Is recognition of Genocide in the eye of the beholder?

On Wednesday July 8, 2015, Russia vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council resolution that would have formally recognized the Srebrenica massacre as genocide. The resolution was commemorating 20 years of the Srebrenica genocide, which was proposed by the UK and provoked a firestorm of controversy in Serbia and the Republika Srpska as somehow existentially threatening the Serb people, and which was finally vetoed by Russia in the Council. Russia voted down the proposal in response to Serbian President’s request. Russia’s U.N. ambassador, called the resolution a “confrontational and politically motivated” attempt by its sponsors, including the United States and Britain, to blame one side for the many atrocities committed during the 1990s Balkans conflict. The killing of some 8,000 Muslim men and boys in 1995 by Bosnian Serb troops has been described as the worst massacre in Europe since World War Two. The rejection of the above resolution reminds me of the hot debate that preceded the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in which the UN member states were unwilling to establish another international tribunal after International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The informal discussions showed that, if the ICTY had not been set up, ICTR would not have been established. Both instances raise crucially important questions: Can recognition of genocide be subjective? Does genocide have internationally recognised constitutive elements? Who has authority to decide whether mass atrocities amounted to genocide? On the contrary to voting down formal recognition of Srebrenica massacre as ‘genocide’ at the UN level, a UN tribunal (ICTY) based in The Hague has already convicted numerous persons of genocide in relation to the Srebrenica killings, which is a subsidiary organ of the UN Security Council. The Srebrenica killings were similarly recognised by International Court of Justice (also the UN World Court). More importantly, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide provides that genocide is means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The definition of genocide is incontrovertibly recognised internationally. It is upon those constitutive elements, in addition to the specific factual scenarios, that ICTY convicted some individuals of genocide. This inconsistency in qualifying the targeted killing of men, women, and children by government institutions and everyday people for the purpose of eliminating them as a group—as genocide—reflects that international politics is inextricably intertwined with international justice system. Turning to Rwanda’s case, the UN Security Council, in utter shame, adopted resolution 955 establishing the ICTR as a response to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi due to its inaction to avert humanitarian catastrophe. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda and neighbouring countries by Rwandans throughout 1994. The establishment of the ICTR was a measure to restore peace and security by forging a sense of justice; nevertheless, the UN deserves little, if any, credit precisely because it was a measure taken after failing to discharge its responsibility in the first place. At this juncture, some of the genocide perpetrators are still shuttling around the world and have never been brought to justice. As ever disappointing Rwandans, no measures have been taken against countries harbouring them. It is very likely that some of the perpetrators may go unpunished throughout the remainder of their lives. There is a general lack of willingness by some countries to prosecute the suspects or extradite them to Rwanda. Again a question arises: why doesn’t UN, particularly the UN Security Council, adopt a binding resolution compelling all countries that provided a safe haven to genocide suspects to prosecute them or hand them over to Rwanda? In fact, the international community’s inaction portrays cynicism and indifference as opposed to hierocracy. It is utterly unfair to see that international community merely pays lip service where urgent action is desperately needed. Against that backdrop, the prevention of genocide was first figured on the agenda of the United Nations virtually from the organisation’s very beginning. Resolution 96(1), adopted at the initial session of the General Assembly, pledged the organization to prevent and punish genocide. It called for the preparation of a treaty on the subject. Two years later the General Assembly adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, its very first human rights treaty. Genocide is not in the eye of the beholder. Genocide is the ultimate crime and the gravest violation of human rights it is possible to commit. Genocide is horrible, an abomination of our species, and totally unacceptable. Genocide is the vilest, most abhorrent form of aggression. And it is one of the most serious crimes that shock human conscious and the foundation of the international community. As such, recognition, prevention and punishment of genocide is a moral and legal obligation incumbent upon all states to act individually or collectively. And no single country is immune to genocide. The writer is lecturer and international law expert.

Opinions

Is recognition of Genocide in the eye of the beholder?