Genocide: Never Again?
More than a million people have been victims of genocide in the past ten years, despite countless promises by world leaders and international organizations that never again would such tragedies be allowed to occur. Moreover, talk of genocide remains ever-present in the news. Tolerance.ca ® decided to probe deeper into the question and met with experts on the topic.
When World War II ended in Europe on May 8, 1945, the murder of approximately two-thirds of European Jewry was revealed to the world. The attempted annihilation of an entire people required a definition to explain what had occurred in legal terms. The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lempkin, a Polish-Jewish refugee in the United States, who further lobbied for a binding legal document which would make genocide punishable by international law. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (…)” and goes on to list such acts. The Holocaust also led to the first international tribunal with the Nuremberg Trials, setting a precedent for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and later the International Criminal Court, established in 1998 as an independent, permanent court that tries people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
According to Frank Chalk, professor of history at Concordia University and co-founder of the Montreal Institute for Human Rights and Genocide Studies (MIGS), to many people genocide represents everything evil that happens in the world, whether it's abuse of women and children, human rights violations, or other crimes all the way up to the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust. “The basic concept is that genocide is something evil and that most of the things we oppose represent genocide.” That’s one reason Professor Chalk has increasingly begun to emphasize the parallel importance of crimes against humanity. “That relieves a lot of the frustration and tension in the discovery that not everything is genocide but that crimes against humanity also allow for prevention and intervention.”
François Crépeau, Director of the Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM), explains, “Genocide is a crime of intent; it is the will to annihilate an entire people. There could technically be genocide without one death. And there could be a massacre of hundreds of thousands without it being genocide.”
The problem arises when the debate over whether genocide is occurring becomes an excuse for doing nothing. “The main reason there has been no international intervention in Darfur is political,” explains Peter Leuprecht, Director of the Institut des études internationales de Montréal (IEIM) at l'Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM). “The argument of legal qualification of international crimes is futile. It’s not what matters. What’s important is to realize that these are crimes under international law.”
According to Frank Chalk, the focus needs to be redirected to mass atrocity crimes, which include genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes and gross violations of human rights. “They all signify that a society is really in trouble.” He adds, “At the end of the day intervention doesn't just have to be intervention for genocide. Nor does it have to be armed intervention.”
The question remains: why can’t we prevent genocides? François Crépeau suggests that there is a refusal to intervene in the internal affairs of a state in a preventive manner because it is seen as a potential violation of territorial sovereignty. Peter Leuprecht adds that there is no political will on the part of world leaders to act, such by applying Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unless there is some interest for them.
Yet this lack of political action is what frustrates today’s youth. Perhaps the biggest disappointment for young people concerns Darfur. It’s hard to get information on the current conflict and debate continues as to whether it is really genocide. Nonetheless, it is clear that people are being killed and the international community seems to be sitting idle. Julie, an Education student at the Université de Montréal, sighs, “I feel completely powerless. Traditional means by which people express themselves—rallies, petitions—I’ve never seen proof that this works.” She feels that politicians could do something if they wanted to, but it remains a matter of priorities. She thinks that Canada’s philosophy and policy of foreign aid have changed and are no longer in the right place. Most exasperating for her remains the oft-repeated promise by politicians that crimes against humanity and genocide will not happen again.
Do the words “Never Again” still have meaning?
For Yvette, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide in her early twenties, the words “Never Again” no longer have any meaning. “Genocides continue to occur. Does the international community have more of a conscience today? Yes, people are becoming aware, but are we actually doing something to stop other genocides from happening? In my humble opinion, the answer is no. Had the words ‘Never Again’ been heeded, I wouldn’t have lost my father twelve years ago”, she adds.
“‘Never Again’ is a utopian statement,” says David, a Master’s student at the Université de Montréal. “Sure, it’s filled with good intentions not to repeat the horrors of the Holocaust. But human nature is, in my opinion, barbaric, and so this assertion is wishful thinking rather than a realistic goal.”
Pauline, of Rwandan origin and a Master’s graduate of UQÀM, sometimes wonders if the words “Never Again” are nothing but rhetoric. “Yet it is also an ideal that we want to attain and so we can’t just stop saying it. Still, as much as I want to believe in these words, I sometimes just can’t allow myself to believe in them anymore.”
Julie adds that there is not enough talk about current massacres or crimes against humanity. “Weirdly, we talk a lot about the past, about the Armenian genocide and so forth. But we have to be conscious that it’s happening in the present. We keep saying ‘Never Again’ but we never look at it through today’s lens, always to the past.”
How does she feel about France’s decision of October 12, 2006, to make denial of the Armenian genocide illegal? Julie feels that it is ridiculous to legislate on such a topic. Freedom of expression is important to her. Besides, she feels, those who harbour revisionist thoughts will continue to do so. “That means we have to think of other ways to limit, but not like this.”
François Crépeau shares this opinion. “Freedom of expression comes first. As long as denial remains an opinion, and not part of hate speech, it doesn’t bother me. There are people out there who believe in lots of things, and genocide denial is often just another misguided opinion. Incitement of hatred, on the other hand, is different. It creates social problems, but that’s hate speech and that belongs in another tribunal, where measures have to be taken accordingly.”
Chris, a 24-year old student at Concordia who volunteers as a docent at the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum, thinks that France’s decision only does a disservice to the cause. “I think when you make anything illegal, it just gives it more of a platform. The trial of David Irving, a British Holocaust denier, gave him more popularity and more opportunities to spread his thoughts. I’m a huge proponent of free speech. The lack of logic behind denial means it will not come through, no matter what. I think whenever you make things illegal that’s a recipe for disaster.”
David believes that as long as denial remains a historic interpretation and not the leitmotiv for a menacing political doctrine, it should not be illegal. “I don’t see any harm for it to remain in the realm of intellectual debate. We just have to make sure that it doesn’t become a mainstream way of teaching official history.”
“It’s not just an issue of Germans against Jews,
it’s an issue of people against people”
Chris explains that he became a volunteer docent at the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum to teach about the Holocaust. “It isn’t just about passing on history,” he explains, “it’s that history has shown us that it’s not just an issue of Germans against Jews, it’s an issue of people against people.”
For Chris, the universality of the Holocaust is crucial. “We are all capable of what happened and we need to work to overcome that. If it was just a history lesson and everyone had learned it, we wouldn’t have Cambodia, we wouldn’t have Rwanda, we wouldn’t have Yugoslavia or Sudan right now.”
For Joshua Greene, producer and director of the documentaries Witness: Voices of the Holocaust and Hitler’s Courts, there are many parallels to make and much to learn from history. “It doesn’t mean that what’s happening now is the same, but history can make us reflect on today.” For example, he views the present political talk about national security with a sceptical eye, aware that those very words have often been used, and not always with positive results.
Chris tries to teach about the Holocaust in terms of the present. One example he sometimes brings forward in his tours is the U.S. poll (“America On Guard,” TIME Magazine, October 8, 2001) that came out after September 11, indicating that 31% of the US population did not object to putting U.S. citizens of Arab descent in camps until it was determined whether or not they had links to terrorist organizations. “That’s nearly a third of the population thinking this way!” exclaims Chris, who is American. “That’s something I want them to see and think about, that people are still willing to send people to camps because they’re part of a group. This is something that is part of our reality.”
Julie, a future teacher, realizes the importance of education but believes the focus should be less on genocide itself and more on how it all began. “What was in people’s minds, why did everything evolve the way that it did? How can you educate people before it is too late?”
Frank Chalk thinks often about that question. He finds that the best way would be to introduce more information in high school curricula so that students could at least learn the basic concepts of human rights, crimes against humanity and genocide. “I think there is a lot of interest and a lot of scope, but I am very concerned that teachers who teach about these matters should have good training before they do it.”
Pauline adds that the educational system should integrate other civilisations, other ways of living and other religions. “Because people here aren’t aware of the world beyond their scope, when they hear that there’s say, a genocide unfolding in Darfur, it doesn’t really affect them.”
What place does genocide have in university curricula? Francois Crépeau explains that while it has relatively weak importance on an academic level, it is a subject that is taught at an undergraduate level at Faculties of Law among others. Yet it is at a graduate level that the concept of genocide is really expanded upon. Peter Leuprecht adds that while studying on human rights or genocide is not mandatory in universities, interest has certainly risen in recent years. “It is essential to teach about these topics,” he notes. “War and peace, intolerance and tolerance: the root of genocides lies in the hearts and spirits of men, so that is where we must build the basis of a pacifist and tolerant society.”
Leuprecht continues: “It is essential to have a memory and maintain the memory because a society without memory may not have a future. I think many young people know very little about history and I think here it’s worse than in Europe.”
For her part, Pauline feels that education in Canada isn’t about critical thinking. “Nowadays people aren’t taught to learn to think. If you study, if you’re in school, it’s because you’re going somewhere. And we’re constantly taught to push further in our careers. So we’re technically educated, but we’re not taught to be critical thinkers. There’s more to life than a career.”
She continues, “Sometimes we need to take a step back in our lives. To ask ourselves why we are who we are, why we are going where we are going. We study to do better, not to be better. And I find that really sad.”
Peter Leuprecht has similar views. “The most important thing today is to be informed and to be alert. We must have a critical view of power, of the State, of the law. What we need, what we really need, are critical citizens.”
To Learn More (books in English)
Marrus, Michael. The Holocaust in History. Toronto: Lester & Opran Dennys, 1987.
Power, Samantha. A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Perennial, 2003.
Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law. Crime of Crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Books in French
Delacampagne, Christian. Une histoire du racisme. Des origines à nos jours. Paris : Librairie générale française, 2000.
Marrus, Michael, L’Holocauste dans l’histoire. Paris : Flammarion, 1994.
Ternon, Yves. L’innocence des victimes au siècle des génocides. Paris : Desclée de Brouwer, 2001.
This article is part of a series on the diversity of values and religious beliefs in colleges and universities and is presented with the financial support of:
* Julie, a student in Education, and Yvette, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide. Photo by Gunther Gamper.