When can a pacifist desire military intervention? To protect the lives of those caught in the worst atrocity: Genocide. A Problem From Hell looks at American response to genocide during the 20th century.
Genocide. The word alone conjures pictures of Nazi Germany, concentration camps and death marches. I consider myself a pacifist, but have always felt a conflict when it came to acts of genocide. From the slaughter by gas of Kurds in Iraq, to Rwanda and Bosnia/Kosavo, I’ve had a gut feeling that the United States should have done more. Military intervention seemed reasonable.
When thousands of people are being butchered, tortured or raped, how could I hold on to an non-intervention policy? Humanitarian aid helps in some occasions, but overall the United States, the UN and most Western countries seemed to be failing when it came to “moral” intervention. We may send aid, but do we stop the killing?
Samantha Power, a former Balkan war correspondent and founding executive director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, takes a hard look at how the United States has responded to genocide in the 20th century. From World War I and II, to Rwanda and Kosavo she shows the failure of a policy of non-intervention. Power doesn’t hold back. In preparing her book, she interviewed over 300 people that she felt had contributed to the U.S.’s foreign policy as it dealt with genocide. She also had her work in the Balkan war as both a backdrop and resource.
There are 14 chapters in the book. Primarily, they each deal with a specific act of genocide: the killing of Armenians in WWI, Nazi killing of Jews in WWII, genocide by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc. Chapters not about specific acts of genocide include the crusade by Raphael Lemkin to persuade the United Nations to adopt laws to provide action against those committing genocide.
Lemkin proves to be the central figure, not only coining the term “genocide” but fighting with all his might to get the world never to let it happen again. While he gets support aiding the passage of the law, Power shows that resistance from the United States places hope that any law would be used in limbo. Lemkin’s law was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The United States didn’t ratify it until decades later.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Roger, super job on this and your other reviews as well - sorry I am getting to you so late. Thanks and welcome!
I agree that in order to be taken seriously, we have to be consistent in our actions, and not just rhetoric, against genocide.
2 - Roger Asbury
Thanks for the comments. This book was quiet insightful.
I hope to get some more reviews up soon. Got a lot of reading to do.
3 - Dave Nalle
I think the UN is a big part of the problem. They're both selective and inefficient in dealing with genocide - look what a great job they did in Rwanda. But by existing they give us an excuse to not take more action on our own. We can sit back and say it's the UN's job even when we know in our heart of hearts they really aren't up to it.
Dave
4 - mpho
I hadn't heard of this book and am glad to add it to my to be read list. Thanks for a great review. I agree with Dave that the UN hasn't been as active or effective as it should have been in many of these situations, but I also feel that as is usually the case, the behind the scenes intervention of governments more powerful than the UN are more accountable. Yes, look at Rwanda. The Clinton administration is hugely accountable for pulling the plug on a humanitarian effort, not only by refuting the term "genocide" but by "agressively" blocking authorization of UN reinforcments and even refusing to jam the radio broadcasts that were critical to coordinating the movement of the marauders. I don't think that's well known information, though it is documented. Certainly world citizens need to demand a stronger response, but first we have become informed. Reading books like Powers is a good start.
5 - Eric Olsen
consistency is vital if our good will is to be accepted and recognized by the world
6 - Bob A. Booey
Nice topic. As Hotel Rwanda (a great film you all should see) illustrates, a major reason international institutions like the UN have been ineffective in the face of genocide is the weakness of will and lack of political commitment displayed by powerful Western states and even members of the Security Council like the U.S.
There is a genocide occuring right now in Sudan. Someone should take the time to write a comment introducing the situation in Darfur to some of this site's readers that haven't been following all the news. I think Hotel Rwanda's most compelling line is this one after Don Cheadle's character realizes the UN and the West won't intervene: "We will shame them to send help."
Genocide takes place because we have no shame. I give credit to a celebrity like Don Cheadle -- I haven't always been a huge fan of his, but we need more Americans, especially those who fashion themselves as members of the media (whether electronic or traditional) to shame our nation and society into refusing to allow another genocide that has its roots in colonialism. You all should be ashamed and should shame others.
7 - Dave
I think the current Iraq war is a great illustration of why the US does not intervene more and is right not to do so. We as a nation lack the will and the unity to engage in the sustained military interventions required to prevent mass murder. Power's political master Obama is currently running for president based mostly on the promise to withdraw from Iraq. Power's is a foreign policy advisor to Obama. Iraq is another example of a hell hole that suffered wide spread massacres of specific groups of people. A result of the war is that this no longer occurs. Power's is supporting a man who would allow Iraq to return to whatever state of nature fate has in store. Did she have a change of heart since this work? Did she ever believe its thesis in the first place?