Hope Murray Under Attack: Genocidal Ideology and the Homeland at War
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WORKING PAPERS IN NATIONALISM STUDIES No. 5, 2011 Hope Murray Under Attack: Genocidal Ideology and the Homeland at War ISBN: 1 900522 98 5 Our Working Papers in Nationalism Studies present the finest dissertation work from students on the MSc Nationalism Studies programme at the University of Edinburgh. Hope Murray graduated from the programme in January 2005. Abstract This dissertation assesses the relationship between genocide, nationalism and war. It will be found that the instability caused by war allows for nationalist movements to evolve into malevolent regimes which implement genocidal ideology. Opening with a literature review, the first chapter identifies these major themes and establishes the framework for the rest of the analysis by defining genocide, nationalism and ideology. Once these definitions are set forth, the relationship between the three is further identified in Chapter Two by differentiating between the nation and the anti œ nation as well as evaluating the relationship each group has with the homeland. Through research conducted regarding Rwandan, Cambodian, German and Turkish genocides, Chapter Three provides support for the theory that war creates instability which encourages genocidal policy; these policies are particularly influential because of the importance of the ideological belief in the sanctity of the homeland. See our blog at: http://nationalismstudies.wordpress.com/ Under Attack Introduction —Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community building “1 One of the most horrific uses of power in the twentieth century has been, and even today continues to be, the implementation of genocide, killing over twenty seven million persons in the past hundred years (Snyder 2000: 355 - 360; Balakian 2003: xv).2 Ethnic conflict has been allowed to occur time and again, with only weak and uncoordinated attempts of intervention by the international community. In order to fully understand genocide, one must discover what genocide is and why it is allowed to exist in an era which prides itself on democracy, equality, and international cooperation. This dissertation is an attempt to explain certain aspects of genocidal conditions in order to provide insights into the understanding of its ideological power. This descriptive explanation identifies two themes recurrent in the manifestation of genocide; the first is the importance of homeland ideology as an aspect of genocidal ideology. The second theme regards geopolitical instability and how such instability allows genocidal ideology to have resonance and be effective within a nation. Genocidal ideology emphasizes the preservation of the homeland as absolutely necessary. War, civil and international, prohibits this preservation. In order to save the homeland, it is therefore vital to destroy the perceived enemies of the nation. Genocide is the mechanism of this destruction. The following sections will be supplemented by factual evidence taken from genocidal case studies occurring in the twentieth century, particularly those in Rwanda, Cambodia, Germany, and Turkey. My research in these areas has been extensive; each case has been researched and thoroughly analyzed. After this initial research was made, the cases were compared and themes identified. From the discoveries made in this comparison, the theories proffered in this work have arisen. In each of these genocidal regimes, the ideals of genocidal ideology have been suggested, implemented, and successful. It is also true that each of these genocides 'ص≤•∂©¥£® 3•• !∞∞•Æ§©∏ /Æ• have taken place during times of extreme political unrest in the regions in which they reside. It is the purpose of this essay to examine and further explain this relationship. Before any such analysis can begin, however, it is important to explain the need for further work regarding ethnic conflict. The most important reason is that genocide is, unquestionably, evil. How such evil has the power to manifest itself into modernity‘s masses should take the forefront of academic pursuit, with the hope of being able to counter any such action in the future. This leads directly to the second point of explanation on the necessity of this research; that is, these extreme occasions of conflict have happened too often in the recent past for scholars and politicians to believe them to be unable to transpire again. It is impossible to dismiss genocide as an unaccountable act of history while it is still being committed in the present. However, before it is possible to circumvent this disaster, it is necessary to recognize what is enabling its occurrence. Bearing these points in mind, the reasoning behind this work is straightforward. There are three main themes present in this work, genocide, ideology, and instability; through an exploration of these themes an intricate relationship will be clarified. This essay will develop this relationship in three ways; firstly, genocide will be defined and discussed, comparing it with the many forms of ethnic conflict and providing theorist‘s evidence for other explanations of genocide. This segment will also introduce the concept of ”political ideology‘ and will commentate on the interworkings between political ideology and nationalism with hopes to discover a solid understanding of situations necessary for genocidal ideologies to be implemented. This will be accomplished through a discussion of the work previously submitted by other theorists, a study which will also provide a strong basis from which to continue the rest of the analysis. Secondly, a primary theme of political ideologies found in genocidal governments will be identified and explained, namely the sanctity of the homeland. Chapter Two will develop the relationship of the homeland with both the nation and its enemies, showing the intricate ties binding the three together. The sanction of such ideological implementation is the third major theme which will be addressed throughout the course of the analysis. Here, the direct ties between genocide and geopolitical instability will be introduced. 1: Genocide, Nationalism and Power —As a cultural belief system, ideology can give meaning and direction to life œ both positive and negative. Indeed, mass killing and genocide are often ideologically inspired crimes “3 Genocide In order to obtain a better basis for conducting this analysis, it is first necessary to discuss the work already accomplished within the field of academic study. The past sixty years have offered much work on ethnic cleansing, particularly in the wake of the Holocaust. Genocide —implies eliminating an amorphous group of people, who, because they have lost all specific traits, has been reified into some sort of threatening globality“ (Semilin 2003: 355). Beyond this, however, attaining a working definition of genocide is not easily done. The term is problematic; the quandary for most scholars is defining it in such a way as to refrain from coining a term so broad that it is meaningless, while at the same time refraining from making it so exclusionary that it denies help and protection to certain groups (Totten, Parsons, and Hitchcock 2002: 58; Fein 2002: 76 - 82). However, as academics have continued to pursue the subject, certain genocidal traits have come to light which have allowed for the creation of a strong and flexible definition. The most important trait mentioned above is that genocide is group oriented. While this might seem like an obvious point, it is key to understanding the foundation of a definition for genocide. Raphaël Lemkin coined the term ”genocide‘ in 1944 as a description of the Holocaust in Germany. He avers that genocide is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing)…Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan 7°¨¨•≤ of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. (2002: 27) Lemkin is only the first of many theorists to identify the group nature of genocide; indeed, the second article of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as the intent to destroy all or part of a national, ethnical, or religious group 4. This includes outright killing and massacres as well as seriously harming members of the group, either mentally or physically, and —deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part“ such as happened in the Armenian genocide when deportees where shipped into the desert (Winter 2003: 209 - 211). While the UN definition is flexible, it is also extremely problematic, most notably because it focuses on some people groups and not others. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda could place neither ”Hutu‘ nor ”Tutsi‘ specifically in any of these categories as there are no distinct ethnic differences between them (Hinton 2002a: 5). Kuper notes this particular weakness, finding that as genocide is a crime against a collectivity, a definition of genocide must allow for an identifiable group as a victim (2002: 67). Taking note of these traits and these pitfalls, when referring to genocide in this essay, it should be taken to agree with the definition supplied by Helen Fein, saying: —Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or