COMMUNIST MASS KILLING (Cambodia Khmer Rouge) PDF

NOTE: Do not assume that this list will contain all the key terms you need! It’s just a way of making us work together and get started on studying :) COMMUNIST MASS KILLING WITH A FOCUS ON CAMBODIA UNDER THE KHMER ROUGE Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK=Khmer Rouge) Khmer Rouge: The CPK which is a...

NOTE: Do not assume that this list will contain all the key terms you need! It’s just a way of making us work together and get started on studying :) COMMUNIST MASS KILLING WITH A FOCUS ON CAMBODIA UNDER THE KHMER ROUGE Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK=Khmer Rouge) Khmer Rouge: The CPK which is also known as the Khmer Rouge, after winning the civil war gained control over Cambodia in 1975. They dominated activities in the state and destroyed pre-existing state institutions and worked to build their authority around Angkar. They wanted to re-engineer society and created policies in order to accomplish their 4 year plan and also declared “year zero” which was to close all schools and universities, and force people in giant collective farms. They connect with genocide because their actions, ideologies and policies led to the Cambodia genocide as a result. They emptied cities, took control of the economy, eliminated foreign influence and more. They killed people with foreign education and closed schools/universities. - Ultimately the Khmer Rouge succeeded and won the civil war. The party and the party leadership completely dominated all activities in the state. What the Khmer Rouge did was destroy the pre-existing state institutions and build a chain of command and structure of authority entirely around Angkar. Political decisions were made through a standing committee dominated by Pol Pot; decisions were made and carried out with elaborate secrecy. A small number of officials at the top were responsible for determining policy and for determining Cambodia’s overall trajectory. Khmer Rouge Ideology: Their ideology was to transform their society under Communist principles and there were 7 principles, including self reliance via rice production, eradicating foreign influence, idealization of the ethnic khmer, purity, reliance on willpower, radical egalitarianism, and rule by terror. Their ideology was ideas of communism and ethnic nationalism, this played a role in resulting to the cambodia genocide due to their ideology shaping their actions and policies that led to the genocide. Pol Pot: He was the leader of the Khmer rouge, his original name was Saloth sar, he was called brother number one and was the head of committees. He played a role in the genocide because he was the leader of the group that committed the genocide, he took a key role in creating and implementing the policies that led to the genocide. His vision of transforming Cambodia led to the genocide. Political decisions were made through a standing committee dominated by Pol Pot. Failed to fix the failed policies Holodomor: Holodomor was another communist mass killing case similar to the Cambodia case. There was a famine that particularly affected ukraine. This happened under Joseph Stalin. The Soviets took all the food and distributed it to other parts of the soviets , and this led to people dying and starving. This was genocide, and was a targetting of ukraine , through starvation, millions were starved. This occurred first than the Cambodia genocide case, but there are similarities. Luong Ung; Luong Ung was the author of one of the books assigned in class named “First They Killed my father.” This was a memoir of being a survivor of the Cambodia genocide that occurred under the Khmer Rouge regime and was led by Pol Pot. She wrote about her experience and her family’s experience. How they killed her father and her overall perspective during the genocide. You had to be a sheep in the herd and stay silent, you couldnt have another ideology. Khmer people’s revolutionary party + Worker’s Party of Kampuchea: It was a legal communist party, it went underground after losing the election and changed its name after losing the election to Worker’s party of Kampuchea. It then switched to the CPK, Khmer Rouge. They were both the past parties of the Khmer Rouge, this was key to genocide because they created the vision of the genocide and overall led to the development of the CPK in the end that committed genocide. Lon Nol Regime: The Lon Nol Regime was a government in Cambodia that ultimately was defeated by the Khmer Rouge in April 1975 in the civil war. This connects to genocide because their defeat helped lead to the Cambodia genocide that was created by the Khmer Rouge. Those associated with the lon nol regime were also targeted and killed during the genocide. Nuon Chea: He was “brother number two,” he was responsible for security apparatus, and was featured in the film enemies of the people about the Cambodia Genocide. He played a role in the genocide and is connected to it because he was responsible for day to day administration of violence. He was responsible for a series of torture centers, part of security apparatus. He was a key player and leader in the genocide along with Pol Pot. Four year plan: The four year plan was created by the Khmer Rouge regime, the goal was to create self-reliance via rice production, a self-sufficient agrarian socialist society. This plan connects to genocide because this is what led to the Cambodia genocide, they forced labor and this led to people were dying of famine, mass executions, and more. Tuol Sleng/S21: This was a detention and torture center created by the Khmer Rouge in the Cambodia genocide. This connects to genocide because this is where people were sent to be tortured and forced to confess, this includes false confessions. A lot of “new people,” Lon Nol regime members, and others were sent there. “New People”: This is what the Khmer Rouge used to call people that were educated, lived in cities and also those associated with the former regime. The Khmer rouge created new classes of people. This connects to the genocide because they were seen as enemies and seen as corrupt, so corrupt they were opposed to the revolution. New people consisted of Civil servants, judges, nurses, teachers, attorneys, etc. They were given harder work, some highly educated people were directly assassinated. “Old People”: This is the other new class of people created by the Khmer rouge, this referred to those who were loyal to the regime unlike new people. This connects to the genocide because they were forced to work in labor camps, for their 4 year plan and faced famine, and more. Although they were not as targeted as “new people” they were still victims in the genocide. Mao: great leap forward: The super lead forward by Mao Zedong was meant to create an agrarian economy. To increase steel production but it also led to famine, forced labor. It was not considered genocide but more of an economic disaster unlike the super great leap forward(cambodia genocide). - The Great Leap Forward was a sweeping program launched by Mao Zedong aiming to rapidly transform China’s economy through forced collectivization and state-controlled production. After the catastrophic failure of the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong faced significant criticism and a temporary loss of political power within the Chinese Communist Party. Pol pot: Super great leap forward: This was the name of the ideology and plan behind the policies of the KR which was similar to the super leap forward in China. The difference is that it was more extreme and led to the genocide in Cambodia meanwhile the other was an economic disaster. It connects to genocide because this was led to the genocide. Arendt: totalitarianism: Extreme authoritarianism, total control over society state and economy. It came out of communist principle It connects to genocide because it plays a role in creating dehumanization in society and other factors that bring violence to particular groups. Angkar Padevat: Angkar was an organization, it was a term used within the Khmer rouge. This shaped and helped justify the KR’s actions. This was used to implement the policies and helped with the ideological aspect used by the KR. This connects to genocide because people were forced and told to follow Angkar and this term helped install fear into people and was used as a tool for the KR to implement their policies and plan. Case No 002: Nuon chea (Dep Sec of CPK) and Khieu Samphan (nominal head of state): This case was for Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan who both played a role in the Cambodia genocide. Nuon chea was known as brother number two and was the deputy secretary of the CPK. He played a role in the policies and ideology which caused the genocide. In this case in 2018 they were in result convicted for the role they played in the genocide. Case No 001: Duch (Guek Eav Kaing): Duch was the head of S-21, there were about 12k people tortured and executed. This connects to genocide because he was found guilty of Crimes against humanity in 2010 for his role in S-21 in the Cambodia genocide, for the executions, detention centers , forced evacuation of cities, and set up of collectivized farms. Was it genocide?: Yes it was genocide. Even if it might have not been the intention from the start. The KR failed to course correct, once the policies were failing rather than change them they double downed on them. They may have not started out as wanting to get rid of the “new people” or the overall 20% population to die but their actions overall led to this, relevant question in question of famine. Classic genocide cases; people are killed, others; conditions where people die; famine, no food,etc. They were given less food, medicine, different treatment. Evidence overtime of an intent to destroy them. Were the groups protected under the UNGC? - ethnic minorities(vietnamese, chinese), religious groups. classic genocide as in, going to areas to find them and kill them. Who were those targetted in the cambodian genocide?: New people, Religious groups (Buddhist monks, also cambodian catholics, and muslim chams), and Ethnic Minorities (ethnic chinese and Vietnamese. Intentionalist vs structuralist account: The intentionalist view meant that the KR and leaders had a vision of ethnic purity from the beginning. Intentionalist see the historical events that happened as not important to the overall trajectory of what happened. They had the vision ever since they arrived, just were looking for the opportunity to when they can carry it out. While the patterns might have escalated and intensified what they were doing, they had the vision from the start. The intentionalist view is often hard, especially with this case. Structuralist view, there were emergence of changes that increased the violence, given conditions that changed. They might have believed their plan would work or truly benefit people but the changes increased the violence and led to the genocide. It might have been a mistake of the failed policies Micro theories - -Wanting to keep your position, but also because you would be killed otherwise If you were seen as non loyal you were tortured and killed, without a doubt. -Some who were ideology, some believed they were communists, loyal to the party and believed this is what you had to do for the revolution. Those attacked : Buddhist monks, Vietnamese, Chinese, Muslim Chams, Catholics. What not supported: divided societies, War played a role: There was the Vietnam War, Cambodia’s civil war, and the Khmer Rouge’s war with Vietnam… ○ War before, vietnam war. And war with vietnam after ? THE DISSOLUTION OF YUGOSLAVIA Balkans case: The Balkans case was associated with nationalism, it consisted of wars in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and then Kosovo. The main perpetrators were Serbs, one of the key leaders in this was Milosevic. Embrace of nationalism triggered fear in other national/ethnic groups and it spiraled to security fears. This then led to escalation of war and attacks. Milosevic, Karadix and Mladic were key perpetrators in this case. Overall this connects to genocide because it describes the genocide that occurred created by Serbs in the Srebrenica massacre during the conflict and Bosnian war. Josip Tito: Tito created a central policy of brotherhood and unity, which had an impact on preventing genocide. This helped prevent tension between the ethnic groups. He was the leader of Yugoslavia, and he created Brotherhood and unity. He recognized and tried to balance the interests of different groups. He prevented ethnic violence or breakdown during his time. It also helped that it was a period of economic growth too. He died in 1980 and this connects to genocide because it created tension and a rise of nationalism that resulted in genocide. Ruling mantra: Brotherhood and unity: Tito had a policy of brotherhood and unity. prevent ethnic conflict in yugoslavia. Every different ethnic group would be represented, equal putting in the state, equal in terms of how many of them in the state. Have an ethnic representation across the country Economic stagnation and liberal economic reform (1980s) - In yugoslavia, unemployment, inflation, 1980s was a period of economic crisis, inflation was as high as 50%, economic crisis 1980s significant element. Srebrenica: In Srebrenica there was a large massacre in July 1995, this occurred despite this area being one of the 7 safe areas. Bosnian serbs separated men from the women and massacred about 8000 men and boys. Women were raped and they were scattered from the town along with children. The Appeals chamber contends that the killings and forced removal showed intent to destroy the Muslim population of Srebrenica and this was considered genocide. The International criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): The ICTY was set up to try Balkans leaders for genocide and crimes against humanity and was created in 1993. It convicted perpetrators like Mladic and Karadzic for their role in the genocide. Milosevic: He was the Yugoslav president and later the Serb president. He was an opportunist and increased the power of Serb nationalists, helped create fear in other groups. He is connected to the genocide and violence committed by the Serb forces, he supported Serb nationalism and was the leader. He has a famous speech in Kosovo where he promised Kosovar Serbs, “You will not be beaten again.” This helped drive violence even more. Alija Izetbegovic: He was the Bosnian president and was Muslim, he pushed for independence from Yugoslavia and founded the SDA party of democratic action. He connects to genocide because during the war in Croatia, Bosnian muslims were worried and this led to a rise in nationalism under Alija. The bosnian serbs and croats got nervous from this. Sarajevo: Sarajevo was the capital of Bosnia. This was important because there was a two year siege that took place there by the Serb forces. It involved shelling of markets, hospitals, streets, etc. This area became an epicenter of ethnic cleansing, they wanted Muslims to leave and make space for ethnic serbs and make that land part of Serbia. They executed Bosnian Muslim political leaders and killed many civilians. Dayton Agreement: The Dayton Accords was in late 1995, it was a peace agreement to end the yugoslav wars, still in place today. The massacres in Srebrenica are what triggered this peace agreement. Ratko Mladic: He was the Bosnian serb military commander during the bosnian war. He played a role in the genocide because he was a miliatry commander and was in charge of the forced displacement caused by the military as well as the targeting of civilians. He wanted to control civilians and make life hell. Radovan Karadzic: He was the Bosnian Serb political leader during the Bosnian war as well. His influence in the policies and massacres played a role in the genocide. Franjo Tudgman: He was the Croat president, he contributed to the genocide because he contributed to the conflicts and violence. He contributed to Operation storm which forced cleansing of Serb civilians. 3 former federal republics of Yugoslavia: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia. - 7 major ethnic groups: Serbs , (36%), Croats (20%), Albanians (9%), Slovenes (7.5%), Macedonians (5.8%), Montenegrins (2.3%), and Muslims (10%). Partisans: Partisans were led by Tito, they were The Yugoslav People’s army(YPA). They resisted and were against the Chetniks. Chetniks: This was a term for Serb nationalists during World War II, they were led by serb monarchists. To reinstall monarchy and were violent to those allied with nazis like croats. They were the ones who participated in the violence against muslims, croats, and bosniaks. There was a resistance that was led by the former Yugoslav royal forces, and their movement was called the Chetniks. Ethnic cleansing: Ethnic cleansing was a combination of executions, deportations, institutionalized discrimination, occasional massacring, sexual violence, and general terror to force or induce members of specific ethnic populations to abandon particular territories. Serbs drove out non serb population in east and northeast areas. They killed men , leaders, sexual violence against women, burn homes, made life difficult for bosniaks. Origins of the term “ethnic cleansing” = starts and comes from Croatia. High levels of violence associated with the Croatia War. Safe Areas: There were 6 safe areas; Srebrenica, Tuzla, Gorazde, Zepa, Sarajevo, and Bihac. They were safe areas declared by the UN. Muslims thought they could relocate to these safe areas. Serb territory surrounded these areas. Ultimately, bosnian serb leadership said that they were going to get rid of these safe areas. Most famous attack was on srebrenica. Bosnian war: This Bosnian war describes the violence by the Bosnian Serbs towards Bosniaks, croats and serbs. After the Bosnian Muslims vote for independence in 1992, the Serbs boycotted the vote and declared an independent Serb republic in Bosnia; the Bosnian War then began. Comparison with other cases: Armenian genocide, displacement, cleansing. Similar to this case. Different from bosnian case in the sense, armenians attacked while deported and where deported they couldnt survive. 2004 ICTY Appeals Chamber Ruling: 2004 ICTY Appeals Chamber Ruling - 2001 he is convicted of genocide, his participation. Appeals it: they say that 1. The court didnt understand the genocide definition. Clearly they didnt kill the entire group of muslims, didnt intend to kill the whole group. 2. Cleansing not genocide. Decision affirmed in 2007 ICJ Bosnia vs. Serbia Case and subsequent ICTY cases Micro theories: ○ Professor Straus argues that there is a strong case for opportunism, fear and insecurity, ideological commitment, and peer pressure. And that there is evidence against psychological predispositions and cultures of hatred. ○ Not supported: Perpetrators rational- so not supported is psychological predispositions Field of Blackbirds: This was a battle in 1389 in which invading Ottoman Turks defeated the medieval Serb empire. Symbol of Serb nationalism and Serb victimization, this fueled Serb nationalism. Ustase: This was a Croat fascist party accused of large-scale killing of Serbs during WWII. RWANDA Rwanda case summary: The Rwanda genocide case was a genocide against Tutsis by Hutu’s, and especially the Hutu government and elites. Ended after the hutu extremists were defeated. There was a civil war that began when the rebel army of ethnic Tutsi rebels invaded Rwanda from Uganda. There was contentious multi-party politics, the government recruited men to become militias and there was also racist media on ethnic nationalism. There were also other factors that increased the violence and situation, for example the Arusha accords, killing of Habyarimana and the hardliners taking over. There was mass killing of tutsis by The MRND party that led to the Rwanda genocide. There was political turmoil. There was additionally past deep hatred and division between groups, this played on the racial stereotypes. There was a state collapse after the president's asassination as well. Civil defense program: They were created by the Rwanda government and gave weapons to civilians so they could engage in violence and take part in the genocide. This connects to the Rwanda case because they were recruited and were part of the violence against Tutsis. Interahamwe: They were a militia formation that consisted of government recruited men including party officials to become militias. They connect to the Rwanda genocide case because they engaged in fighting on behalf of the government and to defeat the guerrilla army/group RPF. They had weapons that were distributed to them by the government. They were a Political party youthwing/militia. What was unique about the Rwanda case?: The speed of violence in the Rwanda case was unique the first 1-5 weeks is where 90% of the violence gets committed, as well as a lot of civilian participation, many were taking advantage of this and going into homes, stealing, etc. Micro theories: Micro theories that apply are Fear (wartime), they were afraid and it was a kill or be killed situation for them. Coercion, there was pressure from the state and obedience, it was difficult for men to not participate and difficult for victims to escape.. Group dynamics, opportunism( many took advantage of this difficult moment to steal wealth or gain opportunities or land. Social ties/networks, and ethnic categories and narratives were other micro theories. Especially due to research done by Professor Straus on the interviews with perpetrators. The demographic profile was also ordinary men, adult male, income, kids, etc. Micro theories that did not apply were frustration, and the notion of poverty, it does not match patterns of violence. Violence did not start first in the poorest regions, or violence was not worse in the poorest regions. Macro theories: Macro theories that apply are war and political upheaval. War was powerful in this case and armed conflict was scary for many. Political upheaval because of the assasination of the president, rebels were blamed and the government and others felt as if there was a need to defend themselves against the rebels. Founding narrative/ideology, there was ethnic nationalism, they were fighting for Hutu power. There was also absence of restraint, nothing that stood in the way for them to commit genocide. State power because they were an effective mobilizer of people. The macro theories that are less applicable to the case are culture of hatred, difficult life conditions/hardship, and authoritarianism. If a culture of hatred was present there would have been deep prejudice and we would not observe intermarriages. They were neighbors, intermarried, highly integrated groups in a society, it was more elite discourse rather than deep negative views of each other. Things were stable and again those who initiated it were elites. There was also no authoritarianism, it was not the only reason at least. “ancient tribal hatreds” argument Hutu Revolution (1959-1962) Clash in early 1960s, hutu revolution, saw a violent episode where hutu were challenging tutsi, - Killed many, drove many, tutsi elites - Monarchy is abolished, hutu rule , with democracy logic, - Self governance, majority rule, so hutu would rule , ethnic nationalist vision - Hutu emerging elite, the monarchy has to go, tutsi dominance has to go, democracy etc, hutu needs to rule. Rwandan Patriotic Front(RPF): The RPF was a rebel army led by Tutsis in Rwanda, they were rebel forces. Some say they instigated the civil war and they are also blamed for the assasination of the president. Hutu: They were an ethnic group that played a role in the genocide against Tutsis, specifically hutu elites. Tutsi: Tutsis were an ethnic group that were targeted by Hutu’s during the Rwanda genocide. RTLM (RAdio television libre des mille collinens): This was the radio station and they played a role in the genocide because they would discuss and state racist comments towards Tutsis. They were labeling them as cockroaches and they were helping in the hatred towards Tutsis, making the situation worse. Juvenal Habyarimana: He was the former president of Rwanda. His significance was that his assasination was the start of/triggered the genocide. There was also a debate on who was responsible, the rebels were blamed. He was the head of the MRND party as well. UNAMIR(United nations assistance mission for Rwanda): UNAMIR was a peacekeeping force, although they failed to intervene and solve the situation. Dallaire, who was a force commander for the UNAMIR, requested troops although it was denied. They refused to get involved because of risk aversion, lack of interest, peacekeeping logistics and more. Arusha Accords: The Arusha Accords was a peace agreement signed between the rebels and the government. This was for them to agree on distribution of power, to help Rwanda transition but in the army it was favorable to the RPF. Although it failed because of Hutu extremists being against it, then after the assasination of the president occurred and things further escalated into the genocide. Akazu: Akazu meaning “little house” was a key powerholding elite around the president. Cabinet of leaders in business and hutu extremists. They played a role in the genocide and planning the killings. Theoneste Bagosara: He was associated with Akazu, he was a military leader. He claimed they needed to act and defend the country, as well as destroy the Tutsis. This was significant to the genocide. Paul Kagame: He was the leader of the RPF, he later became the president of Rwanda after the genocide. Helped stop the genocide. MDR: They were the largest Hutu led opposition party, in the southern part of Rwanda. They were more moderate Hutus and wanted democratic reforms, unlike the Hutu extremists. MRND: The MRND was a party in the northwest, they were led originally by Habyarimana. Although they were then part of the genocide because they worked with the government in creating Hutu militias and created violence. Melchior Ndadaye: First ever hutu president. In 1993 there was violence in Burundi, Tutsis were in power and had a Hutu president. He was assassinated, he was the first ever Hutu leader in Burundi. This was significant because it sent a message to Rwanda that Tutsis were not letting Hutu gain power. This therefore radicalized the Hutu. “The enemy is one” phrase: This was a phrase used as a message in Rwanda. It was an argument of the state to kill all the Tutsis. This was claiming that it is a war and that the enemy is Tutsis. Civilians were targeted, but the logic was we are in armed conflict and we have to destroy our enemy. This made killings easier and attacked Tutsis and portrayed them as enemies. Cumulative radicalization vs. intentionalism model: For the cumulative argument, you could argue that the dynamics of war and president assasination and other factors escalated things to the genocide. On the other hand with the intentionalist mode, it means that the idea of sharing power with tutsis was too much for the Hutu, they didn't want to share power, that they even decided to kill their president. It also varies on who killed the president, this information was never found which could help with the radicalization vs intentionalist argument. It supports more of a cumulative radicalization model because there are aspects that are hard to prove were intentional. Killing of the president etc was uncertain of who did it. Adopted over the course of conflict Similarities with other cases: The political turmoil that comes with war and the Ethnic nationalism. -dehumanization -ideological commitment? -fear? - Prevention: It perhaps could have been prevented if the peace accords was structured better and differently. Rwandan genocide: pattterns of violence: Mobilization because there was mobilization of men, coalitions of violence. There were churches, local actors, and more who prepared for attacks. Additionally mass killing was another pattern of violence, Tutsis were targeted systematically. Genocide went for 100 days, about 75% of tutsi killed. NEGATIVE AND CONTEMPORARY CASES Processes of escalation: common patterns across the cases: Elite radicalization, polarization and lastly increasing levels of violence over time. Elite radicalization, sometimes we can observe it and sometimes we cannot until after like the Cambodia case. This refers to elites driving genocide with their policies and forming militia groups and more, they have a big role in genocide. Second, with polarization, it creates a separation of groups, even if groups may have started out integrated, there's a wide distrust later. It can create an us vs them mentality. Lastly, Increasing levels of violence over time refers to an increase of violence. Distrust and discrimination can lead to violence, more localized violence, gender specific violence, all the way up to mass violence. “Dogs that didn’t bark:” It looks like a genocide will occur, but the dogs didn’t bark refers to how the genocide did not happen. Negative Cases: This refers to cases in which genocide could have happened or there was an escalation that almost caused genocide but despite this genocide did not occur. Its significance is that it is important to study these cases because it tells us way we can prevent genocide or what could help lead to de escalation because of their success stories. It also helps us refine our analysis on our choice of theories, it helps us make sense of what are the crucial factors in genocide. To find things in common and differences. De escalation: Reduction of violence. Helps identify what can de escalate genocides. Restraint: Restraint refers to factors that could help prevent escalation of violence and genocide. It can help prevent genocide, understand what drives but also prevents genocide. Cote d’ivore: In Cote D’ivore, there was almost a genocide that happened after the death of Houphouet. It was a negative case, in which genocide could have happened but did not. There was rising ethnic nationalism, although it did not occur potentially because of Houphouet’s past ideologies and founding narrative on a multi ethnic Cote D’ivore. Killings could have harmed their cocoa and coffe industry that was doing good, so economically it was better to not commit genocide, there was also international intervention particularly by france as well. -Anti muslim and northerners , couldnt participate in politics. Wanted rights. Civil war, then led to intervention. Then second war and then another intervention. -Issue of citizenship, ideology of identity-based exclusion these people dont have a right to vote, not citizens. cote d’ivore, ethnic nationalism. Triggers counter reaction, further violence. Two wars!! But no genocide. Cumulative Radicalization: It helps create a model on the process of escalation. Evolution of a policy from some starting point and ending point. Elites are making decisions and responding to conflict, challenges, conditions on the ground that leads them to escalate violence. Ultimately a process of escalation that results in genocide, this helps us understand how genocide develops. This also leads us to what could have made leaders say we want to keep peace or not escalate violence. Ivoirite: This was a form of ethnic nationalism and political exclusion aimed primarily at Northerners. This led to discrimination of Muslims and Northerners. This was a rise of Ivoirite nationalism. At that time 50% of residents were migrants from northern countries that did not hold citizenship. Houphouet: This president had a lot of power, implemented 20th century, idea of multi ethnic Cote d’ivore. He encouraged people to migrate because he saw potential of the cocoa and coffee plantations but there was not many people in Cote D’ivore. He Prevented categorization as a group as an enemy, not as feasible as other places. emphasized tolerance and a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. Created founding narrative. He was catholic, southerner. Inter ethnic violence: seen in these 3 cases, targeting a specific group or groups, can lead to escalation. Founding narratives: It is the ideology that was created by Houphuet. That Cote D’ivore was a multi ethnic, multi religious, diverse region and that it was better that way. DYNAMICS OF WAR: Throughout the war, neither side effectively tried to defeat militarily the other side in any serious and coordinated fashion after the first few weeks of armed conflict. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR MODERATION: The size and structure of the Ivorian economy meant that there would be a huge cost to the promulgation of mass violence. Also, a large bourgeoisie. PROXIMATE DRIVERS OF CONFLICT: At the end of 1999, Cote D’Ivoire experiences a military coup. The 2000 elections are very violent. CIVIL WAR #1: Attack from the North and a quick progression and seizure of the northern half of the country in September and October of 2002. Conflict marked by swift external intervention. CIVIL WAR #2: After the 2010 elections, another war breaks out! Clearly, there were lots of risk factors: anti-Muslim discrimination; upheaval; ethnic nationalism (Ivoirité) developed by the Southerners provoked resentment of immigrants/Northerners; civil wars; and more! Yet, despite all these common factors of genocide, there was no mass killing or group destruction. What prevented escalation in the elite level?: Economic incentives for moderation, the cocoa production was a source of growth, foundation of the economy, the people who did that were northerners and Muslims, if they got rid of them then the economy would collapse. It was not in the interest of the elites to commit genocide and to escalate violence. Second: Founding narrative/ideology of houphouet, he believed in a multi ethnic Cote D’ivore, multi religious, and strong in diversity. At its core it was diverse and Third; International intervention, restrain in escalation. AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE UNITED STATES WITH A FOCUS ON CALIFORNIA 1) Trail of Tears, this was a forced removal of the Cherrokee population from parts of Southeast US like Oklahoma today. To remove the entire Cherrokee population, marched out of their land and some killed on the way, they were safe once they got to their land. 2) Sand Creek: This happened in Colorado, there was a local military regime that went into native communities there. They engaged in full scale violence there on families. 3) Yuki Indians - This happened in California, settlers were going in searching for gold. The Yuki responded by fighting back, stealing cattle. For every cattle, Indians were killed and there were repeated massacres against Yuki Indians. This was to the point where very few survived. Consistent violence against them. Governor of California Peter brunet, war will continue to be raised till the indians are destroyed/exterminated?) Colonial Genocide: Cases of indigenous american indian populations in America, with settler colonialism. Domestic genocide, usually happens within a society and typically towards a minority group. In this case, gradual expansion of territorial expansion. Significant to think about what people are capable of, and cases in America. Destroying the groups that were there prior to the expansion. These cases were Nature of territorial expansion. Intent: It is similar to the Cambodia case because people died from failed policies that were not corrected, ethnic purity, which led to deaths of starvation, disease. In terms of disease in these cases, many died from disease, around 90% of indigenous population died from disease. Sometimes the army would give infected blankets, but most of the time it was the groups of europeans brought with diseases that were devastating for the indigenous populations. We can also measure intent with the context of dispossession and settler colonialism. It is difficult overall to measure this if it was ethnic cleansing or if it was the consequences of settlers actions. But we can also argue against this by showing how they gave infected blankets, spread disease, they wanted to destroy the population. Perpetrators: Multiple kinds of perpetrators, settlers and frontier violence, multiple administrations of the US that had different policies towards the Indians. Who is the perpetrator? There is a lot of variation and it is a complicated question. Victims: Depends if you talk about one group or several or the whole population of indigenous population. Three main periods: Three main periods in which there was 3 key cases of destruction of populations ( Trail of tears, Sand Creeks and Yuki Indians. ) Spanish America; There was a focus on Inkas and Aztecs, there was violence, starvation, and more. There was disease, massacres, sometimes praying on factionalism. It is a complicated story. In Mexico, parts of the caribbean. Colonial Period; What is now the US, but early colonial America. There was a focus on New England, Mississippi Valley, Southeast, there was a combination of disease, exploiting rivalries, dispossession, broken treaties, and brutal wars against Indian populations that led to their collapse. Western Expansion: This was an Indian Removal Program, the US expanded west to make way for European settlement. Genocide question: Have their own treaties etc , theres a survival element. They resist the idea that their experience is genocide. You can say there was genocide but just many people survived. Boarding School Question: children forcibly taken to boarding schools, where they were Not allowed to speak their languages, forced to speak english, educated in european style. 1810s onward, especially post CW Part of reservation and treaty commitment Education; some 417 schools in 37 states But accelerated after reservation treaties broken “Kill the Indian. Save the Man” motto: This was the motto of the boarding school. It was a concept of Eradicating the customs and language, and overall indigenous culture. implanting european way of being, purpose of integration. Is that genocide? Is genocide cultural or physical destruction. Genocide has to be about physical destruction as well but people are conflicted on that. Canada believes it is genocide but in the US that was not the argument. Although this led to the federal apology by Biden. Federal report and presidential apology from Biden in 2024: There was an apology from Biden for what happened to the American Indians in the US, because the US did not really address it. Question of genocide: Some type of resistance or massacre LEss clear; territorial acquisition, creation of other lands. Concepts were more displacement than disruption. It gets complicated. Although disease, other factors led to the collapse of Indians. The overall experience was genocide, even if the intent question is unclear. That whole experince is genocide. Raise the question, where the intent m The net effect is the destruction and failure to prevent the destruction. Manifesting intent by the outcome. With the cambodia, these cases, gaza case FROM CAUSES TO PREVENTION; COURSE CONCLUSION Gaza: Hamas attack on October 7 2023, systematic attack, mainly targeted Jewish civilians. Overall pattern of violence was murderous killing of jewish civilians. Primarily group selective violence, civilians, jews. 1200 killed and 240 (approx.) hostages, it was designed to be dramatic and instill fear, there was murders, sexual violence. It was a genocidal massacre, group selective, largely homicidal. Fair to call what Hamas did crimes against humanity. Although, then there is Israel’s counterattack in Gaza. The claim is that their goal is to destroy Hamas, their approach was to use bombs, followed with ground invasion of Gaza. This resulted in massive physical destruction of buildings, infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities, collapse of markets, etc, with > 40,000 dead, most of whom are civilians. Large amount of destruction Legal concepts: War crimes, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes; Is there disproportionate /excessive violence towards civilians and civilian targets? Yes. Crimes against Humanity; Is there systematic or widespread violence against civilians? Yes. Many have been killed by missiles, bombs, Thus, conclude, safely in my view: atrocity crimes Big question is around genocide. IV. International Legal Venues Two so far: International Criminal Court - treaty based? Charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Against PM Netanyahu and former DM Gallant International Court of Justice - ICG, handles disputes between states. Court for managing disputes, border disputes, trade, etc, any kind of disagreement between states. Charges of Genocide brought by South Africa (1/24) Fourteen other countries joined case South Africa said that the “acts and omissions” by Israel “are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” Failing its obligations under UNGC Part of a “continuum” of violence since 1948 Acts of Genocide:  1. Killing, 2) causing serious bodily and mental harm, 3) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (displacement, withholding of food, water and fuel, denial of shelter and sanitation, assault on health care system; 4) reproductive violence (preventing maternal care) What is the purpose / intent of the violence? South africa claims; These acts “form a calculated pattern of conduct indicating genocidal intent,”. Evidenced by the pattern of action; Targeting Palestinians, Using weaponry that results in large-scale homicidal destruction, Bombing designated safe zones, Depriving Palestinians of basic needs, Destroying social and health infrastructure, Killing and orphaning large numbers of children, Intent demonstrated by “genocidal speech” by leaders. Israel leaders frame “enemy” as Palestinian people Not just from their acts but also quotes from leaders. Consistent pattern, where the Palestinians as a group are labeled as an enemy and should be destroyed. Famous Quotes from leaders, eg Netanyahu and Gallant: Israel was “imposing a complete siege on Gaza”, “there would be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”. “Everything would be closed”, because Israel is “fighting human animals Also: lower level soldiers that are repeating this language First two are the key ones more consistent. Intent demonstrated by genocidal speech by soldiers Eg “Gaza will be erased” Intent demonstrated by incitement speech eg to “wipe out” Gaza Israel rebuttal: they say if anyone is genocidal it is Hamas, you are accusing the wrong people of genocide. They say and others say they have a right to respond, it is justified and prevent Hamas from attacking again. Military self defense. Trying to create a better future for Palestianians by getting rid of hamas. Famine: Significant concern about famine because of blockage and attacks. However, no real effort to ensure that does not happen. Food aid have been attacked, or not delivered. What is their policy towards food aid and alleviating famine? Not trying to actively trying to prevent famine, is indicator that they do not care about mass death of Gaza. Rafa attacks another important thing; They said they would be safe there but then they went in there and attacked. There is no safe area in Gaza. Logic of violence in Gaza is consistent with genocide but also with other overriding objectives and purposes: Deterrence/communicative violence Trying to destroy Hama Open point in genocide: must logic of destruction be the only reasonable conclusion It is not clear that civilians are the primary targets A critical question concerns the aftermath What Israel plans for the “day after” will indicate its intent I suspect multiple and competing plans  Israel has not taken action to disprove that destruction and making Gaza unlivable for Palestinians is the goal. Can genocide co exist or does it only have to be genocide. It can occur if other things are happening at the same time. Professor doesn't think it has to be the only reasonably interpretation. Ethnic nationalism, jewish state. Conclusions; OTHER KEY TERMS ​ 1. Define and understand the concept of genocide. ​ ​ 2. Review and reflect on theories of genocide.; macro, micro level theories ​ - macro; conditions in society that make genocide common ? , micro; individual behavior Micro: -dehumanization ,Elites , Ideology Macro: war and ethnic nationalism. Do not apply to all: State collapse ​ 3. Develop an understanding of cases of mass violence in world history. ​ ​ 4. Apply empirical material from cases to assess theory. ​ 5. Explore the uses of comparison in the social sciences. : comparison to find common patterns. If we can find them we can support a particular theory more. 5 cases, what were the common patterns consistently across the cases  ​ Stronger evidence ​ 6. Apply knowledge of cases to questions of genocide prevention and response.; ​ Prevention in the last cases we talked about ​ ​ 8. Consider the ways in which polarization, political violence, and radicalization take shape in societies.; ​ - it can be any society ​ - Why people get stuck sometimes Why did the genocide happen in all 5 cases Genocide convention definition: ​ A) MASS CATEGORICAL VIOLENCE: Coordinated campaigns of mass violence against a specific civilian population. In several cases, we identify a pattern of group destruction, which we can argue is genocide. ○ Whether or not constitutes genocide is case by case. Nt all mass categorical violence is genocide. ​ B) THE ROLE OF THE STATE: Violence was primarily carried out or at least initiated by states. ○ Important role for the state, not requirement but a pattern. ​ C) ESCALATION: In each of these cases, with the possible exception of Cambodia, we can observe a ratcheting up of violent policies and attitudes towards the outgroups in question. We have called that process one of radicalization, in particular on the part of the elites that control the state. ○ ​ D) A COMMON PATHWAY: 1) There is a history of conflict between groups in the society; 2) the country enters into some kind of crisis or process of upheaval; 3) we see the rise to power of a political party or group that clearly endorses some kind of ethnic nationalism; 4) we see the breakout of some type of armed conflict and the targeting of the outgroup as the “enemy.” If they have any arguments on why that genocide happened Readings: KR: ○ Naimark reading; “Genocide in Stalinist Russia and Ukraine,” argues that 3 sets of events in the Soviet Union during the 1930s were genocidal. Dekulakization: Beginning in the late 1920s, the Soviet government launched a campaign to eliminate “kulaks” – which were “prosperous farmers” or “rich peasants” – as a class. According to Naimark, around 2 million kulaks were deported to the north of Russia and to Siberia. This policy of dekulakization resulted in hundreds of thousands of executions - the standard estimate is 700k deaths. Targeting of these people categorized by the regime as kulaks. Whether landowners, rich peasants, class based category. Many executions, kulaks deported to the north of Russia and to Siberia. The Holodomor: By March 1930, 71% of arable land in the Soviet Union had been collectivized (seized from owners by the government). This policy was particularly resisted in Ukraine. Stalin continued to repress the population and requisition grains, in a calculated effort to inflict pain and suffering on the Ukrainians. The result was 3.3 million deaths by starvation in Soviet Ukraine from 1932-33, and another 3 million in the Soviet Union as a whole. Stalin meant to starve Ukraine—that is the intent—to break perceived resistance to collectivization and to preempt an attempt to break away from the Soviet Union or ally with enemies. Force landowners to hand over their property. Property would be collectivized. Purges and the “Great Terror”: The 1930s in the Soviet Union were also a period of purges: an effort by the regime to root out “enemies,” including those Kulaks who survived the labor camps or the Gulag. The Soviets worried that Kulaks could form a rebellion. This led to what is often called the “Great Terror,” from 1937-1938, in which there were purges of former government elites, people with extensive external contacts, as well as common criminals and “former kulaks.” Engineers, factory managers, and some high ranking Army officers were considered secret enemies of the regime and purged. Seven hundred thousand people killed, mostly by gunshot… That there were foreign influences,  Soviet mass killing in the 1930s should be considered genocidal. Under Stalin’s leadership, the authorities targeted, attacked and eliminated groups of people in society as such, including invented groups, like the kulaks. ○ Andrew walder and Yang su Cultural Revolution (1966-1976): The Cultural Revolution was Mao’s attempt at a political “comeback” by conducting a purge of “counter-revolutionary” and “capitalist” elements within the Party and society, aiming to reinvigorate the Communist spirit and rid the country of perceived enemies. He mobilized students and young people as “Red Guards,” encouraging them to target intellectuals, officials, and even Party members suspected of ideological disloyalty. In many ways, this was a similar process to Stalin’s “Great Terror” - mass killings of “rich peasants” and “landlords,” as well as mass vigilantism. IT was mass violence and although it was not genocide, it was still shares similarities. - According to our Walder and Su reading, between 750,000 - 1.5 million people died in the Cultural Revolution. Not related to reading i think but important to keep in mind that: ○ There is an obvious lineage here from Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot—these were attempts to radically revolutionize society, where eradication of an old order and the creation of a new one meant large-scale violence. Moreover, the policies that were attempted were similar, in particular forced collectivization of the peasantry, relying heavily on the state.(rely heavily on authority of the state ) However, in Cambodia, there are two main differences. 1. First, the scale of killing was much greater on a relative basis than the Soviet Union and even China. 2. Second, there was a combination of radical Communism and ethnic nationalism that led to a focus on destroying minorities.(ethnic, religious minorities) that dindt really exist in soviet union and china Yugoslavia: - Joe Sacco, Safe Area Gorazde - Edina Becirevic, “Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda: - Scott Straus, The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda: In this book he looks into the perpetrators' motivations and characteristics by interviewing them. He finds that a lot of them are ordinary men, referring to adult males, similar income, they had kids, etc. He finds there was a lot of civilian participating in the genocide. Straus also argues throughout the reading that the war, multiparty politics, the assassination of Burundi’s first Hutu president, all helped with the radicalization of Hutu’s which further eventually led to the genocide. This worried the elites and ordinary Rwandans in regions where the effects of these events could be observed directly. Although he acknowledges that this was not enough to explain the violence. Instead it was that elites used this as a way to create fear and chaos and the war. He finds that men participated because other men encouraged them, and some were angry and scared especially after the president’s death. He argues that less relevant theories are ethnic hatred, as well as material deprivation. - Hollie Nyseth Brehm, “Subnational Determinants of Killing in Rwanda, Brehm argues that the state orchestrated and implemented the violence, that local conditions also shaped the violence and were important on the intensity of the violence. Indicators of low community cohesion and social control are associated with more violence. Local elites were important as well, many governors, mayors, and others participated in the genocide. The central government eliminated those who did not support the violence. More violence occurred near the extremist center of the country as well as where state actors met strong opposition. Brehm found that top-down forces were associated with significantly more killing within a commune. Levels of killing were also higher in communities that had higher levels of education, lower levels of formal employment, and lower levels of marriage. Even though top-down factors are important, community factors also clearly shaped the level of violence during the genocide, indicating that both are necessary to understand how the violence unfolded. Brehm looked through 5 different hypotheses and those were the conclusions. ○ Hypothesis 1: Regions with larger populations of Tutsis experienced more killings. ○ Hypothesis 2: Areas close to the capital experienced more killings. ○ Hypothesis 3: Regions where the Rwandan Armed Forces were present experienced more killings. ○ Hypothesis 4: Areas controlled by MRND experienced more killings  ○ Hypothesis 5: Regions with greater exposure to the radio experienced more killings. - SKIM Marie Berry, “From Violence to Mobilization: Women, War, and Threat in Rwanda,” Marie Berry discusses the violence and mobilization of women in Rwanda. She interviewed 152 women in Rwanda, threatening conditions created by the genocide and civil war initiated a grassroots mobilization process among women. Shortly after the violence ended, Rwandan women took on new roles in their households, joined nascent community organizations, and soon began to emerge as leaders in their communities. Ten years later, thousands of women’s organizations had emerged as vital and robust social institutions, and women were elected to the world’s highest percentage of seats in Parliament. The genocide helped women mobilize and create a rise of women in Rwanda politics. Negative and contemporary cases: - Straus, Making and Unmaking Nations, Chapter 5 Chapter 5 examines plausible sources of restraint. At the macro level, there is political, economic, ideological and international. You could say democracy prompts to deescalation. At the meso level, civil society or local commercial ties can lead to prevention of escalation because if local networks work to de escalate violence it can help prevent genocide, also in terms of economic incentives like the Cote d’ivore case. At the micro level values of inter-ethnic cooperation, can lead to tolerance of different groups just like the ideology founded by Houphouet. It discusses how Elites, international intervention, economic incentives, ideological legacies play a role in genocide because they are possible restraints. American indians: - Ned Blackhawk, “’The Centrality of Dispossession’: Native American Genocide and Settler Colonialism,” The argument that disposession in taking away land plays a key role in the genocide and understanding what happened. Massacres, disease and forced removal played an important role, he overall highlighted dispossession. - Benjamin Madley, “‘A War of Extermination’: The Californian Indian Genocide, Benjamin Madley discusses the Violence against indigenous groups in california. He argues how We should be thinking about specific groups. He also specifically highlights the Yuki indians in California, the searching of gold from settlers. The Yuki Indiands tried to remove them, they fought back and stole cattles. The Settlers in response killed Yuki’s for the cattles stolen and this also led to repeated massacres towards Yuki indians where very few survived in California. He highlights how state support, supply and funding of armed forces, and repeated massacres was a clear case of genocide to him. Newsome issued a state apology to the Indians. - Jeff Ostler, Surviving Genocide, Appendix. He documents in detail the Western Expansion in the US. They were displaced, not destroyed, but when you look at the whole experience of the 19th century, the whole experience was the destruction of the indigenous populations or most of them across the US, he claimed that was genocide. From causes to prevention: - Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell, pp. 508-516. She argues about barriers to preventing genocide, which includes self-interest