Role of Paramilitaries in Genocide

Paramilitaries have been essential in the ability to carry out genocide in the twentieth century and this tradition has continued into the twenty first century. The S.S. and S.A. in the Holocaust, the Interhamwe in Rwanda, and the Janjaweed in Darfur are a few examples. It could be argued that paramilitaries are essential to carrying out genocide. Paramilitaries are involved in many conflicts and are essentially a group of civilians that are militarily organized and are often used as an extension, or in place of, regular military troops (paramilitary). There are several reasons that paramilitaries are such effective and practical tools to carry out the dirty work of genocide.

The first reason is that because genocides occur during times of war the regular military is busy trying to win the war. The paramilitaries of the Serbia-Bosnia conflict were usually little more than gangs of thugs and criminals who enjoyed violence and the looting along with the killing. In Rwanda in 1994 and the current Darfur crisis, both governments were at war with rebels over who should and has the power to control the government. In Rwanda the Interhamwe often manned the roadblocks and formed the gangs that went house to house looking for Tutsis to slaughter while the Hutu military battled the advancing RPF.

Another reason that paramilitaries are ideal in carrying out genocide is that international accountability has greatly increased within the last century. Military leaders are held accountable for the orders they give and the actions that their troops commit. By using paramilitaries and militia, government and military leaders can claim to not have been involved in committing genocide. An excellent example of this is the ongoing genocide against Africans that is being carried out by Arabs in Darfur. While the Sudan government gives these Arab groups financial support, the groups are not officially part of the state. Therefore, the government can claim that they themselves are uninvolved and unaccountable. While the international court system is far from perfect, countries and individuals have been tried and convicted for genocide. Adolf Eichmann’s televised trial for helping orchestrate the Holocaust is an iconic example.

Currently there are trials going on for paramilitary leaders in the Serbia-Bosnia conflict as well as the many genocidaires being held in prisons awaiting trial in Rwanda. The use and abuse of paramilitaries across the world is an issue that needs to be addressed. Wars and conflicts are evolving past the conventional two-sided battles with either side wearing brightly colored uniforms. Low-intensity conflicts and the use of unconventional organizations and tools is increasing. The idea of paramilitaries and militia lies close to the American identity of freedom but we need to be aware that such groups are capable, and have been used, to carry out massive atrocities.

"paramilitary." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 06 Dec. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paramilitary>.

Is Intervention a Responsibility?

In recent years, especially with the conflict and genocide that occured in Rwanda in the 90's, and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, there is the constant question of: should the U.S. get involved? Is intervention a responsibility or a right? Should it even be considered?

This issue has two polarized views with many people falling somewhere in the middle. The humanitarian and human rights activist feel that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to defend the rights of the individual, no matter where in the world atrocities are occurring. However, many conservatives view that the U.S. should only use military force in order to protect its own interests.

We have no interests in Rwanda. The international community left Rwanda to its civil war and to the genocide that was being committed. China does have interests in Darfur and that is some of what is blocking intervention there. But, for the most part, support for humanitarian intervention has decreased since the incident in Somalia when U.S. soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets. Also, the U.S. military is wrapped up in Iraq and the war on terror.

Despite the ongoing war in Iraq, there is still the question of whether it is our responsibility to become involved in Darfur. According to U.N. law we would have to get involved if a genocide is occurring. The international community, U.S. included, has said "never again" to genocide, after the Holocaust, after Rwanda, yet there is not much being done to put an end to the genocide in Darfur. In the past, intervention has often been too little, too late, or just purely ineffective. Not only do the cases of Rwanda and Darfur come to mind, but so does the failure of the U.N. to prevent the massacres that occured in Serbrinica.

If the U.S. does not have any interests in Rwanda, then why should it be involved? Countries have and are becoming much more globally intertwined and rely on each other to support their own. The duhumanization that occurs in genocide is something that none of us can afford any longer. The equality and right to be free of all human beings cannot be support by laws that have loopholes and declarations that it will no happen again.

Works Cited

Evans, Gareth. "Banishing the Rwanda Nightmare: The Responsibility to Protect." Ghosts of Rwanda. 31 Mar. 2004. Frontline. 28 Nov. 2008 .

"Ghosts of Rwanda." Frontline. PBS. 10 May 2005.

America: Home of the Free Because of... Torture?

The Bush Administration's Use of Torture is Increasing Anti-Americanism Abroad

We remember the photographs. While the politicians tried to blame six soldiers for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, it is clear that, far from being an isolated event, the use of torture is a widespread occurrence that is not the work of rank-and-file soldiers but is a policy held by the administration. The United States use of torture is doing nothing but fostering animosity towards the United States.
According to Major General Antonio M. Taguba, "Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority" (Hersh). However, the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib are mostly innocent civilians. Most are picked up during random sweeps by the military or at checkpoints (Hersh).
After these innocent civilians are tortured they are then released, with a grudge against the United States for the undeserved punishment that they endured. According to one U.S. army sergeant, "If he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of how we treated him" (Human Rights Watch 5). The soldiers stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury are referred to as "the Murderous Maniacs" by Fallujah residents because of how they treat Iraqi prisoners. The soldiers were proud of this title and considered it a "badge of honor" (Human Rights Watch 1).
The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is not degrading the image of the United States in just Iraq: it is affecting peoples' opinion all over the globe. A poll done by the Arab American Institute (AAI) concluded that "the main reason for rising anti-Americanism was opposition to its foreign policy" (Dawoud). Six Arab nations were polled by the AAI, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Jordon, and Lebanon, and the overall approval ratings varied between two percent and twenty percent. One of the topmost concerns of those surveyed was "Ameria's treatment of Arabs and Muslims" (Dawoud).
The United States sanctioning the use of torture on Iraqis is fueling the very movement that we are trying to fight. This policy need to be changed before it will be too late to redeem our reputation abroad, before we have more enemies than we do friends.

Sources
Dawoud, Khaled. "Arab Opinions." YaleGlobal Online. 30 July 2004. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. 4 Nov. 2008 .

Hersh, Seymour M. "Torture at Abu Ghraib." The New Yorker 10 May 2004. The New Yorker. 10 May 2004. 15 Oct. 2008 .

"Leadership Failure." Human Rights Watch 17 (2005): 1-28.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: Hope in the Top-Down Approach

After advocating a bottom-up approach to inducing change within the Israel-Palestine conflict in last week’s blog, I did a bit more research on the subject. Perhaps the top-down approach be effective and could be used to create a positive peace in the region. Progressive leadership could eradicate structural and direct violence that is prevalent in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of two separate states.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict many Palestinians have been forced to leave their homes and live in refugee camps. These camps now house generations of refugees. This causes resentment among Palestinians as the Israelis occupy land they view as rightly theirs (Promises). Tight security along the borders of Israel, and whereas Israelis can pass through boarder check-points easily, Palestinians must have passes that are not easy to come by (Promises). Also structural violence permeates the economic sphere as well. Israeli and Palestine economies depend upon each other. Palestinians depend on Israelis for jobs; Israelis depend on low-wage Palestinian labor (Wassertein 62). Many Palestinians are unemployed and barely surviving (Wassertein 65), which shows how disadvantaged Palestinians are, as compared with Israelis.

The inequality has spurred violence against the Israelis. The First and Second Intifada were popular uprisings of Palestinians against the Israeli authorities. Hamas use of suicide bombers is an attempt to make the Israeli population feel as the Palestinians do. According to Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantsi, one of the founders of the Hamas movement,

"The bombings were a moral lesson. They were a way of making innocent Israelis feel the pain that innocent Palestinians had felt. “We want to do the same to Israel as they have done to us,” he explained, indicating that just as innocent Muslims had been killed in the Hebron incident and in many other skirmishes during the Israeli-Palestinian tensions, it was necessary for the Israeli people to actually experience the violence before they could understand what the Palestinians had gone through" (Juergensmeyer 75).

The leadership on both the Israeli and the Palestine sides perpetuates the structural violence. Experiments done by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram illustrated the level of obedience that authority commanded. There are three roles that are filled in the experiment: an authority figure, the learner, and the teacher. The teacher is the only true participant as the authority figure and the learner are in on the experiment. The authority figure tells the teacher to ask the learner questions. Whenever the learner fails to offer a correct answer, the teacher must administer a shock to the learner. The voltage of the shock increases with each incorrect answer. The experiment showed that people would cause what they believed was great physical pain to another if acting under orders.

As shown through Milgram’s experiments, people obey authority. This gives authority legitimacy (Gellner 3). As Milgram states,

"Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many people obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct" (1).

Thus people pin the responsibility of their actions on those that give the orders rather than take responsibility upon themselves (Milgram 8). People give power to those in authority, power to make the decisions and give the orders. A leader’s power is at the consent of the people. If the leader does something that is extremely unpopular, he or she can lose his or her power, position, and legitimacy. However, it is much more likely that no matter how unwilling, people will follow their chosen leaders. A top-down approach should be used to induce change and bring about negative peace within the region through the creation of two separate states. A negative peace is where there is not any direct violence, but there is still structural violence and inequality. According to Khalil Shikaki, Director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research,

"To the question of 'If there is a peace agreement and the issues of the conflict are resolved and a two-state solution is adopted and a Palestinian state is created,' a full three-fourths say they would not only support recognition of Israel but also support reconciliation between the two peoples. In fact two-thirds of the public are willing to go further and agree to a formula whereby the Palestinians would not only recognize Israel but would recognize the Jewish nature of the state of Israel as part of a peace agreement.

The public is a lot more moderate than Fatah and Hamas put together when it comes to a two-state solution" (Is a two-state solution acceptable? Bush et. al.).

This demonstrates that if the leaders are willing to engage in the diplomacy to create two states, the public would follow.

Whereas the populations may not be happy with the concessions and agreements that their leaders make, they are likely to abide by these agreements if the authority enforces them, as Milgram’s experiment indicates. Leaders on both sides should engage in diplomacy and create two distinct states. Separate states can end direct violence because there will be clear geographical boundaries and the groups will no longer be contesting which land belongs to whom. The Palestinians will be united under one government, giving that government the authority and sole right to legitimate violence (Gellner 3) which should put an end to the suicide bombers. Following the end to direct violence, the structural violence can also be eliminated. The economies of Palestinians and Israelis can become more separate which can decrease the amount of structural violence that occurs economically. Palestinians can work for other Palestinians and can cease to feel exploited by Israelis. This positive peace can be accomplished through firm leadership as the top-down approach advocates.

Bush, George W., Khalil Shikaki, Naomi Chazan, Condoleezza Rice, Ziad J. Asali, Shimon Peres, Moshe Yaalon, John Spritzler, Marian Kromkowski, Ali Abunimah, and Khalaf Al Habtoor. "Is a two-state solution acceptable?" Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. 15 May 2008. ProCon.org. 9 Oct. 2008 .

Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God : The Global Rise of Religious Violence. New York: University of California P, 2003.

Promises. Dir. Justine Shapiro, B.Z. Goldberg and Carlos Bolado. DVD. 2004.

Wasserstein, Bernard. Israelis and Palestinians : Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop? New York: Yale UP, 2004.

The Bottom-Up Approach: Solution in the Israel-Palestine War?

Various countries and people have an interest in the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as the events that occur and the outcome have a ripple effect that is global. There are many opinions over how to solve the dispute and the violence; but, we need to stop relying on the politicians to change the situation and start influencing individual everyday people. Using this bottom-up approach would be the most effective method of achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The top-down approach has and continues to fail in achieving peace in the region. Essentially the top-down method conceives of or treats an individual an individual as a product of his or her society. Therefore, the greatest way to induce change is to start at the top, which is the leaders. This method has been tried in peace talks with Israel and Palestine, and it has failed. During the Clinton administration there were multiple attempts at peace talks with various leaders from Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. However, these talks never fully succeeded because when one leader was willing to make a concession, the other one was not. The leaders’ failure to compromise stemmed from a fear of losing power because followers would disagree with the concessions that would be made (Indyk). The top’s fear of the bottom results in a status quo with both sides living in fear because the leaders are afraid of a loss of their power if the population does not agree with their decisions.

Despite the failure of the top-down method, there is hope in the bottom-up approach. This is more of a grassroots effort in order to change the individuals within the societies. The bottom-up philosophy supposes that society is shaped by the individuals within the society. By changing the attitude of the individual, the government will change. Israeli Jews fear the Palestinian and Hamas suicide bombers that destroy the lives of civilians. Palestinians resent the Jewish occupation of what they deem as their land. They also fear the Israeli military who even shot at children throwing stones at Israeli tanks (Promises). Actions taken by both sides cause each to feel victimized and desire vengeance against who they view as perpetrators. Israeli and Palestinian societies are saturated with assumptions about each other. For there to be peace both groups must be willing to challenge their prejudices and overcome fears of each other. The Emmy Award winning documentary “Promises” illustrates the ability of individuals to overcome their fear and prejudices and meet with the “other” in an attempt to discuss the conflict.


The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is very much a global issue and a great many countries have interests in the outcome. While such a grassroots effort would take time and a willingness to try, it can lead to a peace in the region.


References

Indyk, Martin. Lecture. Israel-Palestine Conflict. University of North Florida, Jacksonville. 23 Sept. 2008.

Promises. Dir. Justine Shapiro, B.Z. Goldberg and Carlos Bolado. 2001.