PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL GENOCIDE GENOCIDE SLAUGHTERING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND OTHER MINORITIES
Amjad Nazeer
April, April, 2010 Roehampton University, London.
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL GENOCID (SLAUGHTERING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND OHTER MINORITIES)
Abstract Genocide is the most serious crime against humanity. It is ancient in age but young in the arena of human rights scholarship. Ex-post holocaust 1940s, United Nations Convention on Genocide (UNCG) is supposed to be the historic document that set out to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. But the dream of ‘never again’ has brazenly shattered more than once. Since 1970s we have seen several more horrendous acts and events of genocide across the world. Millions more innocent souls were lost ever since. Realizing the continuity and complications it involves, intellectual and legal interest has ensued in the crime of genocide. How to define genocide, therefore, is the first stride. Obviously, it is the definition, national and international law, preventive and administrative measures depend on. But the very definition of genocide has turned to be an enigma. A massive debate surrounds the nature, methods, typology, intent and causes and consequences of genocide. A Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin, single headedly contributed so much to the concept of genocide that any scholar can hardly neglect his thoughts. Same is true for this essay. It draws heavily from the ideas and preventive suggestions made by Lemkin. However latest research and present day understanding has not been undermined either. The idea of ‘social death’ and destruction of people’s ‘way of life’ has been elaborated to explain the distinctiveness of the crime. Its’ predominant connection with war, however, has been mainly dealt at the subsurface level. The essay analyzes and advocates for a broader definition of genocide, believing it to be the most effective way of minimizing the possibilities of genocide in future. Incorporating ‘cultural genocide’ along with the prohibition of genocidal acts against minorities and indigenous people has been emphatically argued for. The overall approach adopted here is analytical and suggestive rather than investigative.
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
1
Naming the Crime: The word ‘genocide’ is composed of the Greek prefix genos meaning race or tribe and the Latin suffix cide means killing1. Now the globally recognized term and the concept, genocide, was invented and introduced by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish legal scholar in the preface of his groundbreaking work, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe 1943, replacing the terms then in currency ‘homicide’, ‘barbarity’ and ‘vandalism’ that he himself also used in Madrid Conference 1933. While fleeing from Nazi atrocities and seeking refuge in USA, he carefully studied German occupation decrees and policies of exterminating Jewish population and providing opportunities to the self-assumed superior-race of German ‘Aryans’ to thrive and flourish. Germanization and denationalization did not signify the biological and physical destruction that it involved but only the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor on the oppressed nation. To him, it was not only an act of depopulation or mass killing but a planned and premeditated process of a social and cultural destruction of a national group2. Genocide was the ‘word’ that adequately expressed the semantic precision and intensity of the crime with all its’ entirety. Beyond war crimes and crimes against humanity Nazi Germans were engaged in an offense that asked for a new interpretation and a fresh nomenclature. It was not only an act of extinguishing Jews but a systematic restructuring of European populations as well. However, post UN GC 1948, the social-scientific interest in the problem of genocide commenced in the 1970s continuing to date3. Putting the Evil in Abstraction - Defining Genocide: Typologies and definitions of genocide vary from narrow to the broader context, depending on the normative and prescriptive assumptions of the definers, however maintaining a consensus on the core concept of the problem4. The most frequently quoted definition of ‘genocide’ is the one adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 9, 1948, in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (IC-PPCG). Article 2 of the Convention says that, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with an intent to destroy, wholly or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such: “Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures to prevent birth in the group; and Forcibly transferring children of the groups to another group”5. The above quoted definition is mainly stressing on physical destruction. Frank Chalk and Kurt Johnson further narrow down the definition to the physical elimination of the victims, failing to identify other forms of biological elimination in the following words: “Genocide is a form of one sided mass killing, in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a groups as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrators”. But exclusively linking it with the state or an authority puts other possible perpetrators in oblivion. However, broadens the range of the victim group by the very idea of being subjectively defined by the perpetrators6. Israel Charny settles down with what he calls a humanistic definition of genocide that, “a wanton murder of human beings on the basis of any identity whatsoever that they share7.” Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
2
Nevertheless, most of the scholars, agree that genocide is mainly a crime of the state, happening one way or the other, with the support of the state or some relevant authority8. Almost all the constituent elements of UNGC definition of genocide and those who confine it to physical death remain controversial. One might ask why a national, ethnic, religious and racial group might fall victim to the crime of genocide and lesbians, gays, and some political parties, for instance, cannot. The choice of categories appears to be arbitrarily made. Likewise the UN definition’s emphasis on ‘intent’ and not on ‘foreseebility’ is also problematic. The intent does help spotting the paradigmatic cases of genocide but not the borderline and controversial genocides. On the other hand too much stress on foreseebility might lead us to extremely broad definition that some of the scholars would either exclude or disagree with. Whatever, UN definition fails to capture all the contours of genocide. Similarly Lemkin’s definition compels us to raise two philosophically analytical questions. One is its’ connectivity with ethnicity that distinguishes genocide from other forms of political violences. Another is the victim’s vulnerability or defencelessness to the offenses of genocide9. Unfortunately the Convention’s definition falls far short of Lemkin’s comprehensive understanding of the issue. Neither the crimes listed under nor the scope it covers is exhaustive enough. Defining genocide in ‘Axis Rule,’ Lemkin writes, “Genocide has two phases: One, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; The Other, imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. The imposition in turn may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals. He rightly argues that hate speech, hate material and other preparatory acts of genocide must be included and be punishable as intent of genocide10. Lemkin was particularly conscious to not to restrict the concept to immediate physical destruction unless the objective is achieved immediately, which is a rare possibility. In case it does happen, it will stop defining genocide and will become just a homicide or mass killing. For Lemkin genocide is a coordinated plan of destroying the social, cultural, political, economic, religious, intellectual, biological and eventually the physical foundations of the oppressed group. During this process the oppressor attempts to destroy the victim’s institutions of political thought and self-governance through colonization. Its’ agency of trade, economic development and generation of wealth is ruined; Intellectual, educational and artistic institutions and activities are vandalized; moral, spiritual, religious and cultural institutions are devastated to successfully impose its own national pattern. Depopulation, forced castration, ruptured procreation, rape, enforced starvation and deliberate affliction of contagious and terminating diseases and child transfer are the forms of biological genocide that such invasions aim to11. Rwandan Tribunal, for example, revealed that the ‘rape victims’ usually refuse to procreate and participate in the communal life. Rape, therefore, is a serious crime of genocide12.
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
3
'Genocide is not war; it is more dangerous than war’13 said Lemkin later. War is directed against sovereign states and is meant to destroy enemy’s arms, military and its battling capability. While genocidal assaults devastate civilian population. Aberrantly, both UNGC and the Nuremberg Trials place more emphasis on the physical destruction than Lemkin himself meant to14. But according to Martin Shaw, Genocide was primarily a problem of war nevertheless exceeding the bounds of war; it was just an afterthought that Lemkin extended his ideas beyond war15. Cultural Genocide as a Surrounding the Concept:
Defining
Characteristics
and
Controversies
Philosophically interpreting the 2nd phase of genocide as described by Lemkin, Caludia Card argues that several atrocities like killing the collectivities, rape, torture and ethnic cleansing are already part of war crimes and crimes against humanity. If genocide covers it all then cultural genocide as a distinctive form of political violence is both redundant and misleading. Redundant, because all genocidal attacks essentially eliminate or attempts to eliminate the social vitality and cultural identity of a group and its intergenerational connection; misleading, because unintentionally or indirectly, it suggests that certain genocidal attacks do not hurt or target the extermination of a group’s culture. She therefore brings in the notion of ‘social death’ which means eliminating or attempt to eliminate an ethnic, tribal, social or political group and its ‘social vitality’ as well. In her views, social death is central to the idea of genocide. Genocide therefore is the mass murder of a group simply on the basis of ‘who they are’, including women, children, sick, elderly and the disabled, irrespective of ‘what they are’. In a genocidal killing, disgrace and humiliation are often connected with the termination of helpless victims16. Rwandan Hutus’ hapless massacre of around 800,000 Tutsis just in 90 days is the worst tragic event of genocide and social death in the recent past17. There are cases where members of the oppressed group are condemned to play an act in the tragic episode of their own death. The victim themselves and their corpses are utterly disrespected and humiliated. In-fact, the harm afflicted to the victim is ethically distinct, worse than war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise there was no reason to create the term genocide, and interpret its specific implications. It is social murder of the victim and supplementing disgrace that intensifies the acute crime of genocide. Those who survive physically loose social vitality and are often unable to rebuild their lives. Knowledge and memory is not enough to repair alienation and inter-generational disconnect. It is the element of social death in genocide that is not taken into account in war crimes and crimes against humanity18. Other Genocide scholars argue that all genocides may not be ‘homicidal’. For instance involuntary sterilization or forcible separation of children for different socialization, also make the acts of genocide. Such acts or policies eliminate the chances of the lingual, cultural and religious identity and continuity of the victim’s group. In the holocaust, Jews who had changed their religion were hunted down to exterminate the possibility of reclaiming or reconstituting their identity19. Genocide may not necessarily be the consequence of war although a war might be genocidal. It Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
4
is one-sided harm lodged against a defenceless population. Therefore what distinguishes genocide is not targeting different groups but targeting the groups differently. Actually culpability and reasonable foreseebility of the destruction also constitute this evil. If a mass killing is sufficiently evil to attract an ethical opprobrium, this is definitely genocidal20. In-fact, no culture is cultivated in vacuum. Inhabitants cultivate and transmit it through a mosaic of arts, crafts and associational life in the territories they live on for centuries. For them, land is a cultural endowment than a commodity of exchange as dealt by market economy. The Victims life is socially meaningless even if they survive after the genocidal occurrence. Involuntary exodus or fleeing to save one’s life is tantamount to socio-cultural death, as they are unable to regenerate and transmit their cultural. Although, cultural identity is fluid and adaptable but members of the community posses sense of belonging. Historical continuity is institutionalized through imaginary, mythological and day to day traditions and practices. Consent and comprehensiveness, unless a person chooses an arduous exit, constitute a national pattern and contribute towards the overall nourishment and welfare of its members. Annihilation of the social-fabric of a group has far reaching impact on the well-being and nourishment of an individual. Sitting on the criteria, lesbian, gay and liberaldemocratic-societies are also prone to genocide but not the swingers as the element of intent and disgrace is missing. Forced exile or uprooting a nation from its historical abode, debilitating its capacity to transmit its culture to next generations, is synonymous with social death. Even modernization, transformation and cultural exchange, if traded with intent - not an unforeseeable outcome of a prolonged process of destroying a language, culture and identity - may lead to genocide. It is therefore the conceptual tool of social death, which is most helpful to understand the borderline, controversial and complicated cases of genocide21. Despite the significance of cultural genocide as a defining characteristic, the term was removed from the final draft of UN GC. Former Communist and the Arab states were in favour of retaining the clause that the western powers were opposed fearing its’ obvious reference to Colonialism. Even the last attempt of Soviet Union to reinstate the prohibition of cultural genocide was unsuccessful. Actually the proposed minority rights Article in the Universal Declaration became controversial. Avoiding overlap of the protection of cultural rights with the provision of minority rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was stressed vociferously by the representatives of Western States and America. Lebanese proposal of not denying cultural groups the right to free development and the Soviet proposal of the right to one’s ethnic, national culture, regardless of its minority or majority status was chopped-off in the final document. The article 3rd in the adhoc committee’s draft, prohibiting cultural genocide, survived till the constitution of Sixth Committee but was turned down by the votes of 25 to 16 with 4 abstentions in the end. They key argument for the inclusion of Article 3 was that cultural genocide is more often than not a prelude to the physical and biological genocide. As a consequence, though maintaining the rubric, the draft was significantly weakened by the removal of this clause22.
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
5
There was no doubt in Lemkin’s mind that both physical destruction and undermining a way of life were the two ways of deliberately destroying a nation or an ethnic group. Much to his dismay, the latter category was, as pleased by the colonial powers, removed from the UN Convention23.To Lemkin culture was the precondition for a group’s life. In his own words, ‘so called derived needs, are just as necessary to their existence as the basic physiological needs...These needs find expression in social institutions or...in cultural ethos. If the culture of a groups is violently undermined, the groups itself disintegrates and its members either become absorbed in other cultures which is a wasteful and painful process of personal disorganization and perhaps physical destruction...the destruction of cultural symbols is genocide...It menaces the existence of the social group existing by the virtue of its common culture...The destruction of a nation, therefore, results in the loss of its future contributions to the world. Such destruction offends our feelings of morality and justice in much the same way as it does the criminal killing of human being...though on a vastly greater scale24.
The methods and techniques of genocide’ as derived from Lemkin’s unfinished History of Genocide include: ‘Physical – massacre and malnutrition, deprivation of livelihood...Slavery – exposure to death; Biological – separation of families, sterilization, destruction of foetus; Cultural – desecration and destruction of cultural symbols...cultural leadership, cultural centres...prohibition of cultural activities or codes of behaviour, conversion, demoralization’25. Ethnic cleansing sometimes known as ethnic purification, as reported by UN Commission of expert to the Security Council in 1993 is, ‘the planned and deliberate removal of a particular ethnic group from a specific territory by force or intimidation, rape and torture in order to render that area ethnically homogenous26’ However cultural genocide must not be confused with the gradual and creative adaptation of new norms and values which is a constant process in every culture. Violent disruption of that is no less than a genocidal intervention. Putting the element of ethnicity aside ethnic cleansing to W.A Schabas, however, does not necessarily feature in defining genocide because it does not reflect intent to destroy but only to expel the targeted groups27. Intent and Foreseebility as Qualifiers for Genocide?: The word, ‘deliberate’ was replaced by ‘intent,’ ‘while drafting Genocide Convention28. As ‘deliberate’ means a clear intent but ‘intent’ may not qualify for deliberate will. Although ‘Intent’ is relatively a broader word but throws on several subjective questions. Since 1950s the element of intent as a qualifier for genocide has been controversial for opening-up the black-box of borderline and proximate cases. Some of the readily asked questions in this context are the following: Was enforced agricultural collectivization and mass starvation of farmers in the 1930s caused by Stalin’s policies to produce ample amount of grains for industrial exchange genocidal or not? Can Mao’s political action for Cultural Revolution and great-leap-forward in the 1960s be defined as genocide? Can economic sanctions against Iraq in 1990s Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
6
caused physical and social harm to millions of people - be termed as genocidal29? There are scholars who say, if the intention was not genocidal, the mass starvation and death was an unintended consequence of the policy decision, not genocide. Others argue that farmers; death and destruction were foreseeable and their annihilation was more than likely a consequence of a particular policy. Israel Charny terms it genocidal. He argues that massive scale of death was foreseeable if not ‘intentional’ and ‘foreseebility’ is enough to constitute genocide. But the subtle nuance between ‘foreseebility’ and ‘intent’ along with its differential implications are debatable. This is just like a medical operation going wrong and resulting in death, exemplifies Claudia Card30. It is said that the intent was not to exterminate the indigenous people, but to occupy the territory in case of Australia, Canada and Latino America. Massive homicide occurred for other reasons, such as alcoholism, smallpox and malnutrition. But is the answer that simple, asks Damien Short. What connection it had got or might have with genocide, is still debatable for genocide scholars. Although a massive manslaughter and genocidal child-removal might have ceased now but some genocide scholars and indigenous people contend that colonial structure and practices continue with genocidal effects, if not intent31. The controversy could be dealt with the victim’s own consciousness about life, land and culture. In this connection, understanding the notion of cultural genocide, ethnic cleansing, ethnocide, cultural change and diffusion are also important32. However Leo Kuper maintains that equating colonization with genocide is an overstatement; though much of the colonialism is travailed with the blood of indigenous people33 as is the case of north and south Americas, Tasmania, and Australia. But much of the colonial proceeding without genocidal conflict was his argument against34. Applying Lmkin’s understanding of genocide on Australian aborigines, Damien Short demonstrates Australian policies to be constantly genocidal. Avoiding inscribe any formal treatise between settler and indigenous people, Australian government maintains a reckless disregard of indigenous people’s right to land, language, culture and their way of life. Appalling injustice and racism is institutionalized in the last 200 years. The very effort of assimilating aborigines under the Reconciliation Act of 1991 as opposed to the demands of Aboriginal Treaty Committee is the denial of their separate historical, political and cultural life. In collusion with the government, extractive industries keep mining resources and destroying habitat of the indigenous people, trampling over their demands of holding a veto power35 against the so called land or industrial development projects36. Far more disastrous assaults on the cultural integrity, autonomy and the indigenous people’s right to land are still in the offing. Participation and responsibilities, mutual obligations, reconciliation, indigenous people’s services in the mainstream were the genocidal acts in disguise37. The suspension of permit system on land use, coercive acquisition of their traditional habitats and extended leases without their free and prior consent and removal of their customary law and cultural practices with respect to land are just to mention the few. As described by Harry Nelson - a representative of the indigenous people – in a statement signed by 236 members and presented to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, Australia, in 2008: This is our land. We want the Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
7
government to give it back to us...and stop blackmailing us. We want houses but we will not sign any leases over our land, because we want to keep control of our country, our houses and our property...We want the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 reinstated now...We want community control...Everything is coming from the outside, from the top down...We want to be re-empowered to make our decisions and control our own affairs. We want self determination38. In continuum the Prescribed Area People Alliance (PAPA), a group of indigenous people released a statement in Sept 2008 saying: These assimilationist policies are destroying our culture and our lives. It is the stolen generations all over again. The Government is refusing to build us any housing unless we sign a lease of 40 years or above. We say NO LEASES. We will not sign...Our lives depend on our land. It is connected to our songlines, our culture and our dreaming39. PAPA’s key demand was to ‘stop the promotion of genocide. By the UN Genocide Conventions, one definition of genocide is: Conditions of life set to destroy the group in whole or in parts. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in custody rightly argued in 1991 that: Non-Aboriginal powers have to give up the assumption that they know what is best for aborigines who have to be lead, educated and manipulated and reshaped into the image of the dominant community. Instead Aborigines must be recognized for what they are, peoples in their own right, with their own culture, history and values40. Put simply, land is life and historic abode for a group’s social and economic existence. Depriving a group from its indigenous territory is genocide in consequence even if a pronounced intent is missing. Damien Short concludes that Australia is not only a continuing genocide41 rather a series of continuing genocides as the indigenous people are afflicted with formidable physical harm, dispossession of land and the erosion of cultural and political autonomy as contended by Lemkin. The Significance of Defining and Redefining Genocide: Subsequent to the definition of genocide UNGC describes certain measures for its prevention in Article 3 & 4 as: “whosoever, whether constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals commit genocide, conspire to commit it; incite directly or publically to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide or are found complicit in genocide” are punishable. The Article 6 says that “persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction”42. It is evident that UNGC conspicuously failed to prevent it happening, not only once, but repeatedly so. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and several other border cases are there to prove it. One of the reasons could be identified as outdated and outmoded definition of genocide adopted by UNGC. Although it has got some of its strengths but the ensuing controversy and subsequent removal of cultural genocide from its final draft severely weekend its capacity for action43. History has demonstrated that it is the minorities that are more likely victims of genocide, what Lemkin and other advocates Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
8
of cultural genocide already anticipated. Most states of the world are still reluctant to ratify the rights of minorities and indigenous people. That is why the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Cultural Minorities 1992 44 and the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People 200745 are still the declarations. So long as UNCG is not amended with a protective administrative and legislative machinery of religious, cultural, indigenous minorities’ rights, genocidal attacks shall remain a clear threat. Unfortunately member states usually avoid prosecuting individuals involved in the odious scourge of genocide within and outside their national borders, despites sufficient powers that UNGC vests the states with46. Revisiting and rigorously defining genocide is not an intellectual exercise only. It has got far reaching legal and empirical ramifications. Once the peculiar harm is agreed upon, it will help national and international law in prevention and prosecution. Most importantly a deterrence, effective punishment and appropriate reparation could be made possible for genocide survivors and their unfortunate descendents. Failure to do so will never help realise the dream of ‘never again’. UN’s inflexible understanding of genocide and rigid procedures, sometimes impede a timely action. Interest-driven position of powerful states and diplomatic arithmetic is another47. Apart from reinvigorating national and international law, will of the state to prevent and act against is also important. In a study, H. Kemlan & V. Hamilton identified three factors that allow individuals to commit crimes against humanity: dehumanization, routinization, and authorization. Repairing social damage that conflict torn societies suffer from is as important as understanding the causes and consequences of genocide. Revitalization of international humanitarian law, criminal trials and judicial justice contributes in reconciliation and rebuilding peace48. Justice! Writes John Rawls49 must be the central virtue of an institution as truth is actually a system of thought. If an institution does not deliver justice and a system of thought does not reveal truth, it needs to be abolished. No matter, how deeply rooted or how efficient it is, injustice must be reformed or out-rightly abolished. Although bad but not all injustices inflict harm or are absolutely intolerable but injustices that cause harm are particularly evil and genocide is an injustice that is evil too. Over 50 years since the adoption of UDHR and IC-PPCG in 1948, a lot has changed. Cold war is over. The chief proponents of cultural genocide in 1948 have themselves had bitter experience of genocide. Several new states have joined the UN family. International human rights community ought to realize that a protocol prohibiting cultural genocide needs to be adopted in IC-PPCG without delay. That was a clause whose removal kept remorsefully haunting Raphael till his death in 1959. If that seems a remote possibility, a clause might be incorporated in UDHR to begin with. The proposed amendments will help augmenting the moral cause set forth half a century back. Its’ the firm faith on human rights, not the real polity of states, that can lead humanity’s way forward50. ******
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide
9
End Notes and References: 1
Card, Claudia. 2003. Genocide and social death, Hapatia Vol. No. 18, p. 66. Raphael Lemkin, himself had used the term ‘homicide’ and ‘barbarity’ in his paper in the Madrid Conference 1933. See: Prevent Genocide International. Fusssell, James. T. A crime without name: Winston Churchill, Raphael Lemkin and the origin of the word “genocide.” http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm. Site hit on April 22, 2010. 3 Fein, Helen. 2002, Genocide: An Anthropological Reader, Blackwells Publishers Ltd. p.75, Oxford, U.K. 4 Ibid, p.76. 5 International Humanitarian Law: Treaties and documents, Convention on the Preventions and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: See: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/357?OpenDocument. Cite hit on April 22, 2010, at 15:29 hrs. 6 Shaw, Martin. 2007. What is genocide, p32, Polity Press. 7 Fein, Helen. p.79, Ibid. 8 Ibid, P.79, 9 Abed, Muhammad. 2006. Clarifying the concept of genocide, p.309-312, Journal Compilation, Metaphilosophy LLC and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford. 10 Genocide Prevention International, Chapter IX, “Genocide” from Raphael Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress, (Washington, D.C. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, p. 79 - 95. See: http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm. Site hit on April 22, 2010. 11 Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe 1944: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, p. 79. As cited in Shaw, 2007, p.26-27. 12 Schabas W.A . 2004. as cited in the Book Review of ‘Genocide in the international law: The crimes of crimes , in The Book Review. Pp. 1105 – 1111. 1108. 13 Power, Samantha. 2003. A Problem from Hell', p. 51 as quoted by Shaw, M. p.36. Ibid 14 Shaw, Martin, Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Card, Claudia, p.64-77, Ibid. 17 Illibaziga, Immaculee. 2006. Left to tell: Discovering God amidst Rwandan genocide, Hay House, The University of Michigan, See the Book Review, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3nPZAAAAMAAJ. Site hit on April 25, 2010, at 15:33 hrs. 18 Card, Claudia, p.64-77, Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid, p64-68. 21 Abed, Muhammad, Ibid. p. 312-329. 22 Morsink, Johannes. 1999. Cultural Genocide, the Universal Declaration and Minority Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, p.1016, John Hopkins University Press. 23 Short, Damien 2010, p.2, Ibid. 24 Ibid, p.3. 25 Ibid. P3-4. 26 Carmichael, Cathie. 2002. Ethnic cleansing in Balkans, Nationalism and the Destruction of tradition, p.2. Routledge, New Fetter Lane, London, UK, Author’s emphasis. 27 As cited in the Book Review of ‘Genocide in the international law: The crimes of crimes 2004’ William A. Scabas, in The Book Review. Pp. 1105 – 1111. 28 Morsink, Johannes, Ibid. 29 Abed, Muhammad. 2006. Ibid.. 30 Card, Claudia, Ibid. and Charny, Israel.1994. p.64-94 as quoted in Ibid, p.70. 31 Short, Damien. March 2010, Australia: A continuing genocide. p.2., to appear in the forthcoming Journal of Genocide Research, December 2010. 32 Short, Damien. Ibid. p.2. 33 Emphasis mine. 34 Kuper, Leo. 2002. p.51, in Fein, Helen. 2002, Ibid. 35 In utter disregard of the High Court’s decision in 1992 known as Mabo indictment that the indigenous people have a right to land or a native title surviving colonization. Similarly Northern Territory Land Rights Legislation 1975 that imparted a veto right to the indigenous 2
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide 10
people and the Native Title Act 1993 whose purpose was to validate land negotiations within the parameters of unequal powers between the conflicting parties, were sheerly disregarded. 36 Short, Damien, Ibid. p.10-14. 37 Dodson and Kit as cited in Ibid, p.14. 38 Short, Damien. Ibid p.17. 39 Ibid, p.17. 40 Ibid. p.17, 22. 41 In case of indigenous people some of the genocide scholars believe that ‘genocide’ should only be identified by the element of intent. Centralized development and reasonably foreseeable consequences - - on the indigenous people or otherwise - need not to be included in the definition of genocide, See: Schabas, W.A. as cited in the Book Review, Human Rights Quarterly. P.1109. 42 International Humanitarian Law: Treaties and documents, Convention on the Preventions and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: See: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/357?OpenDocument. Cite hit on April 22, 2010, at 15:29 hrs. 43 Morsink, Johannes, p.1009. Ibid. 44 Declaration on the Rights of persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Cultural Minorities, see: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm, Site hit on April 24, 2010, at 11:48 hrs. 45 United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, See: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html, Site hit on April 24, 2010 at 11:52 hrs. 46 Schabas, William. A. Op. Cit, p.1110, 47 Abed, Muhammad, Ibid. p. 309. 48 Halpern, Jodi & Weinstein, M. Harvey. 2004. Rehumanizing the Other p.563-571, Human Rights Quarterly. 49 John Rawls.1999 as cited in Card.C. 2000, p.65-66. Ibid. 50
Morsenk, Jahannesan. Op. Cit. 1009.
Amjad Nazeer
Physical and Cultural Genocide 11