Are the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” differentiated in international law or any other body of law? Google searches aren’t helping me. Any international lawyers or historians about?
Note to mods: this may become a debate, so feel free to move. I’m hoping there’s a factual legal answer someone can give.
Genocide has a legal meaning covered by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943: he thought that identifying this sort of barbarity could help prevent it.
Ethnic cleansing was a term translated from Serbian in the early 1990s during Yugoslavia’s civil war. It apparently doesn’t have a specific legal meaning, though the practice of it may qualify as a crime against humanity.
Though I see from wikipedia:
Genocide refers to the killing of a certain group on the basis of colour or creed with the purpose of eradicating this group from the face of the earth. Many of the (reprehensible) practices that may be regarded by some as genocide did not have this express purpose, but rather to make a certain area ethnically homogenous. While the method by which such a homogenization can be attained might lead to many people dying - it has in the past - this is not its purpose per se.
To sum up, I think that the main difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing is in the goal that these projects are trying to attain.
“Ethnic cleansing” is a euphemism for genocide that originated with the Serbs. I feel very strongly that the phrase is used to downplay the seriousness of the crime of genocide, and I get extremely pissed off when I see the phrase used in newspapers as though it were some legitimate activity.
The word “cleansing” is totally inappropriate. If the activity is not genocide then call it a pogrom, persecution, or something else. But “cleansing” it certainly is not.
So you don’t think there’s a difference (if only in principle) between exterminating members of a group and violently removing members of a group from an area that you consider yours?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I was anticipating that someone would reply saying the people were not being wiped off the face of the earth, they were “merely” being removed from a particular area. However, that is not my opinion. I personally consider both to be genocide.
so, in fact, it is what you are saying. You don’t see a difference between the purpose of extermination and the purpose of removal. I, for one, do, which is not to say that I approve of either of these purposes, I’m just saying they are not both the same.
Take, for instance, the period right after WW II when millions of ethnic Germans were forced to leave Poland and Czechoslovakia, solely on account of their ethnicity. Many of these people died in this period.
Reprehensible? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? Yes. Genocide? No.
Svejk, I beg to differ. If extirpating people from a region by shooting them and putting them into concentration camps isn’t Genocide, then I dont’ know what is. I know this from personal stories from my family and many other ethnic German and Danube Swabian families that orginated in the former Balkan regions. Like the most recent conflicts, many were killed, not just “removed”. It would have been nice to have just kicked out the Germans, don’t you think, but the ones that escaped had to flee with just their clothes on their backs under cover of darkness. The unlucky ones were killed or put into concentration camps. Yes, Virginia, there were concentration camps for Germans too, I had a relative (a young child) who died in one.
We’re not talking about rich people either, but simple folk, farmers, tradesmen, businessmen. They typically lived side by side with Serbians, etc. (same situation as the recent conflict) and by all accounts got along. So. What’s the difference between that and the “real” Genocide you seem to be talking about?
Oh, and one other thing. I didn’t grow up with a hatred of Serbians - in fact I have never heard my relatives say anything negative about Serbians. Most of their blame was pointed at “Partisans” and politics even though the ethnic Genocide component seems pretty clear to me.
For that matter, has any one organization or government systematically tried to kill an ethnic group outside its own country’s borders? People are prevented from leaving, but it seems to me that’s more to keep the word from getting out about their mistreatment at the hands of the perpetrators or to prevent the refugees from coming back at some future date to make claims.
I’m not making any empirical classification of what happened in former Yugoslavia at any point. I’m not making a point that “ethnic cleansing” is not a nasty euphemism. The point I’m making is that not all crimes against humanity that involve violence against an entire group are the same.
What I have against calling things genocide that are not is the same as what I have against calling people ‘Nazi’ unless they really are: it muddles up concepts that are meant to refer to specific instances of heinous evil.
Awe c’mon, but “soup fascist” doesn’t have nearly the same ring to it.
I see the distinction between these two crimes against humanity. But by way of clarification, the definition of genocide is a little broader than you indicated.
[quote=The Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide]
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[/quote]
So if your goal is to destroy a group in whole or in part, it’s genocide. Whether those employing the tactics of forced migration at the point of a gun (and worse) are doing so to destroy a group in whole or in part may vary with the situation, and is grist for another thread.
Thanks, Measure for Measure. That’s the kind of thing I was looking for.