Genocide, Nationalism and International law.
Genocide is a heinous crime. The intentional attempt to punish or wipe out a people for any reason, be it political, religious, or racial falls foul of International conventions on genocide. Intent being the key word here.
Even in wars, whether internal between communities or external against other countries, collectively punishing an entire population for the acts of a group or a few is against international rules of war and can in some cases constitute genocide. Collective punishment of civilian populations let alone genocide are also against Islamic rules of war.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was passed by the United Nations on the 9th December 1948, and only came into force on 12th January 1951. The backdrop were the 1946 trials and punishment of Nazi war criminals behind the Jewish holocaust. Acts committed before 1948 cannot be considered for judgment and punishment, as the crime did not exist before then. The articles in the convention set out clearly what constitutes genocide under international law.[i]
If we start to look back in history, we will find many examples that fall within the modern definition of genocide. The Spanish Inquisition was nothing less than a genocide of Muslims and Jews. The attempts to wipe out native Americans and Australian Aborigines, some aspects of colonialism, the victims of Empires, and the Soviet Union’s atrocities and deportations of people would probably all constitute genocide. If we start to retrospectively define atrocities and crimes against humanity as genocide before the crime existed, then we need to be consistent and apply it to Western nations as well as others.
The task of exposing past crimes of different countries, where perpetrators have long passed away, and evidence needs to be uncovered falls to historians. It cannot simply be left to nationalist politicians bowing to public pressure. Such events also need some kind of independent due process, as even historians can be nationalist and have their own loyalties.
The Armenian Genocide.
As the Ottoman Empire crumbled, Russia and some European countries aided and abetted Ottoman Christian communities to fight for independence. Therefore, some European empires were part of those conflicts, and cannot themselves now be seen as an independent arbiter on these matters.
Ottoman attempts to keep Christian communities who no longer wanted to remain as part of the Ottoman empire, led to atrocities and massacres, collective punishment and forced deportation of the Christian Armenian population. The Ottoman obsession with becoming more like Europeans and hence keeping Christian population under their rule and in its latter centuries, played a role in the wars that led to the disintegration of the Ottoman empire.
The Young Turks who overthrew Sultan Abdul Hamid II in 1909, were Europeanised, secular, and nationalist. not Islamic. Their nationalist policy of Turkification against other communities created hatred and resistance and led to greater demands for independence.
The three Pasha’s (Talat, Enver and Jemal ) who eventually seized power of the Ottoman state; and committed it to a disastrous alliance with Germany and into the First World War, were responsible for the Armenian policy. They cannot be considered Ottoman heroes. All three fled to Germany at the end of the First World War. Mehmet Talat Pasha in particular, was seen as the architect of the Armenian policy and was eventually hunted down and assassinated by an Armenian. The Armenians had decided to take justice into their own hands. Many crimes were also committed against the local Turkish population in Armenia’s war of independence. Talaat had also played a key role in overthrowing Sultan Abdul Hamid and had previously been imprisoned by the Sultan for two years for his anti-state activities.
Post Ottoman Turkey and Armenia have been built on a century of hard nationalism. Nationalism tends to embed the notion of my country/race right or wrong, among people. This is Asabiyya and not Islamic. As such, the problem of accepting wrongdoing becomes much harder under nationalism. Countries and people must come to terms with their own history in their own ways, attempts by outside powers with a political agenda to impose their verdict on historical events tend only to lead to resistance and a nationalist defence.
Focusing on Recent History and International Crimes.
It is perhaps best if states focus on recent crimes against humanity and leave the past to historians, education, and individual nations. The United States has itself recently engaged in collective punishment of people for the acts of a few. In response to 9/11 the United States effectively punished all the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (which had no link to it) for the crimes of those who attacked the United States. Millions have been displaced by the so-called War on Terror. The loss of civilian life and displacement is hardly worth a mention. The US and UK also offer total support to the State of Israel and their treatment of its Palestinian population and its forced ethnic cleansing and colonial settlement policies. The British Prime Minister even opposes attempts to hold to account the state of Israel, in the International Criminal Court.
The Rohingya Muslims have been subject to genocide, and yet they still languish in refugee camps and there is no one to protect them inside Myanmar or hold those responsible to account. We all hear about the genocide of the Uyghurs by the Chinese state. National Parliaments unilaterally declaring genocide is a bad precedent to set, it offers no solution to dealing with the genocide. Tomorrow a Parliament will vote to decide that some Muslim country or armed group in the Muslim world is guilty of genocide. Should we just accept judgments on crimes against humanity by Parliaments? None of these votes will stop China from doing what it is doing unless followed up by actions.
There is an international process and criminal court for the prosecution of genocide and crimes against humanity. The real issue is that it is prevented from operation by the structure of the United Nations itself, which grants five permanent members and powerful nations a veto to prevent any action. As such, whilst there is international law, there is no real process for holding powerful nations and their allies to account for such crimes. That is the crux of the problem and what needs to be fixed or an alternative solution needs to be found.
Genocide and Crimes against humanity need a rule of law and due process, not to become a political football at the hands of powerful and nationalist politicians and lobby groups.
[i] The fist four articles of the 1951 Genocide Conventions.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group.
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.
Leave a Reply