'Just World News' with Helena Cobban: THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND WAR:

'Just World News' with Helena Cobban Info, analysis, discussion-- to build a more just world
« A SOUTH AFRICAN IN VIRGINIA: \| JWN front page \| CHALABI DOUBLY DISCREDITED: » THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND WAR: Posted by Helena Cobban May 30, 2003 9:40 PM EST \| Link Filed in War crimes etc THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND WAR: Last night, I watched "The Pianist". Again. The first time was back at the beginning of the month, in Johannesburg. But last night, my spouse brought the video home from the video store. So I decided to sit down and watch it again, with him. It is a remarkable, gut-wrenching movie. Adrien Brody has such a haunting, haunted face, and plays the expressions on it like a true maestro. The story only occasionally seemed overdone. (A couple of tropes apparently borrowed from other people's trails of tears: the Gestapo-forcing-the-Jews-to-dance thing; the woman-who-had-to-smother-her-own-baby thing. But who knows? Maybe those were in Szpilman's original book, and before that, in his life. In which case, forget what I said about tropes.) Generally, the movie takes you right along with Vladek as his family is squeezed by the Nazis' ever-increasing encroachments on their lives and liberties. He loses everyone and everything around him. And he gains-- well, he gains an other-worldly personal affect even as the story of what happens to him becomes more and more "fantastickal". As well as deadly true and truly deadly. The movie almost takes you inside the experience of being the survivor of a genocide. Of course, as I watched it, I remembered survivors' narratives that I heard from people I interviewed last year, in Rwanda. In some of the movie's early scenes, firstly as ever more and more restrictions were placed on Warsaw's Jews, and then as they were herded into the tight confines of the ghetto, I thought of the current travails of my Palestinian friends... But the movie also reminded me of something I first started reflecting on some weeks ago: namely, that while hate-inciters and other various assorted sickoes can be found in every society, it seems to be only in the circumstances of an all-out war that such people and grouplets actually get to act out the full sickness of their genocidal ambitions.* I think this feels like a fairly significant insight. Think of Germany, think of Rwanda, think of Saddam's Anfal campaign. All of them carried out under the "fog of war". This is NOT to say, at all, that genocide is "just another one of the things that gets to happen in war." It is NOT just another "excess" of the war situation. It deserves to be treated seriously, and with deep opprobrium. (There is something in me that says that the twice-over intentionality that is built into all the international-law definitions of genocide may, however, be a bit overblown. The central tragedy of a genocide seems to me to be--as Gerard Prunier remarked in a discussion I had with him in 2001, that it wipes out "everything that might be a vehicle through which a person might hope to leave any personal legacy in the world." But then, if your entire ethnic or religious or whatever kind of group ends up getting wiped out because of, say, avoidable famine or some such cause, does that feel any different to a victim from being wiped out because someone hates your particular group? I don't think so. Indeed, you could say that being genocided because of intention pays the target group more heed--even if heed of the most hateful kind--than being genocided out of sheer inattention...) Be that as it may. I postulate that the reason for the nexus between genocide and war is because, in time of war, so many of people's "normal" inhibitions--and primarily, the normal inhibition against killing-- have to be suppressed. This then allows sick individuals and grouplets who advocate genocidal, mass killings to gain a much wider and more sympathetic hearing than they could ever get in normal times. Plus, there is all the fear and hysteria of war-time discourse: the frequently exaggerated fears of hostile "fifth columns" whose members--often thought in many people's minds to be members of a certain rethnic or religious group-- need to be rooted out. Etc., etc. So here's a simple policy prescription. If this nexus exists, then one very effect way to "prevent" genocide-- an obligation that the 1948 Genocide Convention lays on all members of the international community-- would be to prevent war. Tell me what YOU think. ----- * Footnote added May 30, 2004: After I wrote the above, I read the book. I discovered that not only did Palanski not import into Szpilman's work any extraneous tropes from other Holocaust- or slavery-related narratives, but rather, he LEFT OUT many amazing stories of things that had happened to Szpilman, or that he saw, that were in the original book. The book is amazing. Read it! « A SOUTH AFRICAN IN VIRGINIA: \| JWN front page \| CHALABI DOUBLY DISCREDITED: » Comments Comment from... Raver, at June 28, 2004 03:25 PM: I think that in order to comment fully on your ideas, we would have to further qualify words like "war" and "genocide." What would you call the actions occuring in the Darfur region now? Is it a war, or just a "genocide" without war? Because if it is, then your proposition is unfortunately flawed. And then again, the use of the word "genocide" requires a very high degree of specific knowledge. Most of the civilians involved apparently have been scared/forced from their homes to refugee camps where they may indeed die from starvation and disease. But did the instigators or leaders of the Janjaweed have this in mind? Ok, to what I really wanted to write. Your simple prescription apart from being perhaps too "simple," (in terms of a philosophical argument) raises the question of global stability as a policy goal of the U.N. (At least I think that is what you are suggesting; talk of the prevention of war by various officials at different times sometimes seems to be a cover for indifferent inaction, or political realpolitik) While on the whole, global stability includes both peace and justice, in some cases, like Morroco's Western Sahara, the non-autonomous province of Tibet, the protectorate of Lebanon, it can be a prescription for long term instability (Tibet is probably a bad example, with the almost total transformation of the area to majority Chinese population, and the present Lama's persistently lowered international status, I doubt that there will be instability in the future let alone much "noise" concerning the issue) or even continuing atrocities. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a connection between war and the willingness to demonize the other due to various false or true exingencies, and therefore both countries and citizens should work together to find common ground through the extensive alternatives with which we have recourse. But, I dare to say, wars can be legitimate and can stop many things including genocide. Therefore, we are forced, among other things, to ruminate on the validity, efficacy and procedural/moral dimensions concerning Humanitarian Intervention.	Recent Posts on JWN • Realism, war, and pacifism (3) • Palin's performance: Insulting and very scary (28) • September 11 and the war in Afghanistan (6) • US's global dominance 'Reduced': It's nearly official! (1) • JWN redesign update #1 (2) • Oliver North??? (5) • J. Diehl criticizing Saakashvili (3) • Peres warns against attacking Iran (0) • Georgia-Hizbullah: Dept. of Delicious Ironies (2) • US probing Russian Red Lines in Georgia (0) • Women discuss Sarah Palin (26) • New vistas-- personal, and blog-related (12) • The longterm status of Georgia: Challenges ahead (20) • Text of the draft Iraq-US SOFA (10) • HRW revising its Russian cluster bomb accusations (11) • International tensions and the US election (9) • Iraq: Another Quaker in the 'Red Zone' (3) • HRW's flawed 'Research' on Georgian cluster bombs (20) • More on China in Iraq (12) • Post on China in US occupied zones-- at Japan Focus (0) • Palin and the 3 a.m. phone call (39) • China and Iraq (4) • Egyptian delegation to break Gaza siege (2) • Waiting for Gustav (5) • Italy gives Libya $$ compensation for colonial rule (17) • China buys in to Iraqi, Afghan end-games (15) • "Resolution": Palin's goal in Iraq (8) • China's way of 'Emerging' (6) • A note on US politics (6) • Conway does a Dannatt (sort of) (7) • China gets Iraq oil deal (6) • Rest-of-world saving US from recession? (5) • Russia and the world (12) • Milanovic: From Global Trade to Global War (5) • The return of geography (3) • Still no US-Iraq security agreement (yawn) (2) • Iraq-US: More disagreement than 'Agreement' (23) • NATO's supply lines in Afghanistan (27) • My CSM piece on the big-picture implications of Georgia (21) • Mahbubani on western hypocrisy, etc. (5) • Condi in Baghdad: YES on a timetable (aspirational) (8) • More on NATO, etc. (14) • NATO's crisis (8) • And another thing about Finland (23) • Where in the world is... Ban Ki-Moon? (22) • Russian military assessment: New arms race? (26) • And now for a little audio (0) • Yglesias nails McCain (4) • Sarkozy's ceasefire, Georgia's future (22) • Georgia crisis and the shifting global balance (0)

THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND WAR:

Posted by Helena Cobban
May 30, 2003 9:40 PM EST | Link
Filed in War crimes etc

THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND WAR: Last night, I watched "The Pianist". Again. The first time was back at the beginning of the month, in Johannesburg. But last night, my spouse brought the video home from the video store. So I decided to sit down and watch it again, with him.

It is a remarkable, gut-wrenching movie. Adrien Brody has such a haunting, haunted face, and plays the expressions on it like a true maestro. The story only occasionally seemed overdone. (A couple of tropes apparently borrowed from other people's trails of tears: the Gestapo-forcing-the-Jews-to-dance thing; the woman-who-had-to-smother-her-own-baby thing. But who knows? Maybe those were in Szpilman's original book, and before that, in his life. In which case, forget what I said about tropes.*)

Generally, the movie takes you right along with Vladek as his family is squeezed by the Nazis' ever-increasing encroachments on their lives and liberties. He loses everyone and everything around him. And he gains-- well, he gains an other-worldly personal affect even as the story of what happens to him becomes more and more "fantastickal". As well as deadly true and truly deadly.

The movie almost takes you inside the experience of being the survivor of a genocide. Of course, as I watched it, I remembered survivors' narratives that I heard from people I interviewed last year, in Rwanda. In some of the movie's early scenes, firstly as ever more and more restrictions were placed on Warsaw's Jews, and then as they were herded into the tight confines of the ghetto, I thought of the current travails of my Palestinian friends...

But the movie also reminded me of something I first started reflecting on some weeks ago: namely, that while hate-inciters and other various assorted sickoes can be found in every society, it seems to be only in the circumstances of an all-out war that such people and grouplets actually get to act out the full sickness of their genocidal ambitions.

I think this feels like a fairly significant insight. Think of Germany, think of Rwanda, think of Saddam's Anfal campaign. All of them carried out under the "fog of war".

This is NOT to say, at all, that genocide is "just another one of the things that gets to happen in war." It is NOT just another "excess" of the war situation. It deserves to be treated seriously, and with deep opprobrium. (There is something in me that says that the twice-over intentionality that is built into all the international-law definitions of genocide may, however, be a bit overblown. The central tragedy of a genocide seems to me to be--as Gerard Prunier remarked in a discussion I had with him in 2001, that it wipes out "everything that might be a vehicle through which a person might hope to leave any personal legacy in the world." But then, if your entire ethnic or religious or whatever kind of group ends up getting wiped out because of, say, avoidable famine or some such cause, does that feel any different to a victim from being wiped out because someone hates your particular group? I don't think so. Indeed, you could say that being genocided because of intention pays the target group more heed--even if heed of the most hateful kind--than being genocided out of sheer inattention...)

Be that as it may.

I postulate that the reason for the nexus between genocide and war is because, in time of war, so many of people's "normal" inhibitions--and primarily, the normal inhibition against killing-- have to be suppressed. This then allows sick individuals and grouplets who advocate genocidal, mass killings to gain a much wider and more sympathetic hearing than they could ever get in normal times. Plus, there is all the fear and hysteria of war-time discourse: the frequently exaggerated fears of hostile "fifth columns" whose members--often thought in many people's minds to be members of a certain rethnic or religious group-- need to be rooted out. Etc., etc.

So here's a simple policy prescription. If this nexus exists, then one very effect way to "prevent" genocide-- an obligation that the 1948 Genocide Convention lays on all members of the international community-- would be to prevent war.

Tell me what YOU think.

-----
* Footnote added May 30, 2004: After I wrote the above, I read the book. I discovered that not only did Palanski not import into Szpilman's work any extraneous tropes from other Holocaust- or slavery-related narratives, but rather, he LEFT OUT many amazing stories of things that had happened to Szpilman, or that he saw, that were in the original book. The book is amazing. Read it!

Comments

Comment from... Raver, at June 28, 2004 03:25 PM:

I think that in order to comment fully on your ideas, we would have to further qualify words like "war" and "genocide."

What would you call the actions occuring in the Darfur region now? Is it a war, or just a "genocide" without war? Because if it is, then your proposition is unfortunately flawed. And then again, the use of the word "genocide" requires a very high degree of specific knowledge. Most of the civilians involved apparently have been scared/forced from their homes to refugee camps where they may indeed die from starvation and disease. But did the instigators or leaders of the Janjaweed have this in mind?

Ok, to what I really wanted to write. Your simple prescription apart from being perhaps too "simple," (in terms of a philosophical argument) raises the question of global stability as a policy goal of the U.N. (At least I think that is what you are suggesting; talk of the prevention of war by various officials at different times sometimes seems to be a cover for indifferent inaction, or political realpolitik) While on the whole, global stability includes both peace and justice, in some cases, like Morroco's Western Sahara, the non-autonomous province of Tibet, the protectorate of Lebanon, it can be a prescription for long term instability (Tibet is probably a bad example, with the almost total transformation of the area to majority Chinese population, and the present Lama's persistently lowered international status, I doubt that there will be instability in the future let alone much "noise" concerning the issue) or even continuing atrocities.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a connection between war and the willingness to demonize the other due to various false or true exingencies, and therefore both countries and citizens should work together to find common ground through the extensive alternatives with which we have recourse.

But, I dare to say, wars can be legitimate and can stop many things including genocide.

Therefore, we are forced, among other things, to ruminate on the validity, efficacy and procedural/moral dimensions concerning Humanitarian Intervention.