Is It Genocide? The Military Implications
Abstract
Almost universally, genocide has a megalithic connotation that puts it in a separate category altogether from communal conflicts, tribal warfare, or any other kind of mass killing. Until 1994, Tutsis killing Hutus or vice versa was generally considered to be another example of ancient African animosities. When corpses began to clog Lake Victoria however, and reports that hundred of thousands of people were begin slaughtered, the term genocide began to be used universally. The reaction of the international community changed subtly from one of there-they-go-again to hand-wringing horror that there were no obvious ways to stop the orgy of violence against unprotected men, women and children. Clinton's speech in Rwanda may seem to overstate a US commitment which could have profound military implications, but it fits in with the moral and ethical underpinnings to our national security policy. In recent weeks, member of the US military command have reiterated our moral obligation to engage in situations like Rwanda (without specifying how). The prevention of genocide appears to be at the core of an emerging post-Cold War minimum standard of civilization, not just in Europe, but in Africa and the rest of the world. Consequently, once the term has been applied, the pressure on the US and other responsible governments to take action escalates. It is as if prohibiting genocide represents the very essence of civilized behavior. To allow it to happen is the reverse.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jan 01, 1998
- Accession Number
- ADA442834
Entities
People
- Susan Keogh
Organizations
- National War College