Raphael Lemkin

Raphael Lemkin was the man who virtually created the word genocide, and then went on to secure acceptance of the term by the UN. If Lemkin was alive today how do you think he will react regarding the ongoing mass killings and/or genocides?

Raphael Lemkin was the one who made the world realised that states are capable of murdering their own people, not because of their political differences, but because of who they are (e.g. because they are the bourgeoisies, intellectuals, belonging to certain ethnic or religious groups etc). Lemkin advocated that the world has responsibilities to prevent and punish such perpetrators.

Lemkin was a Polish scholar who had mastered 9 languages by the age of 14. As a young boy, Lemkin first encountered the concept of intentional mass murder when news of Turkey killing the Armenians reached Poland. When he became a Public Prosecutor, he tirelessly pushed for the “destruction of national, religious, and racial groups” to be declared as “an international crime alongside piracy, slavery, and drug smuggling”. He proposed for a ban on the mass slaughter but his efforts were mocked by the League of Nations.²

Lemkin went to the US when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. When he was in the US, Lemkin once again pushed for his ideology to be recognized. He accelerated his efforts when he learnt that 49 members of his family died in the Holocaust. In 1944, Lemkin used the word genocide in his book “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe”. The word was finally recognized by the UN in 1946 but Lemkin did not stop there. He further advocated an international treaty to be formulated to prevent and punish the crime in time of peace and war. Lemkin died from a heart attack in 1959, in poverty and exhausted from his pursuit to bring justice to the victims of genocide.

The International Treaty

Lemkin’s dream of having an international treaty finally came true when the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute entered into force in July 2002. The ICC was set up to deal with the most serious crime of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There are now 105 countries who have agreed to be bound by the ICC. However, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed only on or after July 2002.³

As of January 2008, the ICC has launched investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The ICC has also issued public arrest warrants for ten individuals; five of these suspects remain free, two have died, and three are being held in custody of the Court.⁴

For crimes that were committed before the ICC Statute, they are tried in ad hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Nuremberg Trials etc.

Lemkin’s Reaction

If Lemkin was to be alive today, he would be appalled that there are still mass murders despite the promulgation of the Genocide Convention, the ICC and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principles. In fact, since the enforcement of the Genocide Convention in 1948, there have been at least 55 genocides and politicides.⁵ More than 70 million people have died in genocides but only a handful has been prosecuted under the ICC and ad hoc tribunals.

Lemkin would also be disappointed that the ICC has limited power to bring justice to the victims of mass murders.

As of 17 October 2007, there are 105 States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Countries like the US, China, India, Singapore etc are still not members. Meaning, these countries cannot be prosecuted if they ever commit state murders. More importantly, countries that have not ratified and acceded to the ICC Statute may not feel obliged to prevent genocides and punish the perpetrators.

The ICC relies on the cooperation of the States Parties to investigate and prosecute the crimes. From its web site, the ICC says that⁶

“States Parties are obliged to cooperate fully with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions. States Parties may cooperate in, inter alia, arresting persons wanted by the Court, providing evidence for use in proceedings, relocating witnesses, and enforcing the sentences of convicted persons.”

Way back in 1946, Lemkin had called for an independent, international machinery to prevent and punish genocides because he recognised that these crimes were committed by the states, or that the perpetrators were state-sponsored. Yet the ICC has been designed to rely on the States Parties for investigations and prosecutions. Reading between the lines, this means that the ICC cannot be effectively used to stop genocides (because the states-concerned will not cooperate with the ICC), but only to prosecute after the genocides (if the states-concerned are co-operative, that is).

Lemkin’s dream of preventing and punishing genocides did not go very far since his death.

References

1. Picture of Raphael Lemkin taken from http://www.duke.edu/web/rightsatduke/raphaellemkin.html
   
2. http://www.duke.edu/web/rightsatduke/raphaellemkin.html
   
3. http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/establishment.html
   
4. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
   
5. Gregory Stanton, “Factors Facilitating or Impeding Genocide” (paper presented at the conference on “Ultimate Crime, Ultimate Challenge – Human Rights and Genocide”, Yerevan, Armenia, April 20 – 21, 2005)
   
6. http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/cooperation.html
   

The Old Indian and the two Wolves

An old Indian tells his grandson a story about a tragedy that happened during his life. He tells him that he thinks about the tragedy often, even though it happened such a long time ago

The grandson asks his grandfather what he feels when he thinks about the tragedy?

The old Indian answered “It is as if two wolves are fighting within my heart” “One of them is angry and full of revenge, and the other is forgiving and a heart full of love!”

The grandson asks him “and which of the wolves in your heart will win the fight”?

The old Indian took a long deep breath and answered…

“The one that I feed!”

 

Ref: http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2008/05/01/quote-of-the-day-87/

They’re Africans … nobody cares!

 

The United Nations said on 22 April 2008 that as many as 300,000 people may have died in Darfur¹. The war in West Sudan started in 2003 and despite the many interventions from the UN, civil society groups and the celebrities, the war in Darfur worsens. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently acknowledged that the situation in Darfur “persists at extreme and unacceptable levels”.²

The international community has been careful in describing the war in Darfur to be genocide, although the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has declared it to be one in 2004. The UN Commission of Inquiry has refused to recognise the conflict as a genocide, saying that it is “crimes no less serious and heinous than genocide”.

Be it a war, humanitarian crisis or genocide, the world regularly reads about the atrocities in the news. The Janjaweed rebels are torching the villages, executing civilians indiscriminately, raping the women to produce “whiter” babies³ and making the women sex slaves. Kudos to the efforts of George Clooney, Mia Farrow and other A-list actors, people are aware of the crimes and they are trying to stop it. Civil society groups are pressuring the Bush Administration to do more, Steven Spielberg withdrew from the Beijing Olympics as artistic adviser to protest against China’s inaction towards Darfur etc.

But the efforts of the bystanders seem futile. The UN is still unable to honour its pledge of sending 26,000 troops to Darfur (there are only 9,000 troops now and they lack the essential resources to stop the crime). The various governments are not getting together to address this issue. The world leaders have agreed on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle in 2005, that the international community has a responsibility to act when governments fail to protect their own peoples. But no country is sticking her neck out to push for this cause.

There is news that the Janjaweed is extending the violence to Southern Sudan. There are also reports from the NGOs that there are genocides right now in Kenya, Chad and Congo. And just yesterday, the church leaders from Zimbabwe warned that organised crime has been unleashed in the country, and the world will see another genocide in Zimbabwe if nothing is done to help them.⁴

The world cannot stop the crimes in Darfur despite UN’s intervention since 2005 and the high-profile public outcry. Is it realistic to further rely on the world to save Kenya, Congo, Chad and Zimbabwe?

My friend has said to me, “be realistic, they’re Africans … nobody cares!” Sadly, it seems to be so.

 

 

 

1. http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/04/22/africa/OUKWD-UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-UN.php
2. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/africa/news/article_1398416.php
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16001-2004Jun29.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23zimbabwe.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=zimbabwe+genocide&st=nyt&oref=slogin