying “who remembers the Armenians?” while committing genocide in Germany. This is a clear instance in which lack of efficient persecution of past perpetrators became proof to future perpetrators that genocide would go unpunished. Punishment from victims may be sporadic, unsupported by the international community, and a short-term solution. People who commit genocide or are planning to commit genocide are aware of this, so they know that there is no guarantee of negative consequences for them without an enforceable international law. The strength of the genocide convention lies in its specificity and consistency. The convention lays out the actions qualifying as genocide concisely in Article II, and then describes the trials and punishments in Articles IV - VI. This format leaves little room for interpretation, at least in comparison to public opinion. Rather than having an individual or limited set of individuals taking matters into their own hands when forced to, the genocide convention gives a structured plan for condemning genocide. The genocide convention additionally gives incentive to not begin actions considered genocide, and to not be complacent in actions considered genocide. Genocide prevention is more important than only condemning it after it has already happened.

The genocide convention is not enforced consistently or reliably because of states’ claims that when oppression of a group occurs within their borders, it is not in the jurisdiction of the international community. Some states believe that international interference with events in their countries are a violation of their sovereignty. In some of these cases, formerly colonized nations see international law as a form of Western domination. Although it would be difficult, the international community needs to establish some limit on sovereignty, and that limit needs to be universal. Some would argue that some areas of the world are more prone to genocide than others and need less sovereignty, but this is fundamentally incorrect. After all, when Lemkin tried to warn people of the Holocaust, he was dismissed because people didn’t believe genocide could occur in Europe. Genocide can occur anywhere and at any time, so the genocide convention needs to be strengthened to prepare for the next one. The enforcement of criminalizing complicity in genocide especially needs to be enforced, because then individual nations are responsible for enforcing the convention themselves. The government of the United States is not held responsible for complicity by its citizens, as observed by Samantha Powers, so a larger force needs to hold it accountable.

When Lemkin says,“crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law”, he emphasizes the responsibility of those with established authority to seek justice and punish those who commit a crime. It is not the duty of the victims to persecute and charge others, and instead the laws’. Polticians have more influence in policy-making in comparison to the victims, as the victims can only do so much, like sharing their stories in hopes society learns from its mistakes. They have already suffered enough and need the help of those in real power to punish the guilty.

Though the establishment of the Genocide Convention is not the final course of action, it is certainly a significant step, as it signifies the international community’s willingness to punish and prevent acts of genocide. Though this law cannot bring back the lives lost in these genocides, it provides justice for the victims and a way for the international community to show their support for those affected. Justice can be served (to the best of its ability) through complete recognition and acceptance of the war crimes that occurred. However, solely ratifiying this law does not definitively guarantee the prevention of future genocides or that the guilty will be held accountable. It becomes even more crucial for it to be properly enforced. If people don’t enforce the law, there becomes no point in even creating it and diminishes the efforts made by individuals like Lemkin to ensure the victims’ lives do not go in vain. The role of these individuals act as a powerful voice for those unable to speak out. In Watchers of the Sky, Lemkin is portrayed as a desperate man who dedicated his life to creating the Genocide Convention, so much that he began to lose focus on his own well-being. This shows how dedicated people like him are in causes that are important to them and clearly, his efforts paid off. Despite having less direct influence, their voices can pressure nations to take actions against the perpetrators, demonstrating how their efforts are equally important to those of nations’.