class: center, top, title-slide # Genocide ## SOC371 ### Chuck Lanfear ### Mar 10, 2021<br>Updated: Mar 8, 2021 --- # Overview * Genocide in Darfur * Differential Social Organization of Genocide * A Competing View * Discussion & Clarifications * Wrapping Up the Course --- # Definition of Genocide Article 2, UN Genocide Convention: > Genocide is any of the following five acts committed with **intent to destroy**, in whole or in part, a national **ethnic**, **racial**, or **religious** group: ??? The definition of genocide was coined by Lemkin in 1944. The legal definition--based on Lemkin's work--used by the UN was established by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Note the intent is important. This is the *mens rea* of genocide from early in the course. For it to be genocide, there must be evidence the perpetrators intend to destroy the group. -- * Killing group members ??? Most commonly seen component. It has been described as a "near universal" that genocides involve killing men and young boys--those who might be in a position to fight. -- * Causing serious bodily or mental harm to group members ??? Torture, both physical and psychological is common in genocide. Sexual violence (rape) is a component of most genocides. Sexual slavery also occurs. -- * Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group as a whole or in part ??? This includes acts that do not directly kill but are likely to result in deaths, like concentration camps, deprivation of water and food, death marches, and destruction of settlements and property. -- * Imposing measures intended to prevent births ??? These are attempts to wipe out a group by preventing procreation. This includes sterilization, separation of men and women, as well as rape for the purpose of producing children of the attacker's race or ethnicity. -- * Forcible transferring children of the group to another group ??? Transferring of children is about cultural destruction. This also includes enlistment of boy soldiers as well as sexual slavery of female children and youth. Any of these acts serve as the *actus reus* or guilty act of genocide. The mens rea--intent--plus actus reus--act, compose the crime of genocide. --- # Genocide in Darfur Competition between settled Black African and nomadic Arab tribes * Land, cattle, horses, and other resources * Intensified by desertification * Janjaweed (with Sudan government) vs. Black African insurgents ??? Interracial violence was longstanding in Sudan, rooted in conflicts between agricultural Black African tribes and pastoral Arab tribes. These groups are similar to outsiders: Share a religion, phenotypically similar. Linguistically and culturally different; government is predominantly Arabic. Conflict over resources; intensified by overuse of resources and climate change resulting in shrinking grazing land. Primary military forces in play were Janjaweed militias back by govt and scattered Black African insurgents; presence of insurgents frequently used as justification for Janjaweed violence. -- Joint organization: * Arming of Arab Janjaweed militias by government in 2003 * Bombing of African villages by Sudanese government * Government forces join Janjaweed militias in ground attacks ??? Collaboration between the Janjaweed and Sudanese government was complex and commonplace. The government armed the militias, enabled leaders, and provided direct assistance with the military from the air and ground. The general idea here is Sudan needed additional, race-pure, forces to run conflict but could support with military. -- *Actus reus* of genocide: * Killings * Sexual violence and other atrocities * Confiscation of property (animals, grain, seed, equipment) * Displacement of Black Africans into internal displacement camps * Resettlement of Black African regions by Arabs ??? Beyond direct violence, every element of genocide definition covered in Sudan. Widespread sexual violence. Much taking of property, particularly livestock, which is source of livelihood and status. Displaced Black Africans moved to internal concentration camps, and their land resettled by Arabs--not just from Sudan but also from neighboring Chad. --- # Theoretical Model .image-100[  ] ??? The model graphically depicts the multilevel model of genocide. We will meander through most of the key components of this. The important thing to note in this model is its multilevel nature. The top row is macro or state-level features, such as a state-led ideology of Arab supremacism and the widespread genocidal victimization that results. Intervening between this Arab supremacist ideology and genocide are processes operating at lower local levels, like social construction of groups, individual racist practices and actions including use of epithets, and the vital mediating concept of Collectivized Racial Intent which they claim translates lower level processes into the construction of a genocidal state. --- # Differential Social Organization of Genocide * Organization against genocide * Black African rebels and insurgents * The international community (e.g. The UN) * The international criminal court (ICC) ??? Organization against genocide in Sudan includes rebel and insurgent Black African forces, who retaliated primarily against Sudanese government targets. We can also consider the international community--for which the UN is the representative body--and the international criminal court as members of organization against genocide. -- * Organization in favor of genocide * Arab Janjaweed "anti-insurgent" militias * Sudanese government * Arab settlers ??? In favor are most prominently the Janjaweed militias, which bill themselves as anti-insurgents--though as Hagan & Rymond-Richmond note, insurgent attacks appear to largely follow victimization. Also the Sudanese government, of course, and Arab settlers who gain from the situation but may not take part in fighting. --- ### Collective Action in Favor of Genocide * Social networks and access to resources * Arab Janjaweed & Sudan government forces * Arms, facilities, and cooperation * External support ??? The resources underlying organization in favor of genocide are strong. There's close direct social ties between militia leaders and government and military officials. These close ties manifest in both direct cooperation and shared material resources such as firearms, aircraft, vehicles, and logistic chains--delivery of supplies like ammunition, food, water, and other things to support military efforts. The authors also note some degree of support external to Sudan, such as weapons flowing in via Chad. -- * Political opportunity: insurgent attacks ??? Collective action frameworks draw attention to the role of political opportunities for mobilization. Insurgent attacks on government bases provide an impetus for a strong retaliation. This is a framing move! They point to an attack by rebels, link rebels to Black African settlers, and this provides justification. -- * Collective action frames * Define the conflict as a collective problem, not an individual grievance * Define opposition (Black Africans) as "them" versus "us" * Frame injustices committed by "them" as correctable by organized actions against "them" (ethnic cleansing) ??? Building on this opportunity and the general background of conflict, we can imagine a collective action frame. The resource conflict and insurgency are a problem facing the Sudanese Arab community. They define "them" as Black Africans and "us" as Arabs. The injustices committed by them are long-standing exclusion from land and recent insurgency, which can be remedied by removing the rebels and Black Africans from the area. This is an explicitly racist collective action frame. -- * Social Efficacy * Key leaders of Arab militia representing distinct areas * Hilal, Dawai, Shineibat, Kushayb * Each with strong regional social ties & social efficacy ??? Social efficacy plays a key role in Hagan & Rymond-Richmonds analysis. They describe in detail the backgrounds and roles of four Arab militia leaders. They all have strong social ties in their respective regions, as well as ties linking them to the Sudanese government and each other. They are also described as socially efficacious--they're already effective leaders in other roles and clearly able to motivate their militia bases. Thus we have a case where we have socially efficacious actors sitting central to the networks of organization in favor of genocide. --- # The Racist Spark * Racism frame * "Us" vs. "Them" in zero-sum game * Initially over land, water, and resources * Gets transformed into race * Demonize and dehumanize African blacks ??? A focus of their analysis is the racist collective action frame and the motivating emotional spark that can ignite a "fanatical fury"--a priming for genocide. This is rooted in the social background of Sudan. Initially it is centered over land, water, and resource. But it shifts into being primarily about racial conflict through purposeful racial framing by the government and efficacious actors. Decades of permitting ethnic conflict to occur and escalate in Darfur was intertwined with an ideology of supremacist Arabization. In discourse, Black Africans are demonized and depicted as subhuman. -- * Racial epithets * Individual racist expressions are transformed into collective racism * "Fanatical fury": Collective racist emotion unleashed on dehumanized African blacks * Racism: A collective instrument of organized terror * Reveal a racist motive and intent (genocide) ??? The practiced use of epithets in attacks transform individual racist beliefs and expressions into collective intent. Where use of racial epithets was more common, the violence is also worse. The epithets are thus implicated as a motivational factor in genocidal action. The "meso-level" causal factor Hagan & Rymond-Richmond focus on is this collectivized racial intent. They describe it in terms that sound like a Durkheimian Collective Effervescence centered on racial hatred and violence. For Durkheim, Collective Effervescence was about groups coming together in an energetic experience characterized by loss of individuality and strong lasting identification with the group. Furious use of epithets serves as an instrument of terror by making clear the intention is the destruction of the Black African people. In doing so, it of course reveals their shared genocidal intent--the *mens rea* of genocide. --- # The Case for Genocide * Racial epithets heard during attacks (reflect racial intent) * More likely when Sudanese government troops joined with Janjaweed militants * "We will eliminate all you blacks" * "You will have an Arab baby." ??? The use a variety of evidence to make the case for genocide. Pervasive use of racial epithets reflects a racial intent to the actions taking place. That epithets were more common when the militias and government were working together suggests it is supported by the government or even originating there. Epithets were less common in either militia-alone or government-alone attacks--the use of epithets appeared to reinforce and motivate the fighters and provided a unifying force. The epithets spoken directly communicate genocidal intentions: They are there to eliminate Black Africans, to cause them to have Arab children. -- * Nearby Arab settlements often ignored in attacks ??? Further, the racial nature is indicated by their ignoring Arab settlements. If the conflict was purely rooted in outsiders seeking to claim the land and resources, it would make no sense to leave the Arab settlements. -- * Bombing and racial epithets combined for greater victimization ??? Victimization was also much worse where epithets were more common and government-run bombing took place. The combination of these is an indicator of joint action between the government and militias. The authors infer from this that the government of Sudan channeled the racial hostility of militias during these events. This increased victimization in joint efforts is an indicator of state-sponsored genocidal action. -- * State-sponsored murder and rape ??? They also provide substantial evidence that locations with joint militia and government action experienced more murders and sexual violence. They also provide evidence of direct awareness and encouragement of both practices by state actors and their immediate proxies. The racial nature of these is made clear in that both forms of victimization are minimal or absent in nearby Arab settlements, and both are more severe when racial epithets are present. Not just murder, but also rape appears to be a state-sanctioning genocidal policy in Darfur (as it has been in other genocides). --- # Theoretical Model .image-100[  ] ??? Here is the model again for reference. --- # Proposed Solution: International Law * Call on the United Nations to define this as genocide ??? The solution to genocide generally suggested by Hagan and Rymond-Richmond is enforcement of international law. Pretty much every nation in the world is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. The UN is the primary supranational body with enforcement powers. If the UN defines actions as genocide, it creates an obligation to act under the Genocide Convention. When folks ask why something wasn't done, intervention-wise, early on, this is sort of the hope--if the UN recognized it as genocide, they would have to act. They did not. While it was declared a genocide by Colin Powell and George W. Bush, the only actions taken were limited economic sanctions and referral to the UN. The UN investigation found evidence for the *actus reus*, the killings and destruction, but claimed there was no evidence of *mens rea*: genocidal intent. They referred it to the ICC. -- * Call on International Criminal Court (ICC) * Define this as genocide * Indict those involved for genocide * End the atrocities by international intervention ??? The ICC is a supranational body intended to prosecute serious crimes such as genocide when nations will not do so. About 120 nations are members. Both the United States and Sudan are signatories but have not ratified--they do not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction to indict their citizens. If the ICC indicts it doesn't guarantee anything will occur: They indict individuals only and they would need to be handed over to the ICC. The ICC also has no power to enact direct military intervention--but the hope was ICC charges would compel intervention. UN peacekeepers were present from mid 2000s on, and violence has largely declined, but is still present and displacement of Black Africans is still occurring. A limited number of refugees in Chad have migrated back to Darfur. al-Bashir is to date the only person the ICC has ever charged with genocide--he is facing charges in Sudan for his role in the coup that put him in power. Haroun and Kushayb have been indicted for crimes against humanity. Haroun is also in custody in Sudan, but Kushayb was handed over to ICC in June last year. Worth noting that after initial ICC investigation, Sudan actually put Haroun, one of the architects of genocide, in charge of investigating it in Sudan, and he was put in a role overseeing deployment of UN peacekeepers. After ICC indicted him, UN had Haroun in possession and had agreed to cooperate with ICC, but instead flew Haroun around in Sudan using him as a mediator and never arrested him. --- # A Competing View * Ex: Mamdani (2009) *Saviours and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror* * Viewed in historical context, this is a political-economic conflict * Decades of conflict over land, water, animals, and other resources. * Arab and Black African identities in Darfur fluid for centuries * British colonial rule: Re-tribalization divided up territory ??? A competing viewpoint has put forth by critics of genocide calls which focuses on political-economic conflict. This focuses on the preconditions Hagan and Rymond-Richmond describe of resource conflict stretching back decades and fluid racial identities in the area, Essentially it is a continuation of a civil war driven by resource conflict and social divisions from the legacy of British colonialism. Critics suggest the racial identities were constructed by the British and just lingered through the post-colonial nation. -- * ICC is arbitrarily attacking Arabs * Historically atrocities have been committed by both sides ??? ICC is targeting enemies of its controlling nations--ICC isn't charging nations involved in abuses in Chechnya, Iraq, or Myanmar for instance. From this perspective, they're targeting the Sudanese government as an extension of anti-Arabism. Outside intervention is effort to recolonize by justifying military and legal intervention in Sudan by focusing on Arab violence while both sides of the conflict have been involved in atrocities. I'll note, though, that the ICC actually has indicted at least one leader from the Black African insurgent side for attacks on peacekeepers. -- * Africanists distrust the ICC * Not accountable to anyone * Except UN security council, which is dominated by US * External intervention will only destabilize the region ??? Africanist critics and scholars generally distrust the ICC, UN, and states those bodies represent. They have their own interests which do not reflect the interests of Africans. They feel intervention is only going to further destabilize the region. -- * Alternative Solution: Internal political negotiation ??? What is needed from this perspective is not punishment of criminals but internal reconciliation. I'll finish by noting that this perspective is a controversial counterpoint, and other historical analyses take a genocide perspective as well. --- class: inverse # Wrapping Up --- # Key Takeaways * Many competing theories on causes of crime * Rational decision-making, incentives, and opportunities * Bonds to individuals and society * Social learning and cultures ??? Each set of theories makes different assumptions about human nature and processes generating crime. Excellent and useful academic work comes from all perspectives. Sometimes they're blended together or synthesized as well. -- * Much agreement in many areas * Social context is key: Disadvantage, instability, and personal ties * Communities matter for individuals * Agency matters: Despite context, behavior varies widely between and within individuals -- * Crime is a symptom: Prevention beats treatment * Addressing disadvantage, segregation, and opportunity is difficult--but more effective than alternatives * Incarceration is inefficient and harmful * Changes in policing often have little impact ??? Substantial agreement in general causes means there are many forms of interventions that generally agree with the common perspectives. Addressing underlying causes of disadvantage, segregation, and opportunity are key. They're difficult to do, but more likely to work than band-aid solutions. Overall, though, please be critical consumers of information. Particularly about crime, but also in general. The social and political world is complex and having absolute certainty about just about anything should be a warning sign. Important things deserve careful thinking. At the same time, just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they're right. Always push at things that don't quite make sense. --- # Final Exam * Due 11:59 PM on Tuesday * **No extensions**--grades will be due.¹ .footnote[[1] Except emergencies mandated by UW policy. May result in delayed grades.] ??? Extension is already built in. No additional extension because grades will be due. --- class: inverse # Thank you!