July 2, 2004
Jemera Rone
Human Rights Watch
Washington, DC
Dear Jemera Rone,
You asked yesterday, in an email you chose to give an extremely wide
readership (via darfur_task_force@yahoogroups.com and thereby many
others), whether "people like Eric Reeves are abusing the legal term
[genocide] to try to rouse people to act?" Perhaps if the issue were
less consequential, or the audience smaller, I might have chosen to
dismiss this as a petulant bit of slander.
But the audience was large (growing well outside the
darfur_task_force@yahoogroups.com readership), so I feel obliged to
answer this question myself.
Let me first, however, inquire of you: did you read my lengthy and
widely distributed legal analysis of the issue of genocide in Darfur?
("Unmistakable Evidence of Genocidal Intent: A Legal Analysis of
Khartoum's Continuing Obstruction of Humanitarian Access to Darfur,"
June 16, 2004) Though I doubt it, and suspect that you will not now, I
append it below for the sake of those who may wish to know something of
my thinking about the legal issues attending any use of the term
genocide.
If I am wrong in my surmise about your reading of my analysis, perhaps
you can suggest where I misstep in the account, which drew heavily on
the landmark April 19, 2004 review of "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic"
(Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for
the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former
Yugoslavia; available at:
http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm). Perhaps you
might begin by indicating where I misconstrue this superbly clear and
accessible, as well enormously authoritative, legal finding.
Of course I'm not a lawyer. But perhaps some "amateurism" can be
forgiven in light of the moral and practical urgency of a determination
of genocide concerning Darfur, and the clarity of the 1948 UN Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide---and given
the woeful history of lawyers in responding belatedly to genocide. Here
one must only think of the withering account Samantha Power offers of
lawyerly disingenuous within the Clinton administration during the
Rwandan genocide ("'A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide," vide pp. 358-66).
But is a finding of genocide in Darfur an "abuse," as you suggest? Am
I guilty of intellectually dishonest or promiscuous use of the word
genocide? If I am, presumably so is the distinguished jurist Richard
Goldstone, who in the introduction to a recent Physicians for Human
Rights report on Darfur (which found "compelling information that a
genocidal process is unfolding in Darfur") declared:
"Having reviewed Physicians for Human Rights' findings, Justice Richard
Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and a Physicians for
Human Rights board member said, 'After all that we know and have learned
from the last decade's genocides and mass atrocities, it is
unconscionable for the world to witness these crimes and fail to take
steps to protect and save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent
men, women, and children. We owe it to the victims of Darfur and
potential victims to do everything we can to prevent and account for
what the Physicians for Human Rights report establishes is genocide and
reverse the intolerable acts of forcing entire populations from their
land, destroying their livelihood and making it virtually impossible to
return.'"
("Physicians for Human Rights Calls for Intervention to Save Lives in
Sudan: Field Team Compiles Indicators of Genocide," June 23, 2004; at
http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/)
Is this "abuse" of the term genocide by Justice Goldstone?
Perhaps Justice Africa (UK) is also merely being "abusive" when it
recently emphatically declared in a press release:
"In response to the question, 'Is the Darfur conflict genocide?' [,] if
we strictly apply the provisions of the 1948 Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, there is no doubt
that the answer is yes." (Justice Africa [UK], June 18, 2004]
And what of Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka? Must we say that
today he, too, is "abusing" the word genocide?
"'The silence of African governments over this issue is unacceptable,'"
Soyinka told a news conference about curbs on the press in Africa.
"'This business of solidarity with criminality is a contradiction in
terms. The African Union, the African nations and the media must
denounce what is happening in Sudan today. There is no other word for it
but genocide.'"
(Reuters, July 2, 2004).
Africa Action is just another "abuser"? ---
"the term 'genocide' not only captures the fundamental characteristics
of the Khartoum government's intent and actions in western Sudan, it
also invokes clear international obligations." (Africa Action, June 15,
2004)
The list of "abusers" is of course considerably longer, which leads me
to wonder about why I have been singled out by the Sudan researcher at
Human Rights Watch. I wonder all the more because I have spent so much
time, over many months, in both publications and electronically
distributed analyses, explaining precisely why I believe the situation
in Darfur must be characterized as genocide (see, for example, my
publications in The Washington Post [February 25, 2004] and The
International Herald Tribune [June 11, 2004]).
I have focused, as you may or may not know, on the critical clause from
Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide:
"[c] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;"
I have argued that this describes precisely the nature of the Khartoum
regime's military actions in Darfur, both by means of its regular armed
forces and its Janjaweed militia allies. The targeting of the African
tribal populations in these very terms has been established by many,
including Human Rights Watch. Certainly nothing that has been published
by Human Rights Watch, or any other human rights organization for that
matter, that suggests why this clause cannot be considered a fully
appropriate description of realities in Darfur.
Indeed, since you have seen fit to ask whether I am an "abuser" of the
term genocide, I feel justified in asking why Human Rights Watch does
not publicly explain why the organization continues to refuse to use the
term, despite all evidence available. I queried you on this very issue
some time ago, but received back only a dismissive reply. But this
would seem to be the moment for Human Rights Watch to offer something
more.
Human Rights Watch currently uses for Darfur the term "ethnic
cleansing," aptly described by Samantha Power as a "kind of euphemistic
half-way house between crimes against humanity and genocide." Power
also notes that a team of UN lawyers determined in 1993, during a review
of the term "ethnic cleansing," that it "might well be considered
genocide under the [genocide] convention" ("'A Problem from Hell':
American and the Age of Genocide," p. 483). Notably, in 1991 the UN
General Assembly referred to "ethnic cleansing" as a "form of
genocide."
Given this legal and historical background, I feel compelled to ask why
Human Rights Watch doesn't publicly and explicitly explain the
difference between "ethnic cleansing" and genocide. What is comprised
by the latter but not the former? What specifically? The lengthy
discussion of "ethnic cleansing" in the extensive Human Right Watch
report of February 2004 ("Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by
Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan," pages 39-41) does not
squarely address this question.
I think until you've fully answered this question, until you've
explained cogently why a designation of "ethnic cleansing" is
appropriate for Darfur but a designation of genocide is not, you have no
right to accuse me of abusing the term genocide.
You have chosen to put these issues before a very wide audience with
your slanderous question about me; I have foregone slander, but have
chosen to reply to a much wider audience. I imagine that many in this
audience will be interested to see if there is any meaningful response
from Human Rights Watch on this most urgent issue.
Sincerely,
Eric Reeves
Smith College
