ushmm.org
What are you looking for?
Search
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Museum info Education Research History Remembrance Conscience Join and donate
Home
Alert
History
News
Analysis
Photos
Calendar
About Us
Home >> Analysis >> Blog

A bi-weekly audio series and podcast service, hosted by Committee on Conscience Project Director Bridget Conley-Zilkic, that brings you the voices of human rights defenders, experts, advocates, and government officials. Vital voices addressing one of humanity's most vital issues. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not necessarily represent those of the Museum.

Page 3 of 17 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »


Maybe Add Some Garlic
As the first anniversary of the death of Slobodan Milosevic approaches, a protester in Serbia wanted to be double sure that the deceased war criminal stays dead:
Miroslav Milosevic, a photographer not related to the late president, jumped a fence in his hometown of Pozarevac to thrust a hawthorn pole into the tomb where [Slobodan Milosevic] was buried a year ago, the MTSMondo.com website said. The action by the former member of Otpor, the student movement that for years protested against Milosevic, was a medieval ritual used in eastern Serbia to kill off vampires or expel evil spirits.

Facing History
Our next three regular episodes of Voices on Genocide Prevention will be collaborations (we actually don't like that word) with our friends at Facing History and Ourselves. Facing History is doing an online seminar, including online discussions with our guests after the programs. You can register here. And who are the guests? Professor Omer Bartov (pictured) of Brown University will discuss the legacy of Raphael Lemkin; former Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck will discuss the politics of responding to genocide; and activist Rebecca Hamilton will discuss anti-genocide activism. And now might be a good time to mention that the theme music for the interviews is courtesy of Califone.

“O, Be Some Other Name!”
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the resolution working its way way through the U.S. House that would recognize the killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and succeeding years as "genocide." There's a good chance the non-binding resolution will pass. WaPo's Jackson Diehl addresses the issue in Monday's paper:
Here is a debate that could occur only in Washington -- a bizarre mix of frivolity and moral seriousness, of constituent pandering, far-flung history and front-line foreign policy. And that's just on the American side; in Turkey there is the painful struggle of a deeply nationalist society to come to terms with its past, and in the process become more of the Western democracy it wants to be.
As I suggested before, Washington is not the best place for this discussion to take place, Turkey is. But the debate there has been short-circuited. As Diehl puts it:
After all, historians outside of Turkey are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that atrocities against Armenians worthy of the term genocide did occur. Though Congress may look silly with its "findings," the continuing inability of the Turkish political class to come to terms with history, and temper its nationalism, may be the country's single most serious political problem. Prominent Turkish intellectuals, including a Nobel Prize winner, have been prosecuted in recent years under laws criminalizing "insults" to Turkey -- such as accurate accounts of the genocide. In January a prominent ethnic Armenian journalist was murdered by an ultranationalist teenager.

“Up Through the Ground Came a Bubbling Crude”
Saturday's LA Times has a front page story focusing on oil exploration in Darfur and suggesting that it either has played a significant role in the conflict or will.
Political and humanitarian experts say oil in Darfur could deliver much-needed development and investment to the region but that attempts to search for oil now may intensify the conflict by raising the stakes in an already war-torn area. The government has recently awarded three new oil concessions in the region.
In light of this article, it would be very easy to say, "oh, so all this has been about oil. Now we understand." That would be a bit of an oversimplification. Read closely, the article makes clear that it hasn't actually been established that there is oil in Darfur. Khartoum is simply trying to promote exploration. And its ability to do that, not surprisingly, is severely hampered by the violence.

The possibility of oil in Darfur could indeed transform the conflict if it becomes more certain. But it's not totally clear whether the effect will be positive or negative (or perhaps both at the same time). On the one hand, the presence of significant oil would raise the stakes in the conflict. On the other hand, it could contribute to an ultimate settlement by basically expanding "the pie" to be divvied up. Of course, for the latter to happen, the regime in Khartoum would have to forego its current strategy of human destruction. Which brings us to the most pressing need: a renewed sense of urgency about protecting the civilian lives hanging in the balance in Darfur.

It’s a Start
ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo named two suspects for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur, asking the Court to issue arrest warrants for Ahmed Muhammed Harun and Ali Mohammed Ali Abd-al-Rahman (aka Ali Kushayb). Ali Kushayb is a leader of the so-called janjaweed militia from West Darfur. But Harun is the bigger fish -- in 2003-2004 he was minister of state at the Interior Ministry with responsibility for the "Darfur Security Desk." By naming Ahmed Harun, Moreno-Ocampo has identified a figure who is senior enough to implicate the Sudanese government at a policymaking level, but not so senior as to suggest that the chain of responsibility ends with him. And though the case presented today focuses on attacks against a few specified villages, those attacks are placed in the context of a broader strategy of human destruction:
As is described below the Armed Forces and Militia/Janjaweed did not target any rebel presence within these particular towns and villages. Rather, they attacked these towns and villages based on the rationale that the tens of thousands of civilian residents in and near these towns and villages were supporters of the rebel militia. This strategy became the justification for the mass murder, summary execution, and mass rape of civilians who were known not to be participants in any armed conflict. Application of the strategy also called for, and achieved the forced displacement of entire villages and communities.
The immediate next step will be for a three judge panel to review the evidence and, if they are persuaded a reasonable case has been made, issue the requested arrest warrants (or summon the defendants to appear). Then responsibility will shift to the UN Security Council as well as the 104 members of the ICC (including all European countries and many African ones) to pressure Khartoum to surrender the suspects. And that will be a pivotal moment for the ICC -- if its member countries do not have the political will to enforce these arrest warrants, the institution may be doomed to oblivion in spite of the chief prosecutor's best efforts.

See You In Court (2007 edition)
On Tuesday, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo will submit evidence to the court on individuals he believes should be charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes relating to Darfur. He will brief the press beginning 2 pm Hague time, which I believe is 8 am in the eastern United States. The briefing will be webcast. What to look for: How far up the Sudanese government chain of command does his evidence go? Keep in mind that his investigation has been undertaken with no access to Darfur and very limited access (last I heard, 2 interviews) in Khartoum.

See You In Court (1993 edition)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision Monday in “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).” That’s the long name for the case that the government of Bosnia brought in 1993 against what was then known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) – Serbia and Montenegro. Since then, Serbia and Montenegro have also split. In the case, Bosnia contended that the FRY was violating its obligations under the UN Genocide Convention, by being responsible for genocide in Bosnia. The ICJ – not to be confused with the International Criminal Court (ICC) – is an organ of the United Nations that adjudicates disputes between states. Unlike the ICC, it does not determine individual criminal guilt.

The ICJ held Serbia very narrowly responsible for failing to prevent the massacres at Srebrenica and for failing to fulfill its obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in apprehending Bosnian Serb General Radko Mladic, who is accused of genocide at Srebrenica. Here are key findings:
The court concluded that there was no genocide in Bosnia, except for the massacres in July 1995 around Srebrenica. Therefore, there could be no question of FRY responsibility for genocide, except with regard to its responsibility for Srebrenica. Because the ICJ was exercising jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, it did not determine whether crimes against humanity or war crimes had been committed or FRY responsibilities for such crimes.

The FRY was not directly responsible for the genocide at Srebrenica, because the Bosnian Serb military units that carried out the Srebrenica massacres were not legally “organs” of the FRY, nor were the Bosnian Serb political and military leaders acting under the direction or control of the FRY.

The FRY was not responsible for “complicity in genocide,” a separate offense under the Genocide Convention, because it was not established that the FRY provided aid or assistance to the perpetrators at Srebrenica with knowledge that those perpetrators had the specific intent to commit genocide.

The court did, however, conclude that the FRY violated its duty to try to prevent genocide:
In view of their undeniable influence and of the information, voicing serious concern, in their possession, the Yugoslav federal authorities should, in the view of the Court, have made the best efforts within their power to try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape [at Srebrenica in July 1995], whose scale, though it could not have been foreseen with certainty, might at least have been surmised.
(Photo courtesy Ron Haviv.)

What the Committee on Conscience Staff Is Reading
The Beggar's Opera, by Vaclav Havel. Czech Republic President Havel's 1975 adaptation of British dramatist John Gay's 1728 political satire which made him a blacklisted dissenter in the Czech Communist regime (Jerry Fowler).

Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security by Kurt Campbell and Michael O'Hanlon (John Heffernan).

The Debris of Ham: Ethnicity, Regionalism, and the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, by Aimable Twagilimana (Jackie Scutari)

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell (David Klevan).

A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. Beah describes his life in Sierra Leone before and during the war as a child soldier, and the long path to rehabilitation (Lisa Rogoff).

Parade of Ghouls
Last Sunday, Parade Magazine carried its annual list of the world's worst dictators. Competition was fierce, but Sudanese murderer-in-chief Omar Hassan al-Bashir managed to grab the uncoveted title, edging out North Korea's Kim Jong-Il for the third year in a row. This officially makes the Dear Leader (who incidentally turns 65 on Friday) the Avis of evil. Well, maybe the competition is not as fierce as one might think. This year's number 4, Chinese dictator Hu Jintao, made special efforts to bolster fellow dictators like Bashir and number 7 bad guy, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Oh, and after a long period of "rebuilding," including the campaign to destroy Chechnya, Russia's Vladimir Putin managed to crack the top 20.

(Hat tip Martha H B)

(Photo of 3-time DCS (Dictator Championship Series) winner Omar al-Bashir © IRIN)

Good News About Bad News
The New York Times's Lydia Polgreen has won a prestigious George Polk Award for her coverage of Darfur. The citation lauded her for “courageous and often exclusive” reports that “gave voice to the victims of the conflict — terrified villagers and displaced survivors — alerting the world to their suffering.”

Knock, Knock
NATO troops raided the homes of Sasa and Sonja Karadzic in Bosnia early Tuesday morning. This is a bit of unfinished business from the 1990s. Their father, Radovan Karadzic, was president of the so-called Republika Srpska and is wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Along with Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military commander, he is the most notorious figure still at large. NATO troops have been in Bosnia since late 1995, and for much that time it has been believed that Karadzic was in Bosnia. An enduring question has been why NATO has not undertaken a more dedicated effort to apprehend him. (Photo © UN.)

Ancient Tribal Hatreds?
In today's Doonesbury, an Iraqi Shiite asserts that he has to have vengeance for the wrong done to his family by Sunnis in . . . 1387. An exasperated American asks, "What is the matter with you people?" In situations of mass violence against civilians, we have a tendency to want to ascribe the killing to something primordial, a deep-seated hatred that spans centuries. In part, this tendency absolves us of responsibility for responding, because any force that is powerful enough to persist for eons is irresistible. But the "ancient tribal hatreds" explanation is invariably false. Although there may be a history of conflict between groups, actual violence on a mass scale can usually be traced to strategic decisions made by specific individuals to use violence to achieve their goals. Of course, leaders using violence will often make appeals to a sense of historic injustice to justify their actions and attempt to generate support. The goal is to legitimize violence and to narrow the choices of the broader population, who like any of us would prefer peace and security to having their babies blown up. When there are violent extremists on both sides of a potential divide, the dynamic of killing reinforces itself. The strategic use of violence against civilians in Iraq is outlined in a recent report from the Brookings Institution. Money quote:
The violence is neither spontaneous nor popular. Displaced people view the most extreme religious fronts—the Office of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) on the Shi'a side, and the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and the Islamic Party on the Sunni side—as the main drivers of sectarian displacement. The displacement clearly helps further the political agenda of these extremist groups. The groups all share in fact common goals: to consolidate their territory, to maintain some of 'their' people in the territory of the 'other' and, in the context of a feeble government, to pose as both protector and provider.
None of this makes clear what is to be done. But we shouldn't take false comfort in the idea that there is something uniquely "the matter" with "those people."

Will He Or Won’t He?
Advocacy groups were up in arms last week over reports that new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was going to merge the office of special advisor for genocide prevention, currently held by Juan Mendez, into some other office. So the issue was raised with the SG by reporters on Thursday. His response:
First of all on this, I read a report suggesting that this is again an unsubstantiated report on the organization of genocide. I have not taken any action on either downgrading – this was a wrong report – and I am looking at the shortlist of nominating a successor to Mr. Mendez on this matter. I have a high priority on this very important issue, to prevent genocide.
That clarifies things, doesn't it?

(Photo of Ban Ki-Moon © UN.)

How Bad Is Chad?
We've reported a number of times on the deteriorating situation in Chad. Now the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is warning of genocide:
"We are seeing elements that closely resemble what we saw in Rwanda in the genocide in 1994 and I think we have an opportunity here to avoid such a tragedy from occurring again," UNHCR's Matthew Conway said.
Chad presents a strong case for a UN force to protect international peace and security, as violence in the east is greatly influenced by spillover from Darfur. But a UN assessment concluded last year that an international force should not be deployed until there is a peace agreement between the Chadian government and rebels, who appear to be supported by Sudan. The Security Council rejected this recommendation and asked for a re-assessment, which is due next week. But many questions remain. Would other nations be willing to contribute troops to such a volatile situation? Will Chad, which last year asked for a UN Mission, actually welcome its authorization? What will Khartoum's reaction be?

(Photo of Chadian refugees © Nicholas Reader/IRIN)

The Joke’s on . . .
So yes, I was a little skeptical of the UN Human Rights Council, because it was so long in getting around to dealing with Darfur. But then again, it decided in December to appoint a high level mission to take a little look-see. And after torturous negotiations among the members of the Council, it recently constituted the mission. (Not to worry, the 2 million or so folks on the edge of extinction have patience.) And what do you know? Khartoum won't let the mission in the country! Of course not! It includes someone who actually knows something about human rights! Was even acting UN high commissioner for human rights! Don't let him in! The truth might get out! Aighhh!!! . . . "uh, hello, this is President Bashir calling for Governor Bill Richardson, please . . ."

Page 3 of 17 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »