The Genocide

Genocide is considered one of the most severe crimes against humanity. It means the

deliberate attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The term was created in

1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word 'genos' (race

or tribe) with the Latin word 'cide' (to kill). After witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust, in

which every member of his family except his brother and himself was killed, Dr Lemkin

campaigned to have genocide recognized as a crime under international law. His efforts led to the

adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide (CPPCG) in December 1948, which came into force in January 1951.

In order to make an exact illustration of the genocides which caused many bloody events

in history, I will start my attempt by representing the legal definition of the term, and then I will

present some examples of genocides all over the world, especially the one from Chechnya.

Moreover, I will represent some substantial questions relating to genocides in the North Caucasus

area. In the end, I will give an example of a global education and action network, whose major

purpose is the elimination of the crime of genocide.

Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed

with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical

destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

[and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."1

1
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide”, at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm;

1
 The preamble to the CPPCG not only states that "genocide is a crime under international

law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world",

but that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity"2.

Trying to decide or to determine what historical events represent genocide and which are

merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. In almost every case where

accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have strongly disputed the

interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of

the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be

controversial.

An important issue about the official definition of the genocides is that some historians and

sociologists have criticized it, because of the exclusion of social and political groups as targets of

genocide. For example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan

Response, 1979-19823 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted4, and

that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes

Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other

authority intends to destroy a group so defined by the perpetrator.”5

Another example would be R. J. Rummel, and according to him, genocide has 3 different

meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by a government of people due to their national,
2
M. Hassan Kakar “Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982” University of
California press © 1995 The Regents of the University of California;
3
Ibidem 2;
4
M. Hassan Kakar, 4. The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan: 13. Genocide Throughout the Country;

5
Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn “The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies”, Yale
University Press, 1990, 345 pages, pp. 119;

2
ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the

international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or

forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of

genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political

opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is

intended that Rummel created the term genocide for the third meaning6.

The differences over how genocide should be defined, lead also to disagreement on how

many genocides actually occurred during the 20th Century. Some say there was only one

genocide in the last century - the Holocaust. Other experts give a long list of what they consider

cases of genocide and very representative are at least three genocides under the 1948 UN

convention:

1. The Holocaust, during which more than six million Jews were killed.

2. The mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks between 1915-1920 - an

accusation that the Turks deny.

3. Rwanda, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died in the

1994 genocide.

The first example for the genocides and the most eloquent one is called “the

Holocaust”. The Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term

appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders, Count 3, stated that all the defendants had
6
R. J. Rummel, “Domocide versus genocide; which is what?, Yale University Press, 1993;

3
"conducted deliberate and systematic genocide – namely, the extermination of racial and national

groups…”7 The term "the Holocaust" is generally used to describe the killing of approximately

six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination

planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany led by Adolph

Hitler8. A majority of scholars do not include other groups in the definition of the Holocaust,

reserving the term to refer only to the genocide of the Jews9, or what the Nazis called the "Final

Solution of the Jewish Question." The Holocaust was accomplished in stages. Legislation to

remove the Jews from civil society was enacted years before the outbreak of World War II.

Concentration camps were established in which inmates were used as slave labor until they died

of exhaustion or disease. Where the Third Reich conquered new territory in Eastern Europe,

specialized units called Einsatzgruppen murdered Jews and political opponents in mass

shootings10. Jews and Roma were crammed into ghettos before being transported hundreds of

miles by freight train to extermination camps where, if they survived the journey, the majority of

them were killed in gas chambers. Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the

logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a

genocidal nation.”11 Other targets of the Nazi mass murder or "Nazi genocidal policy", included

Slavs (Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Serbs, and others), Roma (see Porajmos),

mentally ill, homosexuals and "sexual deviants", and political opponents. R. J. Rummel estimates

7
Oxford English Dictionary "Genocide" citing Sunday Times 21 October 1945;
8
Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000,337 pages, p.45;
9
Weissman, Gary, “Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust”, Cornell University
Press, 2004, 267 pages, p. 94;

10
Ukrainian mass Jewish grave found, BBC News;
11
Berenbaum, Michael. “The World Must Know”, United States Holocaust Museum, 2006, p. 103;

4
that 16,315,000 people died as a result of genocide, just over 10.5 million Slavs, just fewer than

5.3 million Jews, 258,000 Roma and 220,000 homosexuals12. Donald Niewyk suggests that the

broadest definition would produce a death toll of 17 million 13.A figure of 26 million is given in

Service d'Information des Crimes de Guerre: Crimes contre la Personne Humaine, Camps de

Concentration. Paris, 1946, p. 197.

The second example is represented by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). On May 24,

1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly

charging for the first time ever another government of committing "a crime against humanity".

This joint statement stated: “in view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and

civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold

personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those

of their agents who are implicated in such massacres”14 On 15 September 2005 United States

Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide "Calling upon the President to ensure that

the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity

concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the

United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes." Moreover, it

found that, on the first hand, the Armenian Genocide was provoked and carried out by the

Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, having as a result the deportation of nearly 2,000,000

Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were

12
“A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust-Victims”, at http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/people/victims.htm;
13
Niewyk, Donald & Nicosia, Frances, “The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust”, Columbia University Press, 2000;
14
Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution 106th Congress,,2nd Session,
House of Representatives;

5
expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year

presence of Armenians in their historic homeland15.

On the second hand, "The post-World War I Ottoman Government indicted the top leaders

involved" and that "officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for

organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people". The chief organizers were

"Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all

condemned to death for their crimes; however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced."16

Last but not least, the Armenian Genocide and the domestic judicial failures are proven

through enough evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain,

Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence

attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences17.

The Republic of Turkey government disputes this interpretation of events and maintains that

crucial documents supporting the genocide thesis are actually falsifications.18 Seen as historical

revisionism by many historians, the topic is virtually taboo in Turkey. Laws like Article 301 are

used to bring charges against people like the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, who had stated that

"Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me

dares to talk about it"19.However, Turkish authorities do acknowledge that the issue should be left

15
Ibidem 14;
16
1915 Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House of
Representatives) 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.RES.316, June 14, 2005. 15 September 2005 House
Committee/Subcommittee: International Relations actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 40;
17
Ibidem 16;
18
Armenian issue allegations-facts, at http://www.kultur.gov;
19
Sarah Rainsford, Author's trial set to test Turkey BBC 14 December 2005;

6
to the historians20 and in an open letter by Prime Minister Erdogan to the U.S. President dated 10

April 2005, extended an "invitation to your country to establish a joint group consisting of

historians and other experts from our two countries to study the developments and events of 1915

not only in the archives of Ottoman Empire, Turkey and Armenia but also in the archives of all

relevant third countries and to share their findings with the international public" 21. Furthermore,

in spite of vehement resistance by nationalist groups, an academic conference was held on

September 24, 2005 in Istanbul to discuss the early 20th century massacre of Armenians22.

The BBC reported that in on 16 December 2003, "The Swiss lower house of parliament has

voted to describe the mass killings of Armenians during the last years of the Ottoman Empire as

genocide. ... Fifteen countries have now agreed to label the killings as genocide. They include

France - in 2001 -, Argentina and Russia.”23 On 12 October 2006, French lawmakers "approved a

bill making it a crime to deny that mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World

War I amounted to genocide. Turkey quickly objected, with its Foreign Ministry saying that the

decision "dealt a heavy blow" to Turkish-French relations and “created great disappointment in

our country.”24

Furthermore, other genocides allegedly committed by the Ottoman Empire include the

Pontian Greek Genocide and the Assyrian Genocide.” According to various sources the direct or

indirect death toll of Greeks in Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 men, women and

20
Chris Morris, Bitter history of Armenian genocide row BBC 23 January 2001;
21
Prime Minister Erdogan's letter dated 10 April 2005 on the website of the Turkish Embassy in Washington;
22
Robert Mahoney Turkey: Nationalism and the Press CPJ 16 March 2006;
23
Swiss accept Armenia 'genocide', BBC 16 December 2003;

24
Associated Press Report, “French lawmakers approve bill on Armenian genocide” in the International Herald
Tribune October 12, 2006;

7
children. The Assyro-Chaldean National Council stated in a December 4, 1922, memorandum

that the total death toll is unknown, but it estimates that about 275,000 "Assyro-Chaldeans" died

between 1914–1918”25.

The third example for genocides is represented by the 1994 events in Rwuanda.

During a period of 100 days in 1994, officially 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by

Hutus in Rwanda. The rate at which people were killed far exceeded any other genocide in

history. Bodies were left wherever they were slain, mostly in the streets and their homes. The

method of killing was done mostly with machetes.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the

United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which

occurred there during April and May, 1994, commencing on April 6. The ICTR was created on

November 8, 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people

responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law

performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between January 1

and December 31, 1994.

So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and convicted twenty-five accused persons.

Another twenty-five persons are still on trial. Nineteen are awaiting trial in detention. Ten are still

at large. The first trial, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in 1997. Jean Kambanda, interim Prime

Minister, pled guilty26.

25
Joseph Yacoub, La question assyro-chaldéenne, les Puissances européennes et la SDN (1908–1938), 4 vol., thèse
Lyon, 1985, p. 156;
26
www.icrr.org

8
 An important article about the genocides issue was written by Michael Fredholm

and it is called “The prospects for genocide in Chechnya and extremist retaliation against the

West”. I will develop some ideas debated in the text and I will try to state the answer to some

difficult questions, as I see it. In this article, Michael Fredholm debates the conflict between

Chechnya and the Russian Federation, which shows few signs of being resolved soon. The

problem about this issue is what would be the best attitude of the West regarding to the genocides

in the North Caucasus and what would be the main reasons of their attitude. To explain the

background of the war in Chechnya, as well as to answer the questions posed above, the author

examines the Russian policies in the North Caucasus and the results achieved, rather than wished

for, by the Russian leaders. Such an examination will also show what the West can and should do

to resolve the conflict in Chechnya.

Firstly, I will come up with some historical facts. Russia started to conquer regions

in the North Caucasus in 1783. During that time, Russia conquered important regions in Dagestan

and Chechnya, also territories inhabited by Ingush. There were two resistance fronts. On the first

hand, the group represented by the united tribes of the eastern parts of the North Caucasus and

their leaders were Ghazi Muhammad and Shamil. On the other hand, the Caucasians (Cherkessk)

in the western parts of the North Caucasus struggled to oppose the Russian sway, on their own

war. Nevertheless, these two groups weren’t successful because they never managed to co-

operate efficiently against the Russians.

In 1944, Stalin accused a number of North Caucasian peoples, notably the Chechens and

Ingush, of collaboration with Germany and deported them to Central Asia and Siberia. Other

mountain groups were forcibly resettled in the lowlands. Yet more ethnic Russians were settled in

the urban areas of the region. However, Stalin’s policy was reversed after his death, and from

9
1956 the deported peoples began to return, causing frequent and occasionally violent disputes

between the returnees and those who had been resettled where the returnees used to live.

With the fall of Soviet power, a number of North Caucasian republics declared sovereignty.

Chechnya’s first president, Dzhokhar Dudaev, went further and declared independence in 1991,

which ultimately led to the first Chechen war from 1994 to 1996. Although unrecognized by the

international community, Chechnya successfully defended her independence. However, the

economic carnage caused by the war caused the new Chechen president, Aslan Maskhadov, to

lose control over parts of Chechnya that subsequently fell under the sway of militant Islamists.

Some of them in 1999 assumed control over and spearheaded an uprising in neighbouring

Dagestan, which ultimately provoked a Russian invasion and the present war in Chechnya.

An important question regarding the Russian sway in the North Caucasus area would

be about the reasons that Russian had to find so hard the loss of influence in the area. In fact, the

main reasons for the Russian sway in the North Caucasus area were to prevent the unrest in

Chechnya from destabilizing the rest of the region and to protect vital communications, in

particular oil pipelines and access to the Caspian Sea. But Russia no longer needs to rely on the

oil pipeline through Chechnya, as the bypass pipeline (planned since September 1997) was

finally ready for operation in April 2000.[25] This means that pipelines as well as railway and

road communications have been re-established between Dagestan and Russia, without the need to

enter Chechnya.

Another important question related to the article would be about the reasons for

Russia to use the genocides in the North Caucasus. Historically, Russia has attempted a large

number of supportive strategies to subdue non-Slavic regions: co-optation of local elites,

10
religious or ideological assimilation/russification, settlement of ethnic Russians and

deportation/genocide. The first three strategies were never entirely feasible, but just partially

successful. For example, the co-optation often brought success, but only where there was a local

aristocracy to assimilate (Ex. Dagestan, Kabarda). In contrast, because the Chechens never had a

sufficiently stratified society, co-optation never proved a success against them. On the other hand,

neither conversion to Orthodox Christianity or to Marxism was successful among the Moslems of

the North Caucasus, because the religious faith of the Islam was too strong. In conclusion, the

only feasible strategy remained deportation/genocide.

Another important question related to the article would be about the main reasons

that made Chechnya a fertile ground for radical Islam. Thus, if Chechnya has become fertile

ground for radical Islam, the main reason is neither religion nor nationalism, but demography. In

the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Chechen rate of annual population growth was as high as between 31

and 40 per 1000. In addition, another reason is that, due to the economic devastation of

Chechnya, their chances of finding employment and a peaceful life are nil.

The most important question related to the article would be about the West attitude

regarding to the genocides issue in the North Caucasus and what are the main reasons of their

attitude. “Neither the West nor Turkey or Iran (which in the last decade has grown into a Russian

ally) sees any real political gains in supporting the North Caucasus against Russia. Russia is

therefore able to treat the war as an internal conflict and apply her proven strategies to subdue the

region”.[26] The West should take a stand for Chechen autonomy within the Russian Federation,

not for geopolitical reasons (which there are none) or human rights reasons (although a case for

such a stand can be made) but to avoid further radical Islamic antagonism. The West must also be

prepared to contribute to the post-war economic reconstruction of Chechnya.

11
 The last question related to the article is about the assumption that the rebels from

Chechnya have links with al-Qaeda. The situation could be possible, but it hasn’t been proved

yet, although there are some stories that would indicate the links between rebels from North

Caucasus and al-Qaeda. For example, in October 2002 a man that was involved in the

September/11 attack declared that Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the hijackers, had

wanted to fight in Chechnya. Another example for the possibility of Chechnya having links with

al-Qaeda would be the intercepted telephone calls that made the US officials to believe that the

fighters from Georgia, near the border with Chechnya, were in contact with al-Qaeda.

As a conclusion to the article, there is this terrific idea that individual extremists

move easily from one hotbed to another and Chechen fighters may eventually turn up elsewhere.

If the West allows Russia to gradually subdue Chechnya and disperse parts of her population, the

most radical Chechens are bound to turn up among the extremist Islamic circles that currently see

the West as much as Moscow as their enemy.

In summary of this attempt, I will come up with a good example of an organization

that tries to protect the world from genocides, the Prevent Genocide International. Recent mass

atrocities and genocide in multiple world regions demonstrate the urgent need for a network of

individuals as well as local, national and international organizations capable of rapidly mobilizing

the global public against possible future episodes of genocide.

Prevent Genocide International is a global education and action network established in

1998 with the purpose of bringing about the elimination of the crime of genocide. The

organization makes particular use of the Internet as a way of linking persons around the world in

a transnational network of global civic engagement and action. The foremost goal of Prevent

12
Genocide International is to cultivate well-informed and articulate voices in many nations able to

speak out in the emerging global civil society against the crime of genocide.

Bibliography

1. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm;

2. M. Hassan Kakar, “Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982”,

University of California Press © 1995 The Regents of the University of California.

3. M. Hassan Kakar 4. “The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan” 13.” Genocide Throughout the

Country”;

13
4. Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case

Studies, Yale University Press, 1990;

5. R. J. Rummel, “Domocide versus genocide; which is what?” Yale University Press, 1993;

6. Oxford English Dictionary "Genocide" citing Sunday Times 21 October 1945

7. Niewyk, Donald L. “The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust”, Columbia University Press,

2000;

8. Weissman, Gary, “ Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust”,

Cornell University Press, 2004;

9. Ukrainian mass Jewish grave found, BBC News;

10. Berenbaum, Michael, “ The World Must Know”, United States Holocaust Museum, 2006;

11. A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust-Victims, at

http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/people/victims.htm;

12. R.J. Rummel, “Nazi Democide: Nazi genocide and mass murder”, Chapter 1, Table 1.1

13. Niewyk, Donald & Nicosia, Frances, “The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust”, Columbia

University Press, 2000;

14. Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution 106th

Congress,,2nd Session, House of Representatives;

15. 1915 Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution

(Introduced in House of Representatives) 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.RES.316, June 14,

14
 2005. 15 September 2005 House Committee/Subcommittee:International Relations actions.

Status: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 40 – 7;

16. “Armenian issue allegations-facts”, at http://www.kultur.gov;

17. Sarah Rainsford, “Author's trial set to test Turkey” BBC 14 December 2005;

18. Chris Morris, “Bitter history of Armenian genocide row”, BBC 23 January 2001;

19. Prime Minister Erdogan's letter dated 10 April 2005 on the website of the Turkish Embassy in

Washington;

20. Robert Mahoney “Turkey: Nationalism and the Press”, CPJ 16 March 2006;

21. “Swiss accept Armenia 'genocide', BBC 16 December 2003;

22. Associated Press report, “French lawmakers approve bill on Armenian genocide” in the

International Herald Tribune October 12, 2006;

23. Joseph Yacoub, “La question assyro-chaldéenne, les Puissances européennes et la SDN”

(1908–1938), 4 vol., thèse Lyon, 1985;

24. www.ictr.org

25. Anna Matveeva, “The North Caucasus: Russia’s Fragile Borderland” (London: The Royal

Institute of International Affairs, 1999), p 52; David Stern, ‘Refurbished pipeline’, Financial

Times, 7 April 2000.

26. Michael Fredholm, “The prospects for genocide in Chechnya and extremist retaliation

against the West”;

15
16