You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2013.
By JARED KNOLL
Much of your work has focused on ethnic aspects of conflicts, genocides and politicides… do you feel the role of this sort of lens has changed since you started out in the field? Do you see or foresee any potential challenges or problems in the way of this approach?
I co-authored a book on ethnic conflict and suggested that these types of conflicts have the potential to escalate into genocide (as in Rwanda), but so do other conflicts such as revolutions (see Cambodia) and adverse regime change (such as in Chile, which turned into a politicide). During the late 70’s and early 80’s, most genocide scholars (meaning all approx. 10 of us) thought that any combinations or a single factor such as ethnicity, race, or religion were a necessary condition in most genocidal situations, given the wording of the Convention. However, when I began collecting information on the 46 cases that eventually became the data set used by State Failure (now Political Instability Task Force), it became apparent that victims sometimes were members of mixed ethnic groups and that perpetrators targeted them because they belonged to political opposition groups. Cambodia was a classic example, where most victims and perpetrators were ethnic Khmers — only a minority of victims belonged to different ethnicities, such as the Chams, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Cambodia was a reason that I coined the term politicide, which suggests that victims not only could be members of multiple identity groups but were primarily targeted because of their political affiliation. Of the 46 cases that I identified post WWII, many are mixed cases. For example, the Kurds in Iraq and indigenous Maya that supported the left in Guatemala.
Your work has been seminal, influencing an indeterminably wide swath of policy and scholarship… have you been particularly disappointed with any of the frameworks, policies, or concepts that have been built upon your ideas?
There are other scholars who have contributed more. I am especially thinking of my friend and mentor Helen Fein, the late Leo Kuper, Frank Chalk, and others. We have listened to each other, critiqued, cited, and supported one another’s efforts. We have built a discipline and it is now possible to get jobs in good universities, which was not a necessary truth in the 1980’s. As a Northwestern PhD, (according to my professors) I should have been at a major research university but the most frequently asked question at the time during interviews was, “What is that stuff you are doing?”.
How could I be disappointed? Systematic analysis is flourishing in Australia, Canada, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US—the Albright/Cohen report mentions my risk assessment and early warning efforts as something that needs doing and risk assessment is done routinely not just by me but in the US government and others. The UN (I had provided them with a framework and regular risk assessments) is a bit behind despite their talented personnel. That probably has much to do with antiquated opinions about quantitative analysis, as well as politically motivated leadership in related UN offices. When Juan Mendez became Adviser to the UN, he and his two associates visited me at my home in Annapolis to see how we could work together. I am not just a number cruncher but also a case study person and a specialist on the Middle East. Moreover, having been born into a leftist German family, I am also quite familiar about European affairs. A genocide scholar is/should not be bounded by either discipline or approach. My dissertation focused on prevention using legal philosophical arguments, but grounded in international law, and it also included an empirical exercise in which I tested empathy in different societies using fictional scenarios that had a historical base.
My/our work has caught on beyond expectations. Genocide is a household word — we have seen action in many situations and the recognition that systematic risk assessment and early warning are ever more needed is apparent. Aside from an African initiative, other governments have proceeded to establish their own centers. Why not indeed emulate the hard sciences instead of dabbling in case study-based analysis of specific situations? We do it globally based on accepted wisdom regarding dozens of cases. It is not too hard to generate good data, develop hypotheses based on theory, and then test assumptions. We/I have tested dozens of variables (including economic and environmental variables) that purport to support escalation to genocide. In addition, I developed a complex early warning model that used dynamic factors to track that evolution. For example, we tracked hate propaganda, small arms deliveries, etc. on a daily basis.
Your term and idea of politicide has not caught on as much as it perhaps could have in the international community. Are policymakers and scholars hamstringing themselves from potentially greater efficacy by not considering the targeting of political groups as a more important factor? Where would you like to see this focus brought to bear in today’s climate of conflict?
Why is there not more international action? Because, to use my old mantra, we do not know what remedies that tap state capacity and interest work in what situations at what time. What worked in Macedonia does not work in Syria. I made that argument many times and have developed response scenarios based on my early warning analysis, but much work remains. Just think of Burma—in the past, it was one of the worst case scenarios. I had argued for lifting sanctions to incorporate that country into the international community of states. There was a huge black market, and sanctions did not work—they more often make it harder for the already poor—and the West had zero influence but ASEAN, China, and Japan did—things are getting better.
Are you optimistic that the genocidal trends you’ve studied for three decades are diminishing? Can you realistically envision a world where we have early warning systems adequate to the task of completely circumventing mass atrocities?
For the time being, the occurrence of genocides are diminishing. But over the long run, I am pessimistic. The West may have a learned a few more lessons after Bosnia but Africans will be challenged by Muslim radicals—see Mali, Northern Nigeria, the 10th century maps of Islamic expansion. I am deeply disturbed by the emergence of right-wing movements in Europe that occasionally spout anti-Jewish rhetoric. In addition, there are indigenous peoples still under threat of annihilation, ethnic cleansing, and extreme discrimination, such as the indigenous peoples of West Papua.
What role do area experts have to play?
Experts need to both show compassion and distance themselves from quick judgment. Most of us are driven by a belief and desire that it is possible to build a better world, based on mutual respect and tolerance. However, given the unequal distribution of resources, lack of access to education, and re-emerging medieval ideas about how women should be treated, I am a profound pessimist. Especially disturbing for me is re-emerging anti-semitism in its most primitive form (blood libel, the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, etc). Are we regressing to superstitions and the caveman mentality that drove Nazis? I see a dangerous trend evolving in the Muslim world—tribalism, sectarianism, radical forms of Islam (Salafis), indoctrination of their unemployed and undereducated youth. Where will it lead?
Regarding Syria, is there an onus on Western actors to intervene, or otherwise impact the conflict? What sorts of missteps are we in danger of making?
It made my list of extremely high-risk cases before the outbreak of violence. The UN was informed—we had pictures of mines on the border with Turkey—their aim was to maim refugees. But the West is tired and sees the Middle East as a cauldron of ever re-emerging conflicts. There is a real lack of enlightened leadership. You cannot build democracies by relying on networks of families, clans, tribes, sectarian and/or religious loyalties. We have always underestimated the strength of these ties. Countries running out of energy, water, having extended droughts and exploding birthrates are endangered to descend into chaos. Of the few that have functional educational systems, meaning they educate their young in the sciences, there are no opportunities. Maybe these countries have to go through these convulsions to find their way into the modern world. It is possible that Yemen, the poorest and most vulnerable (running out of water), has a chance of success through inter-tribal dialogue that includes women to build a stable autocracy or semi-democracy. Syria as of now may divide into Sunni, Alawite, and Kurdish regions under the influence of Iran/Russia/Saudi Arabia, and/or aligned with Salafis in Egypt. Of course, this is speculation.
How did you come to be involved with the Auschwitz Institute? Has your time as an instructor impacted any aspects of your scholarship or views?
What AIPR does is laudable, to put it mildly. As to my two lectures and one interview, the interview went well but the Jagiellonian University’s information system had too few subscribers. One lecture went well; the other, nowhere. I expected the participants to read and they did not. Well, a lesson learned—start on a more basic level. My suggestion is to be bold—challenge re-emerging anti-semitism wherever you find it. Some of our young hosts (Jewish students from Poland) told me that they keep a low profile—it deeply upset me. And then there is Auschwitz—as a German born non-Jewish scholar, it provides all the answers about why I am doing this kind of work—but this place is hell on earth and am I bothered that some visitors show a lack of respect when they walk over one of the largest cemeteries on earth.
Impunity Watch: Cases of Gender and Post-Conflict Transitional Justice
This is a call to policymakers, who work to formulate policy to prevent the recurrence of genocide. How do we give a voice to survivors? How do we pay appropriate attention to victims of gender-based violence (GBV), as specific crimes, that can be a tool of genocide? Impunity Watch’s report, “Giving a voice to victims: Towards gender-sensitive processes of TJRNR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi and Guatemala” attempts to answer these significant questions. The main goal of the report is to provide analysis and recommendations for policymakers to reach gender-sensitive goals in rebuilding plans, to prevent future incidences of genocidal violence.
Impunity Watch, an organization promoting accountability for past international atrocities in violent, conflict-affected countries, released a series of reports on December 18, 2012 about transitional justice and gender. The reports provide an in-depth look at justice, peace, and truth-telling processes in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH), Burundi, and Guatemala.
Why a Gendered Analysis?
Gender analysis has become increasingly significant when determining the ways in which conflict and rebuilding processes affect men and women. As notable scholars from The Feinstein International Center at Tufts University have recently reported, separating gender from significant fields, including international development, conflict management, humanitarian response, or policy-making, is neither feasible nor desirable, and will lead to incomplete conclusions about the effects of policymakers’ actions and impact.[i] The Impunity Watch reports aim to understand how gender, transitional justice, atrocities prevention, and post-conflict policies have been addressed in these three cases, providing both strengths and shortcomings.
This article will address the policies and recommendations (some new, some restated yet important) in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and how the main stakeholders could “do better” to address women’s rights in the aftermath of conflict. In this first article, I will discuss the main findings and challenges in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My next two articles will address the Impunity Watch reports on Burundi and Guatemala.
Gender-Sensitive Processes in Bosnia-Herzegovina
The 94-page report summarizes the main obstacles to promoting gender-sensitive peace, reconciliation, and non-recurrence. Frankly, it is more difficult for women to have access to, participate in, and benefit from processes of truth, justice, reparations and non-recurrence (TJRNR), since these do not take the needs of women into consideration in design or implementation. For example, a female internally displaced person (IDP) reclaiming property will often encounter prejudices and a lack of understanding within society, something a male IDP will likely not experience. Women looking for their missing husbands are not entitled to certain benefits from the Law on Missing Persons. Victims of wartime sexual violence (which are mainly women in BiH, though not exclusively) face major challenges in obtaining war-related compensation. In short, there is a clear need to integrate a gender-sensitive approach to processes of TJRNR, to better include both female and male victims. This will help transform the broader social context of trauma and post-conflict experiences and development.[ii]
Some positive progress has been made to advance gender-sensitive justice in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Currently, the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) is steering the process of drafting a document entitled Program of Assistance to Women Victims of War Rape, Sexual Violence and Torture 2013-2016. This plan will also include male victims of wartime sexual violence.[iii]
Gender analysis can highlight how gender-based violence, including rape, forced prostitution, and enforced pregnancy, can be used as weapons of genocide; this is a new understanding in legal practice and policy. In the case of Bosnia, for example, forced pregnancy was used to try and create more ethnically desirable babies, thus further driving out minority communities. This link between GBV and genocide is a clear call to action for policy makers to pay attention to GBV as an instrument of genocide.
How Conflict in BiH Disparately Affected Women
The conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which lasted from 1992 until the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, was between the region’s population of three ethnic groups, or ‘constituent peoples’: Bosniaks (48%), Serbs (37.1%), and Croats (14.3%).[iv] For more than 40 years the region was a federation of six republics: Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Slovenia, as well as two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina and Kosovo. In 1987, Slobodan Milošević came to power in Serbia, vividly encouraging Serbian nationalism and nurturing the idea of Greater Serbia. Based on this ideal, fighting ensued and a number of massacres took place, which led to an international crisis, including the use of war tactics and mass violence to drive out minority populations. After the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords negotiated an end to the conflict, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in 1996, to establish justice for the region, and ideally to promote a lasting peace. A number of perpetrators indicted by the ICTY were charged with crimes of genocide.
In Srebrenica, one of the most well-known massacres of the war, the men were separated from the women and killed systematically, which left psychological, legal, economic, and social difficulties for the women survivors. More research has been done on the massacre at Srebrenica and the gendered pattern of violence there.
Shortcomings of the Process in BiH
- In the processes related to truth, women’s participation so far has been limited.
- When it comes to guarantees of non-recurrence, it appears that a rather one-sided picture after the conflict in BiH has been created, whereby women are mostly seen as victims of the war, while men are mostly seen as heroes.
- While women make up one half of the Expert Working Group that drafted the Transitional Justice Strategy, and the president of the EWG is a woman, judging from the first draft of the TJS, there is room for improvement regarding the issue of gender-sensitivity. Sexual violence was widely excluded in the document, and a more widespread support from civil society organizations (CSOs) was lacking.
Recommendations for Rebuilding and Non-Recurrence
Key recommendations highlight where the process in BiH can go to improve gender sensitivity and the rights and status of women. The recommendations also show the link between GBV and genocide. Some recommendations are as basic as institutional reform, and ensuring that institutions include an integrated gender-sensitive perspective in their research and recommendations. Gender/sex disaggregated data is also needed, especially with regard to crimes of sexual violence. [v]
New recommendations, specific to BiH, are noteworthy, and can serve as examples for other post-conflict cases looking to address the same issues of gender and transitional justice. These cover four main categories of change:
- Technical changes, including the male/female composition of committees, political appointments, etc. I would also suggest more data collection and dissemination of data about atrocities, to better understand and analyze the gendered effects of the conflict.
- Legal changes, including women’s access to reparations (a large section on this topic in the report concludes that women hit many barriers when claiming reparations for crimes committed during the conflict, and often fall through the cracks of what crimes are legally recognized).
- Societal changes, including making processes more accessible and open to women, providing economic opportunities to women in the post-conflict economy, and continuing to provide funding and support for the implementation of the National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325.
- Structural changes, including encouraging participation by women and civil society in relevant TJRNR processes, particularly those related to integrating a gender-sensitive approach in the latter (such as the Program for Assistance to Women Victims of War Rape, Other Forms of Sexual Violence and Torture 2013-2016); creating a space for women to testify to the ICTY and to tell their stories.
The Impunity Watch report outlines a holistic transitional justice strategy to address gender-sensitive rebuilding and links to prevention of mass atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Empowering women and changing the narrative of women solely as victims, while recognizing the reality of gender-based crimes as planned tools of genocide (see the work of Hugo Slim, Cynthia Enloe, and Ximena Bunster), can allow policymakers to pay attention to gendered aspects of conflict, rebuilding, and non-recurrence.
Establishing a “Culture of Remembrance and Non-Recurrence”:
Regional Approaches to Genocide Prevention
Genocide prevention requires a transnational commitment of states willing to collaborate and work together to recognize threats and identify means by which potential conflict can be avoided. In a similar way, reducing the risk of genocide necessitates a consistent sharing of ideas so that methods for prevention can be continually improved. One manner in which this dedication and cooperation is demonstrated is the Regional Forum on the Prevention of Genocide, co-organized by the governments of Argentina, Cambodia, Switzerland, and Tanzania. The Forum, which was first held in Argentina in 2008, has continued to meet annually since 2010 and brings together scholars, diplomats, and activists to discuss emerging ideas in the realm of genocide prevention. In addition, the journal Politorbis issued a 2009 publication on genocide prevention that addresses many of the topics covered in the Forums.
The 2013 Regional Forum took place in Phnom Penh on February 28 and March 1, 2013, and included over 20 distinguished speakers from around the world. The discussion was opened by Mr. Federico Villegas Beltrán, Director General for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and International Trade and Worship in Argentina; Ambassador Dr. Christoph Burgener of Switzerland; Ambassador Liberata Mulamula of Tanzania; and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in charge of the Office of the Council of Ministers of Cambodia, His Excellency Dr. Sok An. Dr. An began by reminding the audience of the importance of genocide prevention in his own country, stating that “for Cambodia, the issue is not an abstract or theoretical one, but one that brutally and directly affected us, and still does today.” Dr. An also cited the importance of seeking justice for and remembering the victims, “to make sure such a tragedy will never recur,” emphasizing that “we regard remembrance of the past and of the victims as an essential prerequisite to non-recurrence.”
The Forum itself was comprised of five separate panels, the first of which was titled “What is genocide and how to prevent it?” During this segment, panelists discussed the definition of genocide and offered ideas on how to improve capacities to respond to early warning signs of violence. In particular, His Excellency Ouch Borith, Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Cambodia, mentioned that “the narrow or shallow perception of genocide may lead to failure in preventing genocide from its budding stage,” referring to the oversimplified belief that genocide only entails the killing of individuals, when in fact the Genocide Convention enumerates five criteria for the commission of the crime. Borith also stated that there are “still a lot of controversies and difficulties in quantifying the scope of violence to be labeled as genocide,” and cited the need for greater preventive capacity, particularly at the national level in regards to education, and social and religious institutions.
This panel also featured Adama Dieng, United Nations Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, and Alex Bellamy, Professor of International Security at Griffith Asia Institute in Australia. Dieng reiterated the importance of understanding the “root causes and dynamics” of genocide, and highlighted the important role that civil society has begun to play in making prevention and the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) stronger. Bellamy also outlined six specific points that would assist East Asia in its efforts to prevent genocide, including the development of what he calls an “atrocity prevention lens,” which “focuses on injecting atrocity prevention considerations into existing policies, programs, and capabilities and, when necessary, convening or coordinating these assets for prevention purposes,” as well as the creation of regional capacity for early warning and assessment through a collaborative effort between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat, the ASEAN Institute of Peace and Reconciliation, and other relevant organizations.
The second panel, “Asian Experience and Visions for the Future,” included His Excellency Khuon Sudary, Second Vice-President of the National Assembly of Cambodia, and The Honorable Gareth Evans, Chancellor of Australian National University and Co-Chair of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Sudary emphasized the importance of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) in seeking justice for the victims of the genocide. He also underscored the role of education, particularly in regards to learning about the Khmer Rouge, noting that “young people need to grasp the value of human rights and learn to use them effectively in order to prevent genocide in the future.”
Evans, who was a primary contributor in the creation of R2P at the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001, discussed the development of a Brazilian proposal called Responsibility While Protecting (RWP). This supplemental protocol to R2P is comprised of “two key elements: a set of agreed criteria to be taken into account before the UNSC mandates any use of force…and a monitoring-and-review mechanism to ensure that the scope and limits of such mandates continue to be debated by the Council during the implementation phase.” Evans also reiterated the imperativeness of developing “effective capability to initiate action and mobilize political will,” by creating “focal points” that have “direct access to high-level decision makers,” as well as enhancing “broad-based civilian response capabilities” and “[ensuring] that effective military capability is available to meet needs as they arise.”
Later in the evening, the third panel, titled “Africa, Latin America and Europe – Experiences, Lessons Learned and Ways Forward,” was held. Nathan Byamukama, Program Officer of the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) Committee on the Prevention of Genocide, spoke first. He discussed some of the responsibilities of the ICGLR, including collecting and analyzing information to identify situations that might develop into genocide, recommending measures to safeguard victims, monitoring Disarmament, Demobilization, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement (DDRRR) programs, and cooperating with civil society. Byamukama also cited several challenges that the ICGLR faces, like the politicization of the Committee and a funding deficit, but noted that it will continue to garner support from member states so as to strengthen its initiatives.
Byamukama was followed by Daniel Feierstein, Director of the Centre for Genocide Studies in Argentina. First, Feierstein turned the concept of prevention on its head, stating, “I would suggest to change the perspective from what the super-powers should do to prevent genocide (the interventionist approach) to what they should not do: how to establish a system of controls to prevent such powers from acting in ways that increase the possibility of genocidal events through direct intervention, arms trade, support for destabilization or coups d’état, and so on.” Secondly, he noted the important role of regional mechanisms in preventing genocide, providing the example of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which is comprised of 12 Latin American nations and is charged with helping countries in the region mitigate conflicts. Since its inception in 2008, UNASUR has assisted in Bolivia, Honduras, and Ecuador, as well as in the conflict between Colombia and Venezuela in 2010.
The second day of the conference opened with the fourth panel, “Preventing Genocide: Role and Responsibilities of State and International Actors and Ways Forward,” which featured David Scheffer, UN Secretary General Special Expert on United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials. Scheffer emphasized the role of the ECCC as a deterrence mechanism, noting that it “is critical to breaking the cycles of impunity and putting down at least a caution sign for political and military leaders who might contemplate human rights abuses or atrocity crimes to achieve political and strategic aims.”
In the fifth and final panel, “Preventing Genocide: Role and Responsibilities of Non-State Actors and Ways Forward,” Youk Chhang, Executive Director of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam), discussed the role of civil society in the prevention of genocide. He explained the work of DC-Cam, which seeks “to establish a permanent presence and to play a leading role in this transformative effort” of policy change in post-conflict states. Chhang also stated that DC-Cam “has begun to build a permanent center to expand our work and ensure a long-term commitment to human rights and genocide prevention in Cambodia,” an initiative that centers on the belief that “genocide education is a key to liberating the victims of Khmer Rouge terror and transforming them into leaders in the global quest for human rights and dignity.” To increase genocide awareness, as well as the scope of the institution’s work, DC-Cam will also “promote memory and justice” by “[digitizing its] extensive archives and [making] them available to viewers at home and overseas.”
Given the variety of topics covered, as well as the global character of the dozens of panelists and speakers that offered remarks during the conference, the Regional Forum on the Prevention of Genocide exemplifies a collaborative approach to educating on the past so as to avoid the commission of mass atrocities in the future. By meeting on an annual basis, the four member states that comprise the Forum also reaffirm their commitment to what many speakers emphasized in their presentations – that is, the desire to create “a culture of remembrance and non-recurrence” that recognizes the importance of preventing genocide everywhere.