Modern Genocide and Other Crimes
against Humanity
Fall 2005 HIS 0135
Professor Omer Bartov
FINAL EXAMINATION
December 6, 2005
Part I:
Please write on two
of the following three topics. Apply to your analysis all relevant
cases discussed in class throughout the semester, and substantiate
your own view by reference to historical evidence and scholarly work
on the topic.
Your combined
two essays may not exceed five double-spaced pages.
Please submit only printed work.
1.
The following are five definitions of genocide
by social scientists and historians:
Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn:
“Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or
other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and
membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.”
Israel W. Charny:
“Genocide in the generic sense is the mass killing of substantial
numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military forces of
an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defenselessness and
helplessness of the victims.”
Helen Fein:
“Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to
physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through
interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group
members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat
offered by the victim.”
Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr:
“By our definition, genocides and politicides are the promotion and
execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the
deaths of a substantial portion of a group. The difference between
genocides and politicides is in the characteristics by which members
of the group are identified by the state. In genocides the victimized
groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal
characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In
politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their
hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and
dominant groups.”
Steven T. Katz:
“the concept of genocide applies only when there is an
actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically
destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the
perpetrators).”
Debate the merits and limitations of these definitions,
compare them to the Genocide Convention of 1948, and examine the
extent to which they could be relevant to cases of genocide since
1904.
2.
The following is an excerpt from the testimony
given by Helen R., Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, and stored at the
Fortunoff Archive, Yale University:
“There were still
children in that camp [Plaszów], mothers with children. One morning...
they started taking away the children from the mothers …. Each SS man
or SS woman they told them such nice stories and the music was
playing, blasting the loud speakers. And here the children didn’t want
to leave the mothers, and it was so much pain, so much tragedy, seeing
the separation… when the children were really small …. Even a child at
three or four years old, she knew that if she's leaving her mother’s
hand, that she's going to death. They cry… I can still hear it and the
blast of those loud speakers… the Strauss waltz playing loud …. They
didn’t even take them to Auschwitz …. There was a little hill and they
took them up …. There was no consolation. I mean how can you tell a
mother? What can you tell her? .... It’s something that I don’t think
anyone can imagine!”
Samuel Totten, editor
of Century of Genocide, writes: “First-person accounts by
victims and others are capable of breaking through the numbing mass of
numbers in that they provide the thoughts, the passions and the voices
of those who experienced and/or witnessed the terrible calamity now
referred to as genocide.” Testimony has also been used in trials of
perpetrators, in media accounts, educational materials, documentaries,
as well as in a variety of fictional literary and cinematic
representations. But testimony has also often been seen as too
subjective and thus suspect by many courts and scholars.
How would you
evaluate the use and abuse of testimonies on the basis of what you
have learned in this course?
3.
The following are three statements on the
prevention of genocide:
A 1985 United Nations
document states: “In cases where evidence appears of an impending
genocidal conflict …. the steps to be taken would include: the
investigation of allegations; activating different organs of the
United Nations and related organizations… and making representations
to national Governments and to interregional organizations for active
involvement; seeking support of the international press in providing
information; enlisting the aid of other media to call public attention
to the threat, or actuality, of genocidal massacre; asking relevant
racial, communal and religious leaders, in appropriate cases, to
intercede; and arranging the immediate involvement of suitable
mediators and conciliators at the outset. Finally, there is the
possibility of sanctions… by means of economic boycotts…”
In 2004, 55 Governments issued the Stockholm Declaration on
Genocide Prevention, in which they committed themselves to: “(1) using
and developing practical tools and mechanisms to identify… and to
monitor and report genocidal threats …. (2) protect groups identified
as potential victims of genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing….
(3) ensuring that perpetrators of genocidal acts are brought to
justice…. (4) supporting research into the possibilities of preventing
genocide…. (5) educating the youth and the wider public against
genocidal dangers… (6) exploring… the options presented at the Forum
for action against genocidal threats…. (7) cooperating… with all
members of the family of nations….
At the same meeting, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's presented
his Genocide Prevention Proposals: “To improve our capacity for
action, I suggest we explore some new ideas. For instance, the States
parties to the Genocide Convention should consider setting up a
Committee on the Prevention of Genocide, which would meet periodically
to review reports and make recommendations for action…. We should also
consider establishing a Special Rapporteur on the prevention of
genocide, who would be supported by the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, but would report directly to the Security Council – making
clear the link, which is often ignored until too late, between massive
and systematic violations of human rights and threats to international
peace and security.”
On the basis of
the cases we studies in class, do you believe these to be viable
proposals for the prevention of genocide? Could such mechanisms have
been effectively applied to cases we studied? Would you be able to
recommend more effective or different means to activate the
international community to prevent or to stop genocide in the future?
Part II:
Please write no more than 5 lines on 5 of the
following 10 terms: