Peter Van Arsdale
Mellissa Jessen
Nicole Hawthorne
Kellie Ramirez
Cathy Smith
U Denver

Article Two of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as action with intent to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” Actions include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, the imposition of harsh conditions of life, the imposition of measures intended to prevent births, and the forcible transference of children. Not only the elimination of the group, but severe damage to the group’s integrity is stressed. Not only the outcome, but the intent of the actions is emphasized.

Ethnocide and ethnic cleansing are analytically related terms, and as noted by scholars such as Andrew Bell-Fiallkoff and Pierre Clastres, this has enabled consideration of correlative definitions covering forcible displacement, life-threatening expulsion and cultural destruction. Particularly useful is the stark, emically-oriented definition of genocide identified by Carl Wilkins, based on his relief work in Rwanda: “My world would be better without you in it.”

Through a preliminary review of the literature and related documentation on genocide, ethnocide and ethnic cleansing, we have identified several repeated dyads that we illustrate below, in the hopes that the comparative anthropological study envisioned by Alexander Laban Hinton a decade ago in the pages of the American Ethnologist, as he wrestled with the notion of revenge and other ramifications of the Cambodian genocide, can continue to be aggressively pursued.

Denial and Responsibility
Writing in The New York Review, Michael Oren has noted that between 1894 and 1896 as many as 200,000 Armenians may have been killed by Turks. Yet this was only a precursor of things to come. In subsequent actions during the period 1914–18, supported by the Turkish government, as many as one million more Armenians were killed or forcibly expelled. Yet in 2003, the Turkish National Assembly passed a remarkable law. It required that schools deny that mass murder—genocide—had ever taken place.

In July, 2007, the highest-ranking Khmer Rouge leader still alive denied any responsibility for the nearly two million deaths that occurred during the Cambodian genocide of 1975–1979. Nuon Chea, an 82-year-old known as “Brother Number 2,” served as Pol Pot’s right-hand man. It is said that Pol Pot, known as “Brother Number 1,” when confronted in a jungle clearing not long before he died in 1998, offered a similar denial.

Responsibility is hard to come by. Taking an unusual approach, the lower house of the French parliament recently approved a bill that would make it a criminal offense to deny the Armenian genocide. Also writing in The New York Review, analyst Christopher de Bellaigue observes that, although it is unlikely to be passed into law, the French action sends a strong message. Taking a less unusual—but perhaps more effective—approach, the former Khmer Rouge S-21 Prison has been converted into the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.

Perpetrators and Victims
No dyad has been more thoroughly analyzed than this. It is also the one most likely to result in ethnic stereotyping and overly simplistic interpretations. It is the one most often associated with dramatic statistics, as the numbers of those killed are presented, reanalyzed and presented once again.

We have found the literature on the Kurdish genocide of 1987–88 (including the so-called “Anfal Campaign”) to be particularly useful, in part because it has been less subject to simplistic interpretation. Men and boys were primarily targeted by members of Saddam Hussein’s regime, under the guise of suppressing rebellion. By some estimates, over 4,000 villages were destroyed and over 60,000 Kurds killed. The term “gendercide” was applied, as it also was several years later to the massacre at Srebrenica in Bosnia.

Heroes and Villains
The act of genocide, as well as the comparative study of genocide, brings forth personalities. From Rwanda alone, key names emerge. Notable as heroes are Paul Rusesabagina and Romeo Dallaire. Notable as villains are Theoneste Bagosora and Agathe Habyarimana. (Notable as researchers are Philip Gourevitch and Samantha Power.) Just as the event comes to be associated with the victims (viewed as groups), it comes to be associated with the names of heroes and villains (viewed as individuals). In either case, it can come to be ominously reified, making subsequent analyses more difficult—and more necessary.

Of particular interest is the notion of the bystander to genocide. Samantha Power is among those considering this from the point of view of nation states (for example, the US as bystander in the case of Rwanda). Roy Gutman is among those considering this from the point of view of individuals (such as Bosnian neighbors as bystanders in the case of Bosniacs being captured by Serbs).

Deconstruction and Reconstruction
The “classic” genocides of the 20th century are those impacting Armenians, Jews and others during the Holocaust, Cambodians during the reign of Pol Pot, Rwandans, Bosnians, and now Sudanese in Darfur. Explanations presented for these genocides have been as simple as “settling a grudge” (Hutu against Tutsi, Rwanda), “revenge for past injustices” (Khmer Rouge against other Khmer, Cambodia), “re-establishment of nationalist supremacy” (Serbs against Bosniacs, Bosnia), and “resource reallocation under a supremacist mandate” (janjaweed against Darfurians, Sudan). Power differentials are a common theme, as are the roles of state-based institutions in premeditating genocidal paths, promulgating racist propaganda, subjugating those seen as threats and promoting terror.

Historical deconstructions, as we define them, entail analyses that “alter” the past and inappropriately diminish the suffering of others. As used by leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic and Biljana Plavsic regarding the war in Bosnia, such deconstructions minimize, diffuse and subvert explanations of genocidal atrocities. Historical deconstructions have been presented by authors such as Ronald Goldfarb, interested in the Holocaust in particular. As Elie Wiesel has emphasized, most deconstructions are dangerous.

By contrast, historical reconstructions as we define them attempt to clarify the past by incorporating additional “voices.” For example, the reinterpretations being offered by analysts such as Bennie Morris and Ilan Pappe, as they consider the conflict in Israel and Palestine, offer the promise of more nuanced understandings of the genocide theme writ large, as specific instances of ethnic cleansing are debated.

A Moral Imperative
We believe a moral imperative exists as genocide is considered. We have an obligation to consider—and act upon—our responsibilities to members of vulnerable groups. Following on the heels of Pierre Clastres (who died in 1977), and more recently Paul Magnarella, Liisa Malkki, Christopher Taylor, Bette Denich, Gretchen Schafft and Alexander Laban Hinton, more anthropologists must become involved as researchers, advocates and policymakers. As our colleague John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group has stressed, the words “Genocide Never Again” have to start to mean something. If not, we are implicitly desecrating the memories of past genocide victims, as well as making it unlikely that future perpetrators will feel deterred from committing such acts.

Peter Van Arsdale is senior lecturer at the Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS), University of Denver and author of Forced to Flee. He also directs the University of Denver’s certificate program in Humanitarian Assistance and is a member of the AAA’s Committee for Human Rights. Mellissa Jessen is a 2007 MA graduate of GSIS. Nicole Hawthorne, Kellie Ramirez and Cathy Smith are current MA candidates at the school, all specializing in human rights.