Actions Speak Louder

These past couple of weeks, the world’s focus has centered around the country of Myanmar, what used to be known as Burma. There, peaceful activism had begun and been mainly led by the Buddhist monks in that country. Other than the military, monks are the largest majority group in Myanmar. They are also highly revered as religious leaders and are some of the most respected individuals. The military, however, has taken action against those monks as well as other protestors, shooting and killing many as well as blockading the monasteries so the monks cannot leave.
As most media is pointing out, the demonstrations are beginning to die out. Although many petitions have been started, and other groups are protesting around the world, it still doesn’t help if the military that have control over Myanmar is still blindly following orders from the leaders of that country. As this article points out, the greatest opportunity for change will only come if the younger generations of military officers begin to think for themselves and start to take action against the dictatorship.

What is newsworthy?

The situation in Darfur has received a disappointing and small amount of coverage from news organizations such as CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times in the past weeks, however this weeks' coverage has once again become plentiful with the tragic death of 10 peacekeepers when Darfur rebels attacked their base in Darfur. Although this is a very tragic event, it begs the question of why 10 people had to die for the media to continue it's coverage of a region that has no doubt seen countless deaths from within Darfur recently. The articles mentions peacekeepers that were taken and/or killed in Darfur, and although it is very important to talk about those who gave their lives trying to help, are the lives of those living in fear any less newsworthy?

The role of Distance

Genocide is based on distance. Distance from a particular group of people either physically, emotionally, or psychologically. Distance leads to the creation of the group as a separate entity altogether, as an “other”, different and segregated from one’s own. Psychological and emotional distance creates a sense of the other group being obsolete and this feeling leads to ordinary humans committing inhumane acts. The Germans took the help of cinema as propaganda, to spread the anti-Semitic feeling in their nation and to create a huge gap between Jews and Germans.

The cinemas that were shown inculcated a feeling of total pride of being German and a sense of total commitment and surrender to the third Reich. The cinemas the Reich used portrayed Hitler as god personified, as ruler of the people and capable of only doing good for his people. This played a huge part in the genocide that soon followed, by being one of the main means of providing a ground for conformity. A viewing of such movies, mainly Triumph des Willens, and Der Sieg des Glaubens portrays the group mentality of “Germans for the Germans”. The films show the people serving for their nation as kind, caring “individuals”, incapable of doing anything that will adversely affect their nation. They show Germans fighting some other entity with great courage to rouse a sense of pride, belonging and respect. When these films were shown, especially in Hitler Yuden camps, it is obvious that they created huge emotional barriers and enlarged the distance with the Jews.

Class speaker: Making genocide feel even closer

How richly do you know your history? How far back can you date your ancestors? Lake Forest College senior Martha Mekaelian spoke to our class on Wednesday about hers. I was so enthralled by her vivid knowledge of her family's past in the Armenian genocide.

Martha stated that she doesn't know all of her family's story because of the separation: able bodied men were sent to concentration camps while women and children were forced to walk the deserts in Syria. She also shared that she doesn't know any of her family's history before 1915 because only 1/3 of the Armenian population survived the genocide.

AYF-YOARF is an Armenian youth program that Martha participates in. Their goals are to unite the Armenian youth diaspora and work alongside the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. They hold protests each year, asking for their past to be recognized as a genocide.

She raised an excellent point in class: her history is never taught in American schools. Is a host nation responsible for providing the education of it's cultures? How can we teach all histories? It was evident that this was an issue that bothered her. I also found it very interesting that though Martha was born in the United States, she identifies herself as Armenian. I would call myself American from Polish descent. I found it intriguing that she does not do the same.

The Responsibility to Protect

Adam, I think, might find this particularly interesting.

While I was searching for a good news article to use for my blog post, I came upon this article discussing a document called the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). The main theme expressed through this doctrine is that sovereign states and the international community have a responsibility to guard people from mass killing crimes (genocides and it extends to other related mass atrocity crimes as well).

To be honest, reading over this document has made me feel a little bit torn. In general I tend to identify myself as someone that would like the genocides of the world recognized. I also feel, however, that the United States should not have to take complete responsibility for saving other nations that might be in genocidal peril. The idea that we must 'act for the sake of our own humanity' (as is stated in the doctrine) made me feel as though my viewpoint was something to be ashamed of. Needless to say, the whole thing makes me pretty uncomfortable.

The doctrine points the finger at everyone sitting idly by in the face of genocide and labels them as 'inhumane'- essentially, monsters. This approach, while powerful in evoking an emotional response, is hardly the way to go about introducing legislation. All too often the cries and pleas of people calling for a stop to genocidal madness go completely ignored. In what way would simply slapping an official title on this same point of view help bring about future change? It's like putting pretty wrapping paper on a used Ipod and trying to pass it off as a shiny new birthday gift.

Sadly, while the principals of the R2P doctrine are widely accepted and acknowledged, spoken and written words are never translated into actions. (Or if there are actions, they are often meek and not nearly to the effect that is required by the doctrine that was accepted.) To recruit a sovereign nation even halfheartedly into something remotely like R2P, the world needs to put a different spin on the old ideas. (Maybe something less accusing, for a change.)

And those are my two cents.

Where’s The Line?

At what point does warfare killings cross the line from what is necessary to Genocide. Many countries have tried to use the excuse of necessary war tactics to justify mass killings. In the case of the Armenian Genocide , Most Turks say Armenians died during wartime fighting and that the killings were necessary because the Armenians sympathized with and many fought on the side of the enemy. Of course during a war killings will happen, but we must step back and look at the manner in which these people were killed. In under no circumstances is it okay to torture, rape or mass kill people. I believe that self-defense should be the main reason for killing another during battle. A soldier should never kill another person just because of what nationality, race, or gender they are. Moreover, it is the job of the leader to make it clear that it is not the identity of the group to mass kill. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, the Turks can’t be allowed to get away with their cover-up. They are the perfect example that there is a limit to wartime brutalities. Genocidal acts are being repeated today in the Darfur region of Africa. As the number of fatalities rise, the line between right and wrong gets blurred.

Disuse of power

A genocide did indeed occur in the period from 1915 to 1918 in Armenia by the hands of the Ottoman Turks. This is the entire truth and no political issues or circumstantial evidences or any other explanations can change it. All Turkish regimes, from 1915 till present have done so, and the rest of the world has not been able to do anything, but stand by as normal by-standards. Even the UN has not been able to touch this subject with much success. This denial issue has arisen quite recently and more prominently, due to Turkey’s want to enroll as a permanent member of the European Union. The French government, a prominent member of the EU, has passed a law stating that the denial of the Armenian genocide is punishable by law and anyone convicted of this denial can be sentenced to prison. Armenia, on the other hand, has tried to rally countries into registering the events which started from 1915 as “genocidal”.

The United Nations, the prominent figure in international politics and international relations, according to the 1948 genocide convention law, has deemed the massacre a genocide. What I do not get is why there is still dispute over “if a genocide did indeed occur.” To me, this situation makes no sense at all. If a higher authoritative power, with the inclusion of most of the countries of the world, has proved that the event was a genocide then shouldn’t the decision be absolute? Turkey has denied the claims as it cannot afford to call it a genocide. I look upon this as a failure of the UN to enforce its stature in the international community. There is still confusion around even after the UN has given its decision. The French are denying Turkey admission into the EU until they face their past and own up to their deeds. This would not have been the issue if the UN had made a strong statement regarding the judgment of the genocide of 1915. The UN, the organization responsible to stop wars, to stop genocides, has not been able to enforce its own decision. Then, how can it stop any acts of evil?

Buyers Beware: Understanding the Media Feed.

All too often we are presented misleading information by the media. From possible terror threats, to training child prodigies, to linking drinking wine with curing heart disease, media sources are constantly falsely representing and misconstruing unscientific findings as falsifiable fact.

Even the most ridiculous articles are able to find their way to what should be trustworthy sources. Of course, it is necessary for every individual to be self sufficient in selecting and scrutinizing the information which is present in front of them, in order for a democracy to successfully operate. In this way; truthful sources must be sorted from skewed sources.

So, be cautious in what you read and see on TV, because there is always an agenda present, there are always alterior motives behind what gets edited, printed, taped, and presented. The difference between ignorance and knowledge is in understanding and being conscious of the information one ingests.

Forgive a killer?

Reading in the book by James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, one idea stood out to me. He says in the book that many people don’t want to study the “evil” of genocide and the ordinary people that commit it because by understanding, you run the risk of forgiving those so-called “evil” people.
The reason it stood out to me was because, from an early age, we are taught to forgive. Whether it’s a kid at school who called you a bad name or your sibling who wouldn’t let you play with a toy, if it became a big deal there was always some mediation of “Okay, now say you’re sorry,” and in response to the apology you’d forgive and at least be civil towards one another for a short time. Now I realize the enormous difference between not sharing a toy and brutally killing people, but “keeping the peace” is a natural human response, it provides cohesion within the group. As Waller points out, how else could all the soldiers fighting for Nazi Germany be able to integrate back into society? That same need for cohesion also brings out another necessary and mature quality, empathy. But how are you supposed to empathize with a person who could kill so easily?
The study that Waller brings up as an example to how people are taught to empathize is Arthur G. Miller’s experiment. It pointed out that people were more apt to understand, or at least be less judgmental, towards perpetrators of an offense after the offense was explained to them. Waller also points out that we explain things in order to make our actions justifiable, but in the end everyone is responsible of their own actions.
Whether people decide to forgive or not, there is still reason to hear the other side out. I think that understanding why people could do so much harm, maybe even how we as a society could just accept those people again, no questions asked, is something that deserves further thought.

The Media: What is their responsibility?

Media coverage of international events is essential to informing the American people. This can be applied to many different topics, more specifically genocide. The awareness of genocide is something that is in complete control of the media. Without media coverage, information would be extremely difficult to find. The average American will not go in search of information on genocide. Therefore, it must be given to them and this is a large responsibility.

With this responsibility comes discretion. There are a lot of issues involving genocide, but very few articles published. To prove my point, I looked at four prominent online newspapers. This list included: The Star Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. I searched under “genocide” for the past week and here were my results. There was anywhere between three to five articles on each source.

So where does this put the media? There is a very difficult position for them. They are responsible for informing the public about many different events, which requires a balance of various events. Which leads me to another question, where does their responsibility end and ours begin? Should the American public also be responsible for their awareness, because is it not fair to put that burden on the shoulders of the media?

Weapons For Peace?

The New York Times article I read, talks about how The United Nations Security Council unanimously approved to send up to 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur and how now the Sudanese government is hesitating with getting non-African troops. As I was reading the article, I started thinking if this really is the way to go; do more soldiers in a country facing a genocide truly help the situation? Are soldiers the real weapon for peace? How about diplomacy, negotiation, and consultation? Has the situation in Darfur really gone so far that there is nothing we can do without more armed forces and guns?
I would like to think that there is always something we can do, that there is always a way for diplomacy to solve conflicts. Unfortunately, though, I feel that there are some conflicts in the world that are not feasible to solve without any forces, or at least without a detrimental amount of humanitarian loss. On the other hand, I think that negotiation and diplomacy should not be put aside when trying to solve conflicts. Military forces such as peacekeepers should strongly cooperate with diplomats, and maybe then we can bring global conflicts like Darfur and Israel-Palestine to an end. The real weapons for peace are not guns, but well trained peacekeepers together with negotiators and consulates.

Where's The Conscience?

Where’s ones conscience in committing genocide. In class we talked about the evolution of the Super-ego , or more simply your conscience. How does this innate reaction not stop people from slaughtering other people?
Freud argues that people develop and Id, Ego, and Superego. The Id is the impulse of want; the superego is societies expectations and your conscience, while the ego is rational behavior.
In an article published by the Ohio State Journal, Joanna Montgomery Byles states: “Freud wrote of the conflict 'between the soldier's old peaceful ego and his new warlike one' becoming acute as soon as the peace-ego realizes what danger it runs in losing its own life to the rashness of its newly formed parasitic double'. Accepting the violence that is within ourselves as well as in the other, the so-called enemy is a difficult lesson to learn, and learning to displace our instinctual destructive aggression peacefully is enormously more difficult. To the extent the individual superego is connected to society, which assumes its functions particularly in wartime, the problem of war brings into focus the psychoanalytic problem of the partial diffusion (separation) of Eros and psychic aggression brought about by war through specifically social processes.” She is simply commenting on how ones superego will change in times of war or in other situational hardships.
But what about those who are heading the genocide? Their superegos are so severely warped that they don’t even no the difference between right and wrong. Society needs to stand up against these killers and make it known that mass murders are not right and will not be accepted.

What is the news supposed to do?

We rely on human relief organizations to educate us as well as to provide us with a way to reach out to those in need so why is it that websites like UNHCR provide us only with information on how many victims there are so far. It is understandable that these organizations need money in order to be able to continue to help those in need but how much good does it really do when a relief website tells us only of the work they do and not the people they help or the causes they are currently involved in. As casey so intuitively pointed out, websites like cnn.com offer mostly information on upcomming political elections and nowhere on the front page does it mention issues like Darfur.

Schools For Schools

Invisible Children is an international non-profit organization in the United States dedicated to bettering the economy of northern Uganda. The people in this small piece of the world have seen torture, starvation, and constant effects of war for the past 21 years. Because this war has lasted so long, total counts for civilian deaths reach as high as current Darfur and Cambodian numbers. Also, because this war has lasted so long, not many people realize the overall effects of this slow, mass killing process.

Schools for Schools is one of their programs working to build responsibilities and education in the minds of Ugandan children. Invisible Children gains its support through the minds of United States and international students by getting them directly involved. These schools raise money and awareness and then ship their proceeds to northern Ugandan schools. The program attempts to find the already academically stimulated institutions of northern Uganda and raise their performance even more so. The goal is to raise the education standards of northern Uganda to the level of the rest of the country. This is done by providing the proper facilities and educators necessary to make leaders and independent thinkers in the northern Ugandan society.

Just How True is Our Information?

Depending on which news source you access, you're always bound to get different results. The Boston Globe, for example, might highlight some of the better aspects of Obama's campaign. Whereas other sources, such as Fox News, will trail another particular candidate a little more closely. These differences in what the media chooses to portray and how it portrays it extends much further than simple domestic measures, however.

For example, on close examination of CNN.com I found that there wasn't a single article that referred to Darfur as 'genocide'. In fact, there weren't even two pages worth of information on Darfur. The most I was able to find was a Student News learning activity on the "crisis" in Darfur. In comparison to sites such as Save Darfur, which boldly proclaim the "crisis" as genocide on the very front page, Cnn is disappointment.

This bias in the media, which is almost always overlooked, leads you to wonder: what else are we glossing over? What else aren't we hearing about? And most importantly: why aren't we hearing about these important events? Certainly the mass murder in Sudan is newsworthy.

Who has the power over these networks to constrict the information that is given to the public?

"First They Killed My Father:..."

In my previous English class last year, we discussed about the genocide in Cambodia during 1975-1979. I was amazed by the fact that over 700,000 men of Khmer Rouge guerrilla movement, under Pol Pot’s command had caused the death of approximately 2 million Cambodians.

A book with title “First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers,” was written by Loung Ung, a Cambodian genocide survivor. The author wrote about her life prior to Khmer Rouge and how her families, friends and she had been affected from the three years of the massacre. After having read the book, I have acquired more knowledge about the genocide in Cambodia. If you are interested to know more about the Cambodian genocide, I recommend you to read this book.

One of the most difficult things about getting people involved in human relief is getting them to see that what is happening is affecting real people, so make places like Darfur and Rwanda about the faces and not about the facts. Newspapers have a duty to their readers to be informative and unbiased but there are other venues with which we are able to take full advantage while trying to advocate particular causes that allow a more personal approach and yet often provide us with the same detatched "updates" as the local newspapers. Why not utilize magazine space, and websites to provide us with personal anecdotes from regions currently frought with terror in order to show, rather than tell, us why it is that our help is so desperately needed. Websites like the Holocaust museum show us that these were actually people who deserve our time and energy and who can tell us more than any statistic.

Send In The Troops

The United Nations passed a resolution in the Fall of 2006 to send UN troops into Darfur in order to assist the African Union troops in appeasing the acts of genocide. But they were not deployed. The reason behind it is shocking and totally incongruous to the entire situation. The deployment of the troops was brought to a standstill for the simple reason that the Sudanese government did not express its consent. It did not want UN troops disrupting their calculated torture and slaughter of innocents. And the shocking thing is that their discontent to the troops actually has prevented the troops for entering into Sudan.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has stated that the UN can take appropriate actions to prevent and stop genocide. What I do not get is why the UN needs the consent of the Sudanese government, which by the way is responsible for slaughtering its own people, to stop the genocide. The obvious response to the United Nation’s proposal by the Sudanese government would have been negative. I believe that the genocide in Darfur is still going on because of this minor problem. This failure has shown to the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government that the UN is weaker and taken the element of fear out. There is no international pressure as they know that they have the upper hand. This absence of fear, I believe, has led to the continual of genocide in Darfur. The Sudanese government has nothing to fear, nothing to govern it, so it is continuing to slaughter thousands.

If the UN gets its troops into Darfur, it will definitely bring a sense of security to the general people and will bring fear in the Janjaweed and ultimately, the Sudanese government. The first step in stopping the Genocide should have been the deployment of troops in Darfur. This would have shown the Sudanese government that the international community does know and care about what is going on in Darfur and they don’t like it and they’ll do whatever it takes to stop it. Instead, the failure of this action has shown the inferiority of the UN and the superiority of the Sudanese government.

It is never too late to get troops into Darfur and stop the genocide. This is the most powerful step that can be taken.

Vacation in Rwanda?

Last week I wrote about Khartum, the capital of Sudan, and how it is growing economically every day. Happily, it is not only Khartoum that has been able to forget the horrors of genocide and move ahead on its own path, but also the country of Rwanda. As in Khartoum, big international corporations like Serena hotels have found Rwanda and are building hotels around the country. One of the main tourist attractions of Rwanda is the Lake Kivu and every year more and more people come and spend time at its beautiful coast. (see picture). Nowadays, tourism has become so big that it makes up appr. 40 % of Rwanda's GDP.

Khartoum and Rwanda could be seen as guiding examples of places that can still keep going regardless of horrifying events. I believe so, at least to a certain extent. Maybe Khartoum and Rwanda are not perfect examples of economic growth or a raise in standard of living, but no one can argue that there has not been trying. The fact that hotels are build in both Khartoum and Rwanda, shows that people living in these places are trying to move towards a better direction.

Whilst many terrible acts are taking place around the world at this very minute, people should always try to seek something better. At a time of crisis it can be hard to look for development, but as time goes by people should remember to stand up again and help each other out. For instance, Rwanda is already moving to a lot better direction only after a decade after the catastrophic genocide. The Rwandan example gives people hope of something better and helps them to move on, which all the people reading about these terrible events should remember. If the local people are ready to move on, so should the rest of the world be.

1.5 Million Die. I Am Friends With A Survivor.

About three years ago, a Cambodian girl named Sam transfered to my high school. Sam was instantly loved by all who met her. She manages to smile and laugh at any possible situation. Sam is a genuine friend with the most positive outlook on life. Perhaps this intense optimism stems from a sincere amount of appreciation. I recently learned that Sam's family was greatly affected by the Cambodian genocide in the late 1970s.

The Khmer Rouge was a Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) spin-off power. Khmer Rouge's objective in Cambodia was to recreate. This new society was intended to feed off of peasants and farmers. Cambodian's were forced to slave in rice fields (which came to be known as "killing fields") in order to produce Khmer Rouge's demands. Keep in mind that these were newly settled city folk who were relocated to the countrysides. They were inadequate in the fields and slaughtered by the thousands. Overall, 1.5 million Cambodians were killed. In the fields, they died of exhaustion, starvation, and disease.

Sam's senior research paper was about her family in Cambodia. Sam's mother, parents, and siblings were swept up in the displacement. I do not know much details to their story, but I do know that her mother was forced to work in the "killing fields" as a very young teenager. Her father (Sam's grandfather) was taken away and never seen again.

Warped Perspectives

One of the questions posed to us during class was: How could people bring themselves take the lives of innocent people during genocide? There were just normal citizens and they committed the horrific acts of genocide. The beginnings of this question can be answered in through the various studies throughout history such as the Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo and Sherif experiments.
Each of the experiments explains a small portion of the larger, general question. The Asch study tested the social pressure to conform, the Milgram experiment tested the obedience of subjects, Zimbardo tested the correlation between environments of subjects and their actions, and Sherif tested the effects of various leadership styles. Collectively, they can be used to analyze the psychology behind genocide.
After looking at each study and how each apply to genocide, it is almost frightening to see how easily people can be manipulated. All it takes is the right combination of groups with predetermined answers, uniforms, the correct environment/set up, and the right leadership to start your own genocide.

Psychiatric Terror

Psychiatric Terror: using false psychiatric diagnoses to manipulate and control political dissidents, was used by the Soviets, among others. In closed nations, where the government does not tolerate any political opposition, and the civil rights of individuals are ignored, the government is liable to treat its citizens in any way it sees fit.

In the Soviet Union, an individual suspected of conspiring against the government could be labeled as mentally ill, then could be institutionalized indefinitely. This is an abomination to the most basic rights of people. By eliminating a person's right to freely express themselves, in an effort to silence political dissension, the dehumanization which takes place borders on the level achieved in a systematic genocide. The trouble with genocide as it is defined, is that it only applies to the mass killings of a race or ethnicity. If a mass killing takes place based on political beliefs, the genocide convention cannot be applied, as it currently reads.

Also, even if the Russian government didn't necessarily 'pull the lever', it sought to remove an entire group of people from its nation. Individuals who were diagnosed with mental disorders, due to their political beliefs, were sent for years, perhaps decades to mental hospitals, or sent to work camps out in siberia. Either way, these people almost never made it out alive, and the genocide conventions need to take these other scenerios into consideration in defining what a genocide is.

Time to Help

After the Holocaust one would think that the world learned its lesson and would never let something like that happen again. However, today over 50 years later we see Genocide occurring in Sudan. The people need to start getting educated now and keep forming organizations such as STAND . Hopefully this time the world learns its lesson that genocide needs to be fought against and stopped.
But is forming awareness groups and raising money really all we can do to help? Our fellow man is being oppressed and murdered. It is not our job to turn the other cheek; we must do something because obviously the citizens of Darfur can’t help themselves. I personally believe that our focuses should be aiding Darfur’s government and not in the Middle East. How many more lives will be lost before other nations step in to relieve Darfur of this problem?

Finish the Job

In review of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” and its “Adopted Resolution 260,” and “The Rome Statute,” I believe we have the power to do more than we have accomplished thus far.

First of all, the following excerpts are taken from Article III and Article VIII of “Adopted Resolution 260:”

“Article VIII: Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs
of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United
Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of
acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III."


“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.”


Basically, what I gained after reading these two passages was that any country, “contracting party,” associated with this document can call for an investigation into the “prevention and suppression” by the Charter of the United Nations.

America authorized this treaty December 11th 1948. I then began to think to myself about Sudan and the Darfur region and what has been done to initiate an investigation via this “adopted resolution?” This is where everything became interesting:

• Sudan ratified the treaty October 13th, 2003, legitimizing a UN sanctioned search.
  
• “On February 27, 2007, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court applied to the Pre-Trial Chamber I for summonses to appear against Ahmad Muhammad Harun, Sudan’s former Minister of State for the Interior, and Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed leader in West Darfur, according to ASIL Insight:The Situation in Darfur.
  
• Even though a peace treaty and a ceasefire agreement were signed, neither side abided by their settlements.
  
• “The Application submitted by the Prosecutor alleges that Harun and Kushayb are criminally responsible for 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity” (ASIL).
  
• “The Sudanese government has made clear that it has no intention of cooperating with the ICC regarding Harun and Kushayb. Indeed, its Interior Minister, Al-Zubayr Bashir Taha, has publicly threatened to behead anyone who attempts to arrest a Sudanese official on behalf of the Court” (ASIL).

The current administration has deemed the actions in Darfur genocide. Preemptive actions have taken place through the ICC to control and counterstrike the actions of Harun and Kushayb, yet because Taha, one man, won’t allow for these two men to stand trial, millions of Darfurians have no one to hold accountable for these crimes against humanity. Are our hands tied or can we continue to fight for those who can’t?

America is Not the Only Nation Responding Slowly!

In Uganda, peace talks between the Ugandan government and the insurgent Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) aren't exactly moving quickly. Granted, these discussions take a lot of time for government officials to process and really talk out, but slow responses in the face of a violent conflict can be deadly.

Recent arguments have even been reportedly incomplete and indecisive.

It isn't just America, but many other nations that are slow to address problems occurring in even their own states. This is a problem stretching beyond people in position to help being slow to take action.

The Man Behind "Genocide"

People rarely look into the creation of a word. We use words like genocide without knowing there origin. The class was assigned reading in Samantha Power's book A Problem From Hell and learned about the story behind such a powerful word. Power wrote a great overview of the word and it's creator Raphael Lemkin.

Lemkin led an interesting and sad life. He was able to predict the awful crimes that the Nazis would commit but no one would listen to him. Most of his family would later die because of there Jewish beliefs. This pushed Lemkin in to work.

After the Holocaust Lemkin took Churchill's words to heart. Lemkin began the search for a word. He was able to come up with a term for the crime but couldn't get officials to recognize it or it's meaning. He worked non-stop for several years until it was accepted.

Lemkin played a huge role in the genocide law of today.

title

Darfur, genocide, STAND, Samantha Powers

Exempting out

Alright maybe I am just being cruel, heartless, and dismissing it as someone else’s problems, but I do not necessarily agree with always being the banker, the politician, and the police for other countries. Maybe if we adopted a more isolationist ideology regarding foreign policy, we would develop a better rapport with other countries because we wouldn’t be involved in all aspects of their government.


Some people believe that the current administration has made a mockery of the executive branch and that we can barely handle finances and policy in our own country. With this in mind, how can we judge or police other parts of the world? With our current economic state resembling a roller coaster ride it would be safe to say that more attention should be directed to stabilizing our own economy before handling all other countries problematic situations.


I am not saying that we shouldn’t take action in Darfur, or any other pre-genocide/genocide declared area, but throwing American tax dollars at situations is the escape goat for Americans who would rather send money than American forces.


Protest, donate money, but the only realistic solution for the problem is cutting the red tape of the American government and stepping on the toes of the other countries to remove those in power in Sudan.


Until then we should sit back and solve our own problems before we decide we are most adept to solve the worlds.

Khartoum - Africa’s Dubai?

This is how the capital of Sudan, Khartoum, is referred to in BBC News’ article Khartoum booms as Darfur burns by Joseph Winter. The article talks about new investments in Khartoum made by foreign investors. Many foreign investors build massive hotel complexes in Khartoum, such as the Al-Mogran project, that will directly generate 40,000 permanent jobs. Moreover, according to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the Sudanese economy will grow by 11% this year. While the capital Khartoum’s skyline is changing and creating new jobs, approximately 2000 people die in Darfur everyday.
This great distinction between the modernizing capital and the horrifying acts taking place in Darfur, makes one think whether it is morally correct that one part of a country is enjoying a boosting economy, whilst another part of the country is facing the horrors of a genocide. Is this dual morality acceptable? It can be argued that the entire country of Sudan should be concentrating on Darfur and allocating all the resources there. However, I think that it is important for a country like Sudan, to have an economic growth in order to help its citizens. “Although economic growth is hardly a panacea, it is a necessary condition, though not sufficient, to reduce poverty in extremely poor countries.” write Draper and Ramsay in their book the Good Society, emphasizing the importance of an economic growth. Nevertheless, Sudan as well as other countries should make a stop to the terrifying acts taking place in Darfur. As much as I think that Sudan should seek economic growth, the value of human life is not, or will never be, in any way comparable to any kind of economic growth.

Genocide Awareness

Genocide awareness is a major international problem. Many people are unable to comprehend that type of inhumane act and therefore it ceases to exist in their everyday conscience. It is difficult to grasp how people can live in a world where there is so much destruction and killing. Part of this blindness is our lack of awareness.
There are two parts to unawareness, not having access to information and not bothering to find out. It is ridiculously easy for people in the United States to write off the horrendous events that are happening throughout the world for a very simple reason: It doesn’t affect them.
I know from personal experience this oblivious mindset. Up until last winter, I had never heard of Darfur or the problems occurring there. It shocked me to discover that Darfur is the first time in history that a conflict has been labeled under genocide while still going on. This labeling marks the beginning of better awareness in the United States and across the world.
Sadly, this labeling of the events in Darfur is not enough to put an end to this genocide. It has been two years since President Bush declared Darfur genocide, yet it is still occurring. Awareness is not the only factor in preventing genocide.

How effective?

Why is educating people not enough? In a time when students of both the highschool and college level are being criticized for supporting a cause they don't understand, wouldn't it be a better use of our time to help make information more readily available? With organizations like STAND, why is awareness so hard to promote? And why are people donating money to a cause they know little or nothing about? Although I am referring specifically to the situation in Darfur, the level of awareness has undeniably been both a problem and an asset in almost ever single genocide that has taken place in the last century. One of the single most similarities that has taken place in these genocides is that governments did nothing until everyday citizens started noticing and publicly discussing the lack of action on the part of a government. So why not spend more time raising awareness as well as the level of discussion and promote fundraisers as a secondary prevention?

They feel helpless...but you shouldn't

Western Darfur is home to certain rebel groups identified as African and Muslim. Therefore, the Sudanese government (claimed Arab) has removed nearly 2,500,000 ordinary African and Muslim civilians from their villages and properties.

A similar story: Carl dates three girls over the course of two years. All three relationships have ended because the girl has cheated on Carl. Carl then decides that all women are the same and he begins to steal from them, burn their homes down, and murder them.

Does this make sense to you?

Don't feel helpless because Darfur is so far from your everyday life. Become one of many who is attempting to right the world with human rights organizations. Raise awareness in our community. A team of runners is doing just that in Washington D.C. to raise money and save lives. Tell UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to urge a "peacekeeping force" by signing an online petition. Simple acts will not go unnoticed.

When the rest of the world recognizes the severity of Darfur's situation, we can begin to right the wrong. It's evident that this mass killing is not just and the more people that know about it, the more we can do to help. Past the stage of prevention, it is now time to intervene.

We Are One

To belong to a group and to be accepted, is the greatest desire we all have. Through out human history, this basic human desire has proved to be devastative. All the wars that have been fought, all the genocides that have ever occurred, involved normal human beings who were turned into mere puppets, incapable of individual thoughts and actions.

The experiments done by Asch and Milgram show that individuals in a focused group conform to the thoughts and the mentality of the entire group, even if they may have conflicting viewpoints. When people are part of a group, for example, of an armed militia, they portray the group and not they themselves as individuals. The judgment of the people involved isn’t changed. What is changed is their perception of a situation. They see the situation through the eyes of the group, not their own. So, all their acts are justified and ratified. That is why even normal people perform inhuman acts. Even the heinous act of killing another human being is justified and even glorious. Their own death is considered a rightly deserved prize of credit and martyrdom. The thoughts they portray, the actions they perform are not their own but of their group.

The main question is “how are normal people capable of doing such heinous acts?” The answer to that is their “collective group mentality” and the social pressure they face. These factors mould them as a part of a group and their individuality and their idiosyncrasies are lost. So, they are part of a group, they are the group, not individuals. The justification of all their actions by distribution of guilt or even absence of it has fuelled all the acts of death and destruction and is responsible for them.

Why do people blindly conform?

When I think about genocide the main question that comes to my mind is, how can people not speak up and stand up the oppressed? This question was made a little clearer to me in class when we discussed the Asch study in class. A group was given a set of lines and had to determine what ones were of equal size. Although there was one clear answer a majority of the group went with the wrong answer just because that is what everyone else picked.
This relates to Genocide because it demonstrates to what effect people will conform to a group. To relate it to a larger event, one could say that this relates to the Nazi regime. People likely disagreed with Hitler’s extreme methods but no one dared say anything. This power of coercing a group to do what you want to do is how the Holocaust was one of the greatest genocides the world has ever or will ever see.

Yes, Sir!

[Disclaimer: I wasn't sure whether it would be okay to post about this topic (that being, a closer examination on how uniforms and being part of a larger organization/group shapes the thoughts/minds of those involved) , but allow me to explain myself before this entry is judged 'not relevant.' One of the criteria that we're allowed to use is the 'Definition of Genocide'. I consider my topic a subset of 'Defining Genocide' because it talks about those that actually carry out the genocide (perhaps adding a reason for why they would do so.) Genocide is certainly illustrated in part by those that actually commit it. So please, take this idea into consideration when relevance is decided. Well, and without further adieu...]

When someone puts on a uniform, what happens? It was made clear by Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment that the students involved (either as guards, or prisoners) changed drastically when set into their respective roles. Several of the students posing as guards adopted an almost sadistic approach to disciplining those that were in reality, their equals.

So what caused the change?

Philip Zimbardo and other colleagues involved argued that the instant those students put on their guard uniforms, certain facets of self-perception were molded. Everything that the students knew about the role of a 'guard' (perhaps with knowledge derived from movies, novels, police dramas...) came into play in deciding their behavior. Ignoring for the moment about the few students that remained passive, this leaves the question- how does a uniform invoke feelings of (to be redundant) uniformity?

The way that I delved deeper into this question was by investigating the idea of the effects of wearing school uniforms on students. Ironically, uniforms in this case were used to help solve the problem of rising numbers of cases of school violence. This tactic worked very well in decreasing school violence. As a result, to the chagrin of many students across the country, more uniform policies are being instigated in schools across the country with every passing day.

So- uniforms do not merely bring about violence, they can also encourage good behavior as well. This brings us back to the real questions at hand: why do uniforms encourage any form behavior at all? Where do our conceptions attached to different uniforms come from? And these same questions are very much relevant to the perpetrators of genocide as well.

For the students in their uniforms to the Nazi's involved the Holocaust killings, and the regular citizens registering themselves under the political Nazi mindset-- the answer for why uniforms manifest in any kind of behavior is the same. Uniforms create a sense of belonging.

According to Arnold Goldstein, Ph.D, the way uniforms work is that they "allow for troubled individuals to feel a part of a more supportive whole." In a sense, the uniforms are a mechanism for the vulnerable to find some measure of inner 'peace' (even at the extent of the lives of other humans.)

Once should have been enough

The 20th century has seen an explosion of genocide, of different races by different leaders and different groups all over the world. But one thing all these genocides have in common is the United States' astounding ability to ignore them.

Take, for example, the Armenian genocide. It says in our textbook, A Problem from Hell, that the United States refused to take action against the Turks despite numerous accounts of their cruelty, some of them coming from the U.S. ambassador in Turkey, Henry Morgenthau. Even The New York Times reported on what was happening to the Armenians, albeit the stories that were told were always given a certain amount of discredibility by cautioning the reader that those stories were pieced together or not from "credible" sources. The United States chose to ignore the horrors coming from Europe in order to stay isolated because the majority of the American public had no interest in becoming involved in a war, especially one that was overseas and seemingly had nothing to do with the United States.

The Armenian genocide was almost a hundred years ago, but I still feel the impact of so many deaths that were never acknowledged. Most likely it's because there have been so many other genocides besides the one in Turkey, more recent and more awful in the sheer numbers of lives lost. And time and time again, the United States ignored the obvious. There were first-hand witnesses that were brushed aside because what they spoke of was "unimaginable." Pictures shown to various officials who said that the people shown in them were blurry, not specific enough to truly point to genocide. How is genocide made imaginable, made obvious? One way is to keep pointing out the signs, keep spreading the word that genocide has happened, is happening, and will happen again if the "unimaginable" isn't imagined and prevented. Too many lives have been lost, some lives that haven't even been counted, while major countries that could make a difference, like the United States, ignore the facts. While you search and learn about genocide, remember this: Facts speak for themselves, but not if they are kept to yourself.

America's Genocide

At the end of one class, Professor Krantz assigned reading in a book called Becoming Evil. This book by James Waller looks at how the average person could commit the terrible acts of genocide. The different points it brings up are really interesting and I recommend it to all.

Waller writes about many psychological experiments and their outcomes but keeps humanity in his book with actual events at the end of each chapter. The event after the first chapter was about America's own genocide against the Native Americans. This was a subject that I did not know much about. My education prior to this class covered the relocation of Native Americans but never the brutal force and killings. I was shocked by what Mr. Waller had written. I had never heard of such extreme instances committed against the Native Americans. I'm a little disappointed in myself for not realizing the destruction that occurred. The neighborhood I grew up in is actually situated on the Trail of Tears and I was still ignorant to this. It is devastating to read some of the things that happened. Maybe I am the only one that missed this in their schooling but I don't think that is the case.

I believe that it is important for all of us to look at past situations to truly understand and take care of current predicaments. So, do some reading, learn about America's own genocide and become aware.

Too Easy To Pull the Lever.

Of the four studies we spoke about in class yesterday, the one which seemed most profound to me was the Milgram study. This was the study which sought to illustrate the willingness of an individual to follow through with the orders of an authority figure, even if their conscience would instruct them to do otherwise.

The individual in the experiment would be told they were assisting in a program that reinforces teaching by administering an electric shock to a student, each and every time the student made a mistake. With a board of shock switches in front of them, the individual would flip a switch based on the commands of an administrative adviser to the program. This would be the test of an individual's obedience to an authority figure.

What was so confounding to me was the fact that despite the apparent pain that the individual was inflicting upon the student, at times sounding excruciating, the individual, in nearly two thirds of the cases, would go all the way through the entire board of switches.

The seems to be a very clear illustration of how individual german citizens were able to comply with the atrocities commited in the holocaust, how every day citizens could do the unimaginable.

genocide

I am resoponding to the log link wich states what we are doing as a class. it focuses on the gencides of sudan and darfur.

New solutions to old problems

The genocide in Darfur, Sudan has caused many to raise another question: why is it my problem? Furthermore, what can I do?

Yet the action of students, policy experts, and advocates has kept Darfur on the radar screens of government officials. For those who have no faith that this movement is making progress, meet the Responsibility to Protect, a document that many governments have accepted but has yet to be effectively implemented. You'll see this new approach to preventing genocide in the tools that STAND and the Genocide Intervention Network have developed.

While it's important for us to take immediate action to end the genocide in Darfur (you can do so be clicking here, here, or here), it's also important to put in place a long-term system to raise awareness about genocide prevention and empower students to ensure this system is implemented.

The first step is education. The students in this class are from all over the world. They represent different backgrounds, interests, and talents. They're here to show you that there's a way to translate knowledge in the classroom to action in the world.

So meet the First-year studies students of Professor Krantz, hear what they have to say, and join the discussion!