Docstoc

MODERN Genocide Incidents

Document Sample
MODERN Genocide Incidents Powered By Docstoc
					   “MODERN”
    Genocide
    Incidents
  A compilation of resources from
sites you cannot access, organized
              by topic.
  Prepared by Mrs. Leonhardt, SAMHS Library Media Specialist
  GENERAL INFORMATION
 http://www.preventgenocide.org/
 (first resource, all information in
 following slides is from this site
 until you see a new URL)
      GENERAL INFORMATION

   The International Campaign to End
    Genocide (host of this site) Prevent Genocide
    International is a founding member of The International
    Campaign to End Genocide (ICEG) a coalition of global
    civil society organizations established on May 15, 1999
    at the Hague, Netherlands.
                General Information
                What is Genocide?
   What is Genocide?Testimonies of
    Survivors and Eyewitnesses: "A death
    march was: anybody who couldn't walk,
    stayed back and they shot him. No
    question. I had two friends who fell back.
    I told them, Don't go to the back. Stay in
    the front. That's the best way. I was
    holding them up and carrying them for a
    long time." (this site provides links to testimonies-
    something you might want to further investigate for your project)
                 General Information
                    Genocide?
   The legal definition of genocide
       The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is
        found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the
        Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
       Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
           1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in
            whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
            group, as such", and
           2) the physical element which includes five acts described
            in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both
            elements to be called "genocide."
       Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of
        genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and
        complicity.
                 General Information
                    Genocide?
   "Article II: 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.
   Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
       (a) Genocide;
        (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
        (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
        (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
        (e) Complicity in genocide. "
                   General Information
                      Genocide?
   The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious
    groups.
        A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined
         by a common country of nationality or national origin.
        An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by
         common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
        A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by
         physical characteristics.
        A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by
         common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
   Usually people are born into these four groups. These four groups
    share the common characteristic that individuals are most often
    born into the group. While some individuals may change
    nationality or religion - or even adopt a new cultural, ethnic or
    racial identity - usually people do not choose their group identity.
    In genocide people are targeted for destruction not because
    anything they have done, but because of who they are.
   Group identity is often imposed by the perpetrators. Perpetrators
    of genocide frequently make group categories more rigid or create
    new definitions which impose group identity on individuals,
    without regard to peoples individual choices.
                 General Information
                    Genocide?
   Key Terms:
   The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action.
    ―Intentional‖ means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from
    statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a
    systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
   Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the
    crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity,
    etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group,
    even part of a group, it is genocide.
   The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not
    intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a
    group (such as its educated members, or members living in one
    region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a
    substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an
    individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only
    one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan
    to destroy the group.
             General Information
             Genocide Prevention
   Global News Monitor: Tracking current news on
    genocide and items related to past and present ethnic,
    national, racial and religious violence. For current and
    archived news on ethnic violence and other conflict also
    see the weekly Peace Negotiations Watch ( since
    Sept. 2002) and the International Crisis Group's monthly
    CrisisWatch ( since Sept. 2003).

   The Stockholm Declaration on Genocide
    Prevention, January 28, 2004 In this "Declaration
    by the Stockholm International Forum 2004" fifty-
    five participating governments made seven commitments
    in the field of genocide prevention. For more details
    and news reports from the Stockholm Conference
    including Kofi Annan's genocide prevention
    proposals
              General Information
              Genocide Prevention
   Juan E. Méndez appointed UN Special Advisor on
    Genocide 12 July 2004
   UN Documents on Genocide Prevention The
    Whitaker Report of July 1985 made specific
    recommendations for the United Nations could develop a
    capacity to prevent genocide. The Ndiaye Report of
    August 1993 made recommendations of how to respond
    to the escalating ethnic violence in Rwanda. Find brief
    introductions and links to these vital reports, as well as
    to the 1999 Srebrenica Report of November 1999 and
    Carlsson Report of December 1999 which address the
    failure to halt genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda.
               General Information
               Genocide Prevention
   International Commission on Intervention and State
    Sovereignty (ICISS). Sponsored by Canada's Department of
    Foreign Affairs and launched Sept. 14, 2000, the Commission's Dec.
    18, 2001 report, The Responsibility to Protect, was the culmination
    of twelve months of intensive research, worldwide consultations and
    deliberation. The report states that sovereign states have a
    responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable
    catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so,
    that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of
    states. The 12-member Commission was Co-Chaired by Gareth
    Evans, head of the International Crisis Group and former Australian
    Foreign Minister (1988-96), and Mohamed Sahnoun, Special Advisor
    to the UN Secretary-General and former Algerian Ambassador to
    Germany, France, and the United States. Other Commission
    members included Lee Hamilton, former US Congressman from
    1965 to 1999, Michael Ignatieff of Canada, Professor of Human
    Rights at Harvard University, Cyril Ramaphosa, former Secretary-
    general of the African National Congress and Fidel Ramos, President
    of the Philippines from 1992 to 1998.
               General Information
               Genocide Prevention
   International Commission on Intervention and State
    Sovereignty (ICISS). Sponsored by Canada's Department of
    Foreign Affairs and launched Sept. 14, 2000, the Commission's Dec.
    18, 2001 report, The Responsibility to Protect, was the culmination
    of twelve months of intensive research, worldwide consultations and
    deliberation. The report states that sovereign states have a
    responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable
    catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so,
    that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of
    states. The 12-member Commission was Co-Chaired by Gareth
    Evans, head of the International Crisis Group and former Australian
    Foreign Minister (1988-96), and Mohamed Sahnoun, Special Advisor
    to the UN Secretary-General and former Algerian Ambassador to
    Germany, France, and the United States. Other Commission
    members included Lee Hamilton, former US Congressman from
    1965 to 1999, Michael Ignatieff of Canada, Professor of Human
    Rights at Harvard University, Cyril Ramaphosa, former Secretary-
    general of the African National Congress and Fidel Ramos, President
    of the Philippines from 1992 to 1998.
       EAST PAKISTAN:
   1971 Genocide of Bengalis
 http://www.bengalgenocide.com/
 mughalistan.php
   CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
 http://www.cambodiangenocide.o
 rg/genocide.htm
        CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   When
       1975 to 1979
   Where
       Kampuchea / Cambodia
   Estimated Numbers
       1.7 million people killed out of a
        population of 8 million (21% of the
        country's population).
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   Background & The Genocide
   Cambodia traditionally has suffered from ethnic
    rivalry leading to several exchanges of political
    power between the substantial Vietnamese
    minority and the Buddhist Khmer majority.
    When independence came in 1953, Prince
    Norodom Sihanouk took charge of the newly
    born state. A revolution led by General Lon Nol
    in 1970 temporarily dispelled the government.
    This government attempted to suppress the
    Communist and Vietnamese presence. In the
    meantime, the small Communist group, the
    Khmer Rouge, grew in popularity and by 1975
    was able to take over, proclaiming the Republic
    of Democratic Kampuchea.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   Background & The Genocide
   In asserting its new power, the Party began a
    campaign of cleansing from 1975 to 1978. The
    Kampuchean Communist Party's interpretation
    of the state required destruction of cities and
    the foreign-educated elite in order to justify, or
    to make rural, the country. The goal was a
    centralized communal organization of atheistic
    factory workers and peasant farmers free of
    external support. Cities were raided and people
    relocated to communal farms. Most people were
    left to starve or work to death. Although
    international organizations offered aid to the
    demolished population, the government refused
    outside assistance.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   Background & The Genocide

   Ethnically, the targets of the cleansing were
    Vietnamese and Chinese nationals, Muslims
    (particularly ethnic Chams), and Buddhist
    monks. They all were virtually, if not entirely,
    eliminated from the population by expulsion,
    execution, or starvation.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   Background & The Genocide

   The Vietnamese had long been in conflict with
    Kampuchea and responded to the violence
    against its nationals. A Vietnamese invasion in
    1979 replaced the government with moderate
    Communists sympathetic to Vietnam's interests.
    The Khmer Rouge became a guerilla
    organization and began a civil war that
    continued until a tenuous peace was reached in
    1991. A new coalition government (excluding
    the Khmer Rouge) under United Nations
    guidance took power. Cambodia since has taken
    steps toward trying members of the Khmer
    Rouge as war criminals.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   Background & The Genocide

   International observers have been hesitant to call the
    Khmer Rouge's actions genocide. Since the motivation of
    the perpetrators was generally political, the case does
    not fit in the common United Nations definition for
    genocide, but other definitions include the Cambodian
    genocide as one of the most horrific. Often, the 1979
    Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that deposed Pol Pot
    during the America's controversial Vietnam War is
    instead the focus of criticism since the US backed the
    Lon Nol government as one of its anti-Communism
    spheres of influence. Only in the past few years have
    international organizations, including the UN, begun to
    acknowledge the crimes. The new Cambodian
    government is preparing to summon a war crimes
    tribunal. Yet, international observers who believe that
    the government's court cannot credibly try the Khmer
    Rouge perpetrators have asked the United Nations to
    mediate.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   The Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: A Chronology
   Courtesy of the Associated Press [http://www.ap.org]

   1949-52
    Saloth Sar, later known as Pol Pot, goes to Paris on government
    scholarship and becomes absorbed with communist ideology.
   1953
    Pol Pot sets up communist party after Cambodia's independence
    from France.
   1960-63
    Pol Pot becomes party's general-secretary. Flees to jungle to escape
    repression by Cambodia's ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk.
   1967-68
    Khmer Rouge takes up arms in support of peasant against a
    government rice tax. Army suppresses insurrection.
   1970
    Civil war begins after right-wing coup topples Sihanouk.
   1975
    Khmer Rouge seizes power, begins doomed experiment in agrarian
    communism. Up to 2 million people die over four years from
    starvation, overwork and execution.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   The Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: A Chronology
   Courtesy of the Associated Press [http://www.ap.org]

   1978
    Vietnam invades Cambodia to stop Khmer Rouge border
    attacks. Phnom Penh falls to Vietnamese two weeks later.
   1979
    Last time Pol Pot seen by outsiders.
   1991
    All Cambodian factions sign peace agreement.
   1993
    Khmer Rouge boycotts U.N.-supervised general election.
   April 1996
    Unconfirmed rumors that Pol Pot has died.
   August 1996
    Government announces Khmer Rouge breakup. Pol Pot's
    brother-in-law, Ieng Sary, leads 10,000 guerrillas to defect.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   The Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: A Chronology
   Courtesy of the Associated Press [http://www.ap.org]

   June 13, 1997
    Pol Pot reportedly orders top general Son Sen and family
    killed; hard-liners split into factions. Officials offer a series
    of conflicting accounts on Pol Pot's fate.
   June 20
    Former comrades capture Pol Pot, both rival co-prime
    ministers say.
   July 1997
    A "people's tribunal" held at the guerrillas' last stronghold
    in northern Cambodia condemns Pol Pot for crimes that
    included the killing of the group's longtime guerrilla defense
    minister, Son Sen, and his family.
   August 1996
    Government announces Khmer Rouge breakup. Pol Pot's
    brother-in-law, Ieng Sary, leads 10,000 guerrillas to defect.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   The Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: A Chronology
   Courtesy of the Associated Press [http://www.ap.org]
   June 13, 1997
    Pol Pot reportedly orders top general Son Sen and family
    killed; hard-liners split into factions. Officials offer a series
    of conflicting accounts on Pol Pot's fate.
   June 20
    Former comrades capture Pol Pot, both rival co-prime
    ministers say.
   July 1997
    A "people's tribunal" held at the guerrillas' last stronghold
    in northern Cambodia condemns Pol Pot for crimes that
    included the killing of the group's longtime guerrilla defense
    minister, Son Sen, and his family.
   April 9
    United States offers assistance to any effort to bring Pol Pot
    before an international tribunal.
   April 15
    Pol Pot dies in his sleep, at 73, Khmer Rouge officials say.
       CAMBODIAN: 1975-1979
   The Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: A Chronology
   Courtesy of the Associated Press [http://www.ap.org]
   June 13, 1997
    Pol Pot reportedly orders top general Son Sen and family
    killed; hard-liners split into factions. Officials offer a series
    of conflicting accounts on Pol Pot's fate.
   June 20
    Former comrades capture Pol Pot, both rival co-prime
    ministers say.
   July 1997
    A "people's tribunal" held at the guerrillas' last stronghold
    in northern Cambodia condemns Pol Pot for crimes that
    included the killing of the group's longtime guerrilla defense
    minister, Son Sen, and his family.
   April 9
    United States offers assistance to any effort to bring Pol Pot
    before an international tribunal.
   April 15
    Pol Pot dies in his sleep, at 73, Khmer Rouge officials say.
    GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
 http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/
 g_guatemala.html
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Before Genocide:
       Guatemala is a mainly mountainous country in Central
        America, just south of Mexico and less than half the size
        of the UK. It was once at the heart of the remarkable
        Mayan civilisation, which flourished until the 10th
        century AD. When Spanish explorers conquered this
        region in the 16th century, the Mayans became slaves in
        their own ancient home. They are still the
        underprivileged majority of Guatemala's 12.3m
        population.
        At the end of the 19th century Guatemala came under
        the rule of a dictator who put his country on the
        economic map by encouraging landowners to buy and
        run coffee plantations. The Roman Catholic church was
        deprived of its lands for the purpose, and within 30 years
        Americans were the major investors. A powerful army
        and police force were set up to protect the wealthy
        landowners and their flourishing businesses. The
        Indians, with the status of peasants and labourers, saw
        nothing of the wealth being generated under a series of
        grasping dictators.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Before Genocide:
       But in 1944 the current dictator was overthrown, and a new,
        enlightened government introduced reforms which put the
        interests of the native people first. Indians in both town and
        country were given consideration, social security, and
        education. Labourers could now set up workers' unions, and
        this gave them political strength as well.
        However, attempts at land reform brought Guatemala's 'Ten
        Years of Spring' to an end. When the Guatemalan government
        planned a programme of compulsory purchase of land so that it
        would come under State ownership, the USA, its business
        interests threatened, set up a scare: 'hostile communists were
        at work'. America organised and trained a corps of eager
        Guatemalan exiles, then launched an invasion to bring down
        the government. In and after this blood-stained encounter - in
        which thousands died - workers' unions and political parties
        were suppressed, other reforms cancelled, and dissidents
        hunted down for assassination. Many appalled liberals fled into
        exile (including the young doctor 'Che' Guevara). A military
        dictator was helped to take over the government, followed by a
        string of right-wing military leaders dedicated to eliminating
        the left wing. In 1962 their policies resulted in a civil war that
        was to last over 35 years.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Before Genocide:
       The oppressed people did their best. Despite the civil
        war, church leaders helped peasants to reclaim
        unwanted marshland, build co-operative villages and
        sustain both their traditional culture and new left-wing
        politics. Work was done to teach and maintain literacy
        and good health practices. A quiet, non-violent
        opposition movement for civil rights began to grow.
        But so did armed resistance groups. Guerrilla
        organisations were founded, adopting Marxist
        communist views to justify their use of violence; they
        got some backing from Cuba. By 1981 three guerrilla
        groups had merged to create Guatemala's United Front,
        Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG).
        In that year, a small group of Mayan leaders marched to
        Guatemala City and occupied the Spanish Embassy, in
        nonviolent protest against government oppression of the
        native people. Though the Spanish ambassador urged
        the government to respond peacefully, his embassy was
        deliberately burned down, killing all the protesters
        together with all the Embassy staff (the ambassador
        survived).
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Genocide:

       The Guatemalan government, using the Guatemalan
        Army and its counter-insurgency force (whose members
        defined themselves as 'killing machines'), began a
        systematic campaign of repressions and suppression
        against the Mayan Indians, whom they claimed were
        working towards an communist coup.
        Their 2-year series of atrocities is sometimes called 'The
        Silent Holocaust'.
        In the words of the 1999 UN-sponsored report on the
        civil war: 'The Army's perception of Mayan communities
        as natural allies of the guerrillas contributed to
        increasing and aggravating the human rights violations
        perpetrated against them, demonstrating an aggressive
        racist component of extreme cruelty that led to
        extermination en masse of defenceless Mayan
        communities, including children, women and the elderly,
        through methods whose cruelty has outraged the moral
        conscience of the civilised world.'
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Genocide:
       Working methodically across the Mayan region, the army and
        its paramilitary teams, including 'civil patrols' of forcibly
        conscripted local men, attacked 626 villages. Each community
        was rounded up, or seized when gathered already for a
        celebration or a market day. The villagers, if they didn't escape
        to become hunted refugees, were then brutally murdered;
        others were forced to watch, and sometimes to take part.
        Buildings were vandalised and demolished, and a 'scorched
        earth' policy applied: the killers destroyed crops, slaughtered
        livestock, fouled water supplies, and violated sacred places and
        cultural symbols.

       Children were often beaten against walls, or thrown alive into
        pits where the bodies of adults were later thrown; they were
        also tortured and raped. Victims of all ages often had their
        limbs amputated, or were impaled and left to die slowly.
        Others were doused in petrol and set alight, or disembowelled
        while still alive. Yet others were shot repeatedly, or tortured
        and shut up alone to die in pain. The wombs of pregnant
        women were cut open. Women were routinely raped while
        being tortured. Women - now widows - who lived could
        scarcely survive the trauma: 'the presence of sexual violence in
        the social memory of the communities has become a source of
        collective shame'.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Genocide:

       Covert operations were also carried out by military units
        called Commandos, backed up by the army and military
        intelligence. They carried out planned executions and
        forced 'disappearances'. Death squads (some of which in
        time came under the army's umbrella), largely made up
        of criminals, murdered suspected 'subversives' or their
        allies; under dramatic names, such as 'The White Hand'
        or 'Eye for an Eye', they terrorised the country and
        contributed to the deliberate strategy of psychological
        warfare and intimidation.
        URNG's guerrillas could not provide assistance to the
        Mayan Indians: there were too few of them. There were
        certainly too few to be a real threat to the State, whose
        massive and brutal campaign was largely driven by long-
        term racist prejudice against the Mayan majority. Of the
        human rights violations recorded, the State and the
        Army were responsible for 93%, the guerrillas for 3%.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Genocide:

       Throughout the period of the genocide, the
        USA continued to provide military support to
        the Guatemalan government, mainly in the
        form of arms and equipment. The infamous
        guerrilla training school, the School of the
        Americas in Georgia USA, continued to train
        Guatemalan officers notorious for human rights
        abuses; the CIA worked with Guatemalan
        intelligence officers, some of whom were on
        the CIA payroll despite known human rights
        violations. US involvement was understood to
        be strategic - or, put another way, indifferent
        to the fate of a bunch of Indians - in the wider
        context of the Cold War and anti-Communist
        action.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   After Genocide:

       In 1986 civilian rule and a new constitution were set up,
        but the army held on to its power, not least because half
        a million Guatemalans were members of army, police or
        civil defence forces, many of them responsible for the
        civil war's worst brutality.

       Peace talks were set up by the UN in 1991, but made
        poor progress. Suspended in1993, they were resumed
        in1994 under a new democratic government led by the
        country's former human rights ombudsman. An accord
        on human rights protection was signed by the
        government and URNG. Other issues were discussed
        over the next year. A peace agreement was finally
        signed in 1996.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   After Genocide:
       Since then Guatemala has been trying to recover from its civil
        war, hard to do when so many civilians had taken part in
        atrocities and were now shielded by an amnesty law bitterly
        resented by victims. There were also many guerrillas and ex-
        soldiers to demobilise and resettle. All the same, a policy of
        reconciliation was introduced and, with difficulty, maintained.

       Part of the peace agreement was the setting up of The
        Historical Clarification Commission (CEH), an investigation into
        the atrocities of the civil war. It began work in July 1997,
        funded by a number of countries (including the USA, a
        generous donor). The army was unable to provide its records
        for the period 1981-1983; but the three commissioners
        travelled through the country and collected 9,000 witness
        statements, protected by a UN confidentiality agreement. The
        Commission's mandate was limited - 'reflecting the strength of
        the Guatemalan armed forces in the peace negotiations', a
        commentator dryly observed: no names of human right
        violators could be given, and the Commission's work could
        have no 'judicial effects'.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   After Genocide:

       The report, entitled 'Guatemala: Memory of Silence' was
        presented in February 1999. Its discoveries clearly
        revealed a governmental policy of genocide carried out
        against the Mayan Indians. Apart from being carried out
        by individuals, unnamed, the genocide was clearly also
        the responsibility of a hostile institutional structure.

       The report had recommendations to make: the memory
        of the victims should be preserved, there should be
        compensation, and the democratic process should be
        strengthened. 'The CEH is convinced that construction of
        peace, founded on the knowledge of the past, demands
        that those affected by the armed confrontation and the
        violence connected with it are listened to and no longer
        considered solely as victims but as the protagonists of a
        future of national harmony.'
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   After Genocide:

       In April 1998 another report, the Catholic Church's
        'Recuperation of Historical Memory' (also called 'Never
        Again'), had been published, which, like 'Memory of
        Silence' placed the responsibility for most of
        Guatemala's war crimes squarely on the army. The
        report was publicly presented by a noted human rights
        campaigner, Bishop Juan Gerardi; two days later he was
        murdered. In June 2001 a former head of military
        intelligence (a graduate of the School of the Americas)
        and two other officers were sentenced to 30 years in
        prison for the murder. Guatemala's chief prosecutor,
        who secured the conviction, then faced repeated death
        threats, and was forced to go into exile. He himself had
        taken up the case when the previous prosecutor, also
        threatened, had resigned and fled the country.

       Also in June 2001, a legal action on behalf of 12 Mayan
        communities succeeded in bringing a charge of genocide
        against a former dictator who had seized power in 1982
        (ousted by another in 1983).
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   After Genocide:
       In November 1998 three former members of a 'civil patrol'
        were tried in the first case arising from the genocide. These
        patrollers, with 42 others, had massacred 77 women and 107
        children. The younger women were repeatedly raped and then
        killed. One 10-year-old Mayan boy, holding his baby brother,
        was accosted by a patroller, a man from a nearby town: 'I'm
        taking you back home to work for me. But the baby can't come,
        he's too small.' Then the man sliced the infant in two. The boy
        survived and lived to be one of the few eye-witnesses at the
        trial (some witnesses had been threatened with death in the
        previous months, by other ex-patrollers still getting protection
        from the Army). The patrollers claimed they were elsewhere,
        planting trees. They were found guilty and sentenced to death.
        But 'civil patrollers come low in the hierarchy,' says a journalist
        working in central America, ' and perhaps their lives are
        expendable to protect the people who ordered the genocide.'
        Meanwhile the traumatised, impoverished survivors and the
        men who killed their families continue, somehow, to live in the
        same neighbourhoods.

       It is estimated that up to 200,000 people were killed between
        1966 and 1990, including the many thousands who died or
        'disappeared' in the genocide of Mayan Indians.
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Witness:

       'I was 10 years old. The patrollers pushed me
        to the ground with some of the other children
        and we were told to stay there and keep our
        faces down. I tried to look up and saw my
        mother and sister in line with the other
        women. One by one they disappeared over the
        brow of a hill, and I could hear their screams. I
        could see my mother and sister approaching
        that brow. I was kicked and told to keep my
        head down. When I looked up again, over to
        the line of women, my mother and sister were
        no longer there. For two years a patroller kept
        me prisoner, but then I escaped.'
          GUATEMALA: 1981-1983
   Witness:

       'The United States did not bear direct responsibility for
        any act of genocide, the Commission said. However, its
        government had known what was going on in the
        Guatemalan countryside. It had not raised any
        objections and had continued to support the Guatemalan
        army. In that sense, the United States was implicated. As
        for American businesses, the Guatemalan subsidiary of
        Coca-Cola had mercilessly pursued the trade union
        movement for years, and a dozen union leaders had been
        killed. The Commission said that the truth had been told
        in its report with the purpose of improving the condition
        of the peoples of Guatemala. Individuals and groups had
        the right to know who was responsible. While the
        Commission was not allowed to name perpetrators or
        attribute responsibility, the report indicates times and
        names institutions. People could deduce who was in
        charge. Everyone knew who had been President and
        Chief of Staff of the army in 1982 and 1983. If the
        perpetrators were brought to trial, it would be through
        the Ministry of Justice. People had every right to bring
        the accused to justice, the Commissioner stressed.'
    SUDAN-DARFUR: 1982...
 http://www.genocideintervention.
 net/areas_of_concern/darfur/whyi
 tareaconcern
     SUDAN-DARFUR: 1982...
 Why is it an Area of Concern?
 High numbers of violent civilian
  fatalities in Darfur and South Sudan
  and the combination of indirect
  violence due to mass displacement,
  limitations on humanitarian aid and
  widespread gender based violence,
  align with Genocide Intervention
  Network’s taxonomy and scale of
  violence against civilians.
       SUDAN-DARFUR: 1982...
   Quick Facts
   5.6 million
    Internally Displaced Persons within Sudan,
    2.7 million displaced by the Darfur Crisis.
   More than 200,000
    Minimum international UN estimates of
    conflict-related fatalities in Darfur since
    2003.
   At least 2,500
    Killed by Inter-tribal violence in South
    Sudan in 2009.
   Four
    Warrants issued by the ICC for crimes
    committed in Darfur.
        SUDAN-DARFUR: 1982...
   Engagement Strategy
   Genocide Intervention Network is working with
    partners to ensure the full deployment of the
    UNAMID peacekeeping mission, the effective
    implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
    Agreement and successful peace talks to end the
    Darfur crisis.
   Prior to 2009, Genocide Intervention Network
    funded civilian protection projects on the ground,
    working to develop standards for United Nations
    Formed Police Units as well as implementing
    income-generating activities to allow women to
    purchase firewood instead of risking their safety
    through its collection.
      BOSNIA- 1993-1995
 http://www.bosniafacts.info
 /web/facts_about_srebrenic
 a.php
               BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Facts about Srebrenica

       In June 2005, during cross-examination of a witness in
        the case against Slobodan Milošević[1] at the
        International Criminal Tribunal for the former
        Yugoslavia, the court viewed video footage showing a
        Serbian paramilitary unit, calling itself the Scorpions,
        execute six Bosnian Muslim men and teenagers captured
        after the fall of Srebrenica in 1995. The images of
        Serbian soldiers tormenting and then shooting the
        Bosnian Muslim prisoners, whose hands were tied
        behind their backs and who offered no resistance before
        being shot, broke through the wall of silence and denial
        about the subject of Srebrenica in Serbia and
        Montenegro. The Serbian Government condemned the
        killings, and the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor acted
        swiftly to detain a number of suspects allegedly
        complicit in the murders of these six men.
            BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   There is a multitude of evidence publicly available
    that proves that Bosnian Serb and other forces
    executed 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim
    prisoners from Srebrenica in one week in July
    1995. Despite this, there are still many people in
    Serbia and Montenegro who try to deny the full
    enormity of the crime that Bosnian Serb military,
    police and other forces (including, allegedly,
    forces from Serbia) committed. They argue that
    the actual number of dead is exaggerated, that
    ‗only‘ around 2,000 died. They also argue that
    most of these 2,000 dead were casualties of war—
    Bosnian Muslim soldiers killed in battle. Some
    who are even bolder, claim that it was a 'crime of
    passion'—revenge for all those Serbs killed in the
    villages around Srebrenica. Still others claim that
    what happened at Srebrenica was not genocide.
    The Tribunal has proved beyond a reasonable
    doubt that each of these claims is wrong.
               BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The massacre that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995 was the
    single worst atrocity committed in the former Yugoslavia during the
    wars of the 1990s and the worst massacre that occurred in Europe
    since the months after World War II. This is why the ICTY, which
    was established in 1993 to try those most responsible for serious
    violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former
    Yugoslavia since 1991,[2] has invested a great deal of time and
    effort in investigating what happened in Srebrenica and bringing
    those responsible to justice. The ICTY has issued indictments
    against 19 individuals for crimes committed in Srebrenica, all but
    one of which are against high-level perpetrators—those who
    planned and ordered the killing operation. So far, the Tribunal has
    completed trials and appeals against three accused: General
    Radislav Krstić, commander of the Republika Srpska Army (VRS)
    Drina Corps, Dražen Erdemović, a VRS soldier with the 10th
    Sabotage Detachment and Dragan Obrenović, deputy commander of
    the VRS Zvornik Brigade. Erdemović and Obrenović admitted their
    participation in the Srebrenica killings. The facts about Srebrenica
    contained in the judgements against Krstić,[3] Erdemović[4] and
    Obrenović[5] have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.[6]
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   In particular, in its proceedings against these three
    accused, the Tribunal has found beyond a reasonable
    doubt that Bosnian Serb and other forces killed between
    7,000 and 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys between
    approximately 11 and 19 July 1995. The Tribunal has
    established beyond a reasonable doubt that the vast
    majority of those killed were not killed in combat, but
    were victims of executions. The Tribunal has established
    beyond a reasonable doubt that the killings did not occur
    in a moment of passion, but were the product of a well-
    planned and coordinated operation. Finally, the Tribunal
    has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    killing of 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim prisoners was
    genocide.
            BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Number of Dead

    The Tribunal has determined that the number of
    Bosnian men and boys killed in Srebrenica is
    between 7,000 and 8,000. In order to come to
    this conclusion, the Judges in the Krstić case
    accepted and reviewed a great deal of
    evidentiary material.
            BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Exhumations

    Among the evidence that the Judges used to
    establish the number of people the Bosnian Serbs
    killed was that from the mass graves where the
    victims were buried. The Chamber reviewed
    evidence from 21 mass graves that had been
    exhumed by the ICTY from 1996 to 2000.[7] Of
    these, 14 were ―primary gravesites‖, where the
    victims‘ bodies had been buried immediately after
    they were killed. Bosnian Serb forces
    subsequently disturbed eight of these primary
    gravesites in an attempt to cover up their crimes:
    during a period of several weeks in September
    and October 1995, they removed bodies from the
    primary graves and reburied them in other
    locations that are referred to as ―secondary
    gravesites.‖ Seven of the 21 mass graves were
    such ―secondary‖ burial sites.
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Determining the exact number of bodies in each of the mass
    graves was a very difficult task, which was complicated by
    the fact that Bosnian Serb forces mutilated and
    dismembered many of the remains when they used heavy
    machinery to exhume and rebury them.[8] Thus body parts
    from the same person could be found in two separate mass
    graves—a primary and a secondary one.

   Nevertheless, the forensic experts were able to determine
    the minimum number of bodies contained in all the
    discovered graves. That number was 2,028 victims.[9] At
    the time the Judges in the Krstić trial issued their
    Judgement in August 2001, they noted that the Prosecution
    had identified 18 other mass graves that had not yet been
    exhumed.[10] In other words, the Judges recognized at
    that time that 2,028 exhumed bodies do not represent the
    sum total of the Bosnian Muslim men and boys killed at
    Srebrenica.
            BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Demographic Expert

    The Trial Chamber in the Krstić case heard
    evidence from a demographics expert whose task
    it was to determine the number of people who
    have been reported as missing from Srebrenica.
    The demographics expert cross-referenced the
    list of missing persons of the International
    Committee of the Red Cross with other sources,
    including lists of those who were missing or
    killed before July 1995, and other data that shows
    who was alive after. In this way, he was able to
    make sure that his figures could only refer to
    those who were missing as a result of the
    massacres at Srebrenica in July 1995. Based on
    this research, he testified that a conservative
    estimate of the number of people missing from
    Srebrenica is 7,475.[11]
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Intercepts

   The Trial Chamber in the Krstić case heard evidence of
    intercepted conversations between VRS soldiers, including
    the accused, which corroborates the fact that Bosnian Serb
    forces killed between 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim
    prisoners.
   As has become standard practice in modern warfare, both
    the VRS and the Bosnian Army (ABiH) monitored enemy
    communications. The VRS had secure means of
    communication, but they did not always work and took
    longer to set up, so the officers often used unsecured lines
    because they were quicker. Intelligence officers from the
    ABiH intercepted conversations over such lines and
    transcribed them. These recordings were then submitted to
    the Tribunal‘s Office of the Prosecutor.[12]
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Intercepts

   Determining the authenticity and reliability of such
    intercepts is a long and detailed process: the Trial Chamber
    heard direct evidence from the Bosnian Army personnel
    who were transcribing the conversations. It also heard
    about the Prosecution‘s efforts to determine whether the
    transcripts were reliable and genuine, including their efforts
    to find evidence from other sources to corroborate the
    information from the transcripts.[13] As a result, not all the
    intercepts could be admitted as evidence, but those that
    were showed a conclusive story. Of the intercepts that were
    admitted as evidence in the Krstić case, the Trial Chamber
    found the following to be particularly significant in
    determining the number of Bosnian Muslims the Bosnian
    Serb forces took prisoner and killed:
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Intercepts

       One intercepted telephone conversation from
        1730 hours on 13 July 1995 shows that in that
        moment the Bosnian Serb forces had captured
        around 6,000 people.[14] Consistent with this,
        around 14 July Colonel Radislav Janković, from
        the VRS General Staff, told a Dutch battalion
        soldier that they had captured around 6,000
        POWs.[15]
       • On 18 July 1995, an unidentified Bosnian
        Serb stated in an intercepted conversation that
        of the 10,000 military aged men who were in
        Srebrenica, ―4,000-5,000 have certainly kicked
        the bucket.‖[16]
                BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Intercepts

       The Trial Chamber also had an intercepted conversation
        between General Krstić and ICTY accused VRS Colonel Ljubiša
        Beara at 1000 hours on 15 July 1995, the middle of the killing
        operation. In it, Beara asks Krstić for more men. He states ―I
        don‘t know what to do. I mean it, Krle [Krstić‘s nickname].
        There are still 3,500 ―parcels‖ that I have to distribute and I
        have no solution.‖ Krstić replies, ―Fuck it, I‘ll see what I can
        do.‖ From other intercepted telephone conversations, the
        Prosecution was able to show that the word ―parcel‖ means
        Bosnian Muslim prisoner, and the word ―distribute‖ means to
        kill them.[17]



    The intercept evidence corroborates the findings of the
      demographic expert and the exhumation evidence that shows
      that Bosnian Serb forces took prisoner and killed many
      thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys, and not just 2,000
      as some people in Serbia and Montenegro claim.
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Insider Witnesses

       Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the
        Tribunal has heard that proves that Bosnian
        Serb forces killed 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian
        Muslim men comes from the people who
        actually participated in the killing operation. In
        the Krstić trial, the Trial Chamber heard from
        Dražen Erdemović, a VRS soldier with the 10th
        Sabotage Detachment, who participated in one
        of the largest executions, which took place at
        the Branjevo Military Farm on 16 July 1995.
        Erdemović pleaded guilty to participating in
        these executions and later testified in the case
        against General Krstić.[18] Dražen Erdemović's
        description of how his unit killed their victims
        assists in getting an idea of how many people
        lost their lives during those five days in July.
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Insider Witnesses

       In his testimony, Erdemović explained that his unit
        received orders on the morning of 16 July 1995 to go
        to the Branjevo Military farm. Shortly after they
        reached the farm, buses carrying Bosnian Muslim
        men began to arrive. Erdemović and the other
        members of his unit were given orders to shoot the
        prisoners. Erdemović testified that, in his estimate,
        they killed between 1,000 and 1,200 Bosnian Muslim
        men on that day alone.[19] And the Branjevo Military
        Farm was not the only site at which executions took
        place: the Trial Chamber examined evidence of mass
        executions at a total of nine sites, including the
        Branjevo Military Farm.
               BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Insider Witnesses

       a) The Morning of 13 July 1995: Jadar River
        (b) The Afternoon of 13 July 1995: Čerska Valley
        (c) Late Afternoon of 13 July 1995: Kravica
        Warehouse
        (d) 13-14 July 1995: Tišća
        (e) 14 July 1995: Grbavci School Detention site and
        Orahovac Execution site
        (f) 14-15 July 1995: Petkovci School Detention Site
        and Petkovci Dam Execution Site
        (g) 14-16 July 1995: Pilica School Detention Site and
        Branjevo Military Farm Execution Site
        (h) 16 July 1995: Pilica Cultural Dom
        (i) 14-17 July 1995: Kozluk
                  BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Insider Witnesses

       a) The Morning of 13 July 1995: Jadar River
        (b) The Afternoon of 13 July 1995: Čerska Valley
        (c) Late Afternoon of 13 July 1995: Kravica
        Warehouse
        (d) 13-14 July 1995: Tišća
        (e) 14 July 1995: Grbavci School Detention site and
        Orahovac Execution site
        (f) 14-15 July 1995: Petkovci School Detention Site
        and Petkovci Dam Execution Site
        (g) 14-16 July 1995: Pilica School Detention Site and
        Branjevo Military Farm Execution Site
        (h) 16 July 1995: Pilica Cultural Dom
        (i) 14-17 July 1995: Kozluk

    All of this evidence points in no uncertain terms to the accuracy of the estimate that
        between 7,000 and 8,000 people were executed in Srebrenica in July 1995.
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle
    Casualties
       In Republika Srpska and Serbia one does not
        only hear that the number of dead was much
        lower than 7,000 to 8,000. One also hears that
        the victims were not civilians or prisoners of
        war, but rather soldiers who died in battle.
        Therefore, according to them, VRS forces were
        abiding by the laws of war and no crime was
        committed at Srebrenica.
               BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle
    Casualties
       Evidence from the exhumations that the Trial
        Chamber reviewed in the Krstić case paints quite a
        different picture. It shows that most of the victims
        were not killed in combat but in mass executions. In
        the mass graves that have been exhumed so far,
        Tribunal investigators found 448 blindfolds on or with
        the victims’ bodies as well as 423 pieces of cloth,
        string or wire that were used to tie the victims’
        hands.[20] People who were blindfolded or had their
        hands tied behind their backs were obviously not
        killed in combat. The Trial Chamber also noted that
        some of the victims in the mass graves were
        handicapped, and therefore, very unlikely to have
        been combatants.[21]
                 BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle
    Casualties
       Here, again, the testimony of the perpetrators is very
        important. Momir Nikolić, VRS Deputy Commander for
        Security and Intelligence, said clearly that the VRS did
        not treat the prisoners they captured according to the
        Geneva Conventions:
            Do you really think that in an operation where 7.000 people
             were set aside, captured, and killed that somebody was
             adhering to the Geneva Conventions? Do you really believe
             that somebody adhered to the law, rules and regulations in
             an operation where so many were killed? First of all, they
             were captured, killed, and then buried, exhumed once again,
             buried again. Can you conceive of that, that somebody in an
             operation of that kind adhered to the Geneva Conventions?
             Nobody ... adhered to the Geneva Conventions or the rules
             and regulations. Because had they, then the consequences of
             that particular operation would not have been a total of
             7.000 people dead.[22]
              BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle
    Casualties
       Dragan Obrenović, who was the commander of the
        VRS Zvornik Brigade at the time and who confessed
        to his participation in the massacres, stated clearly
        that on 13 July 1995 he became aware of the fact
        that Bosnian Serb forces captured thousands of
        Bosnian Muslim prisoners and that the prisoners were
        to be shot.[23] Testifying about his role in the
        Branjevo Military Farm executions, Dražen Erdemović
        stated that buses carrying Bosnian Muslim prisoners
        began arriving there on the morning of 16 July 1995.
        He stated that all but one of the prisoners wore
        civilian clothes. He also testified that some of them
        were blindfolded and had their hands tied. He
        described how his unit shot the victims. He stated
        that, except for one prisoner who tried to escape,
        none resisted before being shot.[24]
                 BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle
    Casualties
       Testimony from the few victims who survived the
        executions also clearly shows that VRS forces were
        callously killing civilians or prisoners of war, in serious
        violation of international humanitarian law. One of the
        survivors of the Branjevo Military Farm executions,
        described above, related the moment when he was
        confronted by the firing squad:
            When they opened fire, I threw myself on the ground…. And
             one man fell on my head. I think that he was killed on the
             spot. And I could feel the hot blood pouring over me… I
             could hear one man crying for help. He was begging them to
             kill him. And they simply said ―Let him suffer. We’ll kill him
             later.‖[25]
                BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   The Victims Were Not Battle Casualties
       Lastly, killing an enemy soldier in combat is not a war crime. If
        those buried in the mass graves had indeed been soldiers killed
        in battle, there would have been no need for Bosnian Serb
        forces to execute a massive cover-up campaign.[26] And there is
        much evidence that proves that is exactly what they did in
        September and October of 1995. In order to cover up their initial
        crimes of killing civilians and prisoners of war, the Bosnian Serb
        forces committed another crime—they attempted to relocate the
        bodies. They used bulldozers and other heavy machinery to
        exhume a number of the mass gravesites and move the bodies
        to other locations. The Prosecution conducted forensic analysis
        of the 21 mass graves that it exhumed and found that some of
        the primary and secondary sites were linked. Forensic experts
        analyzed the soil, bullets and other materials found in the sites
        they exhumed and found that 12 of them were linked to each
        other.[27] The Trial Chamber in the Krstić case found that this
        evidence demonstrates an extensive campaign to conceal the
        bodies of the men who the Bosnian Serb forces killed and buried
        in mass gravesites in July 1995. This cover-up attempt shows
        not only that Bosnian Serb forces committed horrible crimes, but
        also that they were well aware that what they had done was
        against the law.
                  BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   In the Krstić case, the Trial Chamber heard a lot of evidence that
    demonstrated clearly that the Bosnian Serb army mobilized
    resources between 11 and 19 July 1995 in order to kill Bosnian
    Muslim prisoners.
        • Mobilizing men: In the intercepted telephone conversation between
         General Krstić and ICTY accused VRS Colonel Ljubiša Beara at 1000
         hours on 15 July 1995, referred to above,[29] Beara asks Krstić for
         men to help with the executions. Krstić actually did what Beara asked
         him to do: the very next day, 16 July 1995, men from the VRS Bratunac
         Brigade arrived to assist members of the 10th Sabotage Detachment
         with the executions at the Branjevo Military Farm.[30]
        • Mobilizing fuel: Another intercepted conversation shows that on 16
         July 1995 VRS Colonel Popović made a request for 500 litres of diesel
         fuel. A VRS Zvornik Brigade document confirms that 500 litres of diesel
         fuel was in fact given to Colonel Popović on 16 July 1995.[31]
        • Mobilizing machinery: One victim of the Branjevo Military Farm
         executions on 16 July 1995 who survived testified that he heard heavy
         machinery in the killing field on 17 July.[32] Aerial photographs of the
         area taken on 17 July 1995 show a large number of bodies lying in the
         field near the farm, and an excavator digging a hole.[33]
         Corroborating the witness‘ testimony and the aerial photographs, VRS
         Zvornik Brigade vehicle records show an ULT 220 bulldozer in
         operation at Branjevo for eight-and-a-half hours on 17 July 1995, and
         the Fuel Dispersal Log shows that 100 litres of diesel fuel was
         disbursed to a BGH-700 excavator on 17 July 1995.[34]
                 BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Srebrenica Was an Act of Genocide
       Another objection that we hear frequently in Serbia and
        Montenegro is that what happened at Srebrenica is not
        genocide. General Krstić‘s Defence made precisely this
        claim during his trial. But before discussing the
        Defence‘s reasoning and why the Trial Chamber rejected
        it, it is first important to look at the legal definition of
        genocide, since the term is quite often misused. The
        Tribunal‘s Statute defines genocide as:
       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
             in part;
             (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within
             the group;
             (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another
             group.
                BOSNIA- 1993-1995
   Conclusion
       Evidence from exhumations, demographic experts, intercepted
        communications, documents, victim testimony and perpetrator
        testimony led the Trial Chamber to the following irrefutable
        conclusions: that Bosnian Serb forces killed between 7,000 and
        8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in July 1995; that the
        victims were either civilians or prisoners of war; that the
        massacre and the subsequent cover-up operation were
        planned and well-organised; and that it was an act of genocide.
        It is worthy of note that since the Judgement against General
        Radislav Krstić was handed down in August 2001, more
        evidence has emerged that affirms the Tribunal‘s findings.
        Among them is the Report of the Republika Srpska Commission
        to Investigate Events in and around Srebrenica from 10 to 19
        July 1995. The Commission‘s report, which identifies 32 new
        mass graves, found that ―in the period between 10–19 July
        1995 many thousands of Bosnians were liquidated, in a manner
        that constitutes a serious violation of international
        humanitarian law.‖[40]
       International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
        Outreach
        outreach@icty.org
        http://www.un.org.icty/index-b.html
       RWANDA- 1994
 http://www.rwanda-
 genocide.org/
                   RWANDA- 1994
   The 1994 genocide in Rwanda resulted in the systematic
    massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than
    100 days. The events occurred while the international
    community closed its eyes.

   The purpose of this site is to centralize access to a collection
    of high-quality information resources on the Rwandan
    genocide that shed a thorough light on the genocide, from
    its design to its enduring fallout in today's Rwanda.

    Now is a better time than ever to help. Other tragic events
    in the past years have occulted the aftermath of the
    Rwandan genocide in the public eye and the level of support
    to the victims has dropped considerably.

   Fifteen years do not erase the stigmata of a mass murder.
    Rememberance and support are still essential.
            RWANDA- 1994
   "Perhaps there is no better case than
    Rwanda of state killing in which
    colonial history and global economic
    integration combined to produce
    genocide. It is also a case where the
    causes of the killing were carefully
    obscured by Western governmental
    and journalistic sources, blamed
    instead on the victims and ancient
    tribal hatreds."
                Excerpt from Richard H.
    Robbins's "Global Problems and the
    Culture of Capitalism"
               RWANDA- 1994
   "Neighbors hacked neighbors in their homes,
    and colleagues hacked colleagues to death in
    their workplaces. Doctors killed their patients,
    and schoolteachers killed their pupils. Within
    days, the Tutsi populations of many villages
    were all but eliminated, and in Kigali prisoners
    were released in work gangs to collect the
    corpses that lined the roadsides. Drunken militia
    bands, fortified with assorted drugs from
    ransacked pharmacies, were bused from
    massacre to massacre. Radio announcers
    reminded listeners not to take pity on women
    and children."
                        Excerpt from Philip
    Gourevitch's "We Wish to Inform You That
    Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families:
    Stories from Rwanda"
                 RWANDA- 1994
   How to Help
       Since 1994, multiple organizations have made
        valiant attempts to provide sustained relief to
        genocide victims, but the level of support has
        significantly dropped in the past 5 years. As we
        researched the materials selected for this
        website, we were on many occasions
        impressed by the presence and realism of a
        specific non-governmental organization --
        Avega-Agahozo. This is the reason why we
        have decided to create a gateway to that
        specific organization below. Please note that
        we cannot accept any contribution on behalf of
        Avega. Please contact them directly or visit
        their website for information on support and
        donations.
                RWANDA- 1994
   How to Help
       Avega's Mission:
         To promote the general welfare of the
          genocide victims;
         To promote solidarity among members of
          the association;
         To carry out activities aimed at helping the
          widows;
         To cooperate with organizations that have
          the same objectives;
         To uphold the memory of the genocide
          victims and to fight for justice;
         To participate in the national reconstruction
          and reconciliation process of Rwanda
              RWANDA- 1994
   How to Help
     Other organizations with ongoing
      relief programs in Rwanda:
       Survivors   Fund
       Oxfam
       UNICEF
       Red Cross
       Doctors Without Borders
       CARE
       Food for the Hungry
       RCN Justice & Démocratie
     IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
 http://www.gendercide.org/
  genocideinkurdistan.html

    Genocide in Kurdistan
        A dissertation presented in partial
         fulfillment
         of the Diploma in Legal Studies at the
         University of Auckland
      ByHeval Hylan
      Auckland, November 2000
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.0 What is the Kurdish genocide?

       After 16 March 1988, one word came to symbolize the
        tragedy of the Kurds -- Halabja. [11] Halabja is the
        Kurdish Auschwitz; not because the scale of the
        massacre was comparable with that of the Nazi death
        camp, but because the victims were chosen merely
        because they were Kurdish civilians. [12]
       Halabja was only one of many towns attacked by poison
        gas in 1988 dropped by Iraqi forces. The full extent of
        the lasting damage suffered by the Kurdish people as a
        result of the Iraqi government's use of poison gas is yet
        unknown. [13]
       The Kurdish Genocide was centrally planned and
        administered by the Iraqi Government against the entire
        Kurdish population. In addition, the Kurdish people were
        also subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction,
        torture, massacre, and starvation. But these violations
        are not the subjects of discussion in this paper. [14]
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.1 Incidents
       On the 16th of March 1988, Iraqi bombers attacked the
        Kurdish town of Halabja [15] using chemical weapons
        and nerve gases such as Tabun and Sarin. These gases
        left thousands of civilian's dead, many thousands
        wounded, and tens of thousands of people homeless.
        [16]
       Including Halabja, there were in total eight Anfal
        campaigns between February and September 1988: [17]
       First Anfal: February 23 - March 19, 1988 (Halabja
        attacked March 16, 1988) [18]
        Second Anfal: March 22 - April 1, 1988 (Qara Dagh)
        Third Anfal: April 7 - 20, 1988 (Germian village, Qader
        Karam)
        Fourth Anfal: May 3 - 8, 1988 (Valley of the Lesser Zab)
        Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Anfals: May 15 - August 26,
        1988 (Mountain Valleys of Shaqlawa and Rawandus)
        Final Anfal: August 25 - September 6, 1988 (Badinan)
        [19], [20]
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2 Intent
       Genocide is a crime characterised by the fact that it forms part
        of a wider plan to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular
        group. As a crime directed at a group, [21] the genocidal intent
        is necessarily associated with mass crimes.
       The specific intent of the accused, as was defined by the
        drafters of the Genocide Convention, must be proven, since by
        definition intent is a necessary element of the crime. [22]
        Accordingly, if one does not possess the specific intent to
        destroy a group in whole or in part, then that person would not
        be found guilty of genocide[23] but s/he could still be found
        guilty of crimes against humanity, a war crime, homicide, or
        any of the enumerated crimes in Article II (a)-(e). [24]
       In addition, the International Law Commission (ILC), in
        commenting on its draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and
        Security of Mankind, stated, in this regard: .".. A general intent
        to commit one of the enumerated acts combined with a general
        awareness of the probable consequences of such an act with
        respect to the immediate victim or victims is not sufficient for
        the crime of genocide. The definition of this crime requires a
        specific intent with respect to the overall consequences of the
        prohibited acts." [25]
         IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.2.What constitutes the actual 'intent' requirement?
      the Kurds fit into more than one of the four categories,
       national, racial, ethnic, and religious groups. This was
       also an important issue in the judgments of ICTR. [54] It
       is also possible to use the legal test as to whether the
       Kurds are a collective ethnic group "stable and
       permanent and whose membership is mainly determined
       by birth, language, and culture." [55] The Kurdish case
       may fit into the ethnic category according to Genocide
       Convention, because:
           1. Iraq is a patrilineal society so that one's ethnicity (ie
            whether a person is a Kurd or an Arab) is determined at
            birth according to their father's ancestry;
           2. one's ethnicity can be judged subjectively, as in the case
            of Kurdistan where one's ethnicity is establish through their
            society's criteria; [56] and
           3. the fact that most people of Kurdistan carried
            identification cards, specifically stating whether or not they
            are a Kurd. [57]
        IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.2.What constitutes the actual 'intent'
    requirement?
        The  Iraqi government's involvement
         in the genocidal acts, as disclosed
         through documented evidences, were:
            (i) that the Iraqi leaders made speeches
            calling for the chemical weapons attacks
            upon Kurdish civilians, and referring to
            them as saboteurs,
           (ii) that they incited other Kurds to kill
            Kurdish civilians, and, finally
           (iii) that they did nothing to prevent
            others from committing other acts of
            violence specifically targeted at the
            Kurdish civilian population, particularly in
            Halabja.
         IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.3 Evidence to support the Kurdish case
       There are sufficient documents in both Arabic
        and in English, including speeches and
        newspaper articles, which present clear
        evidence for an argument that, first of all,
        there were chemical attacks in Kurdistan, and,
        secondly, that the attacks were planned by the
        Iraqi Government to destroy the Kurdish
        civilians in whole or in part -- in another words,
        that the "intent" existed. There are channels to
        prove the actus, and then the reus.
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.3 Evidence to support the Kurdish case
       First: Speeches. Recorded on audiotape, Ali Hassan al-Majid (known in
        Kurdistan as 'Ali Chemical') justified the use of poison gas against the
        Kurds in a speech to the cadres of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party.
       He says on the tape: [92] "Who is going to say anything? The
        international community? F… them -- the international community and
        those who listen to them!" Early in 1987, while ruminating at a
        meeting with subordinates (recorded on another tape), [93] Ali Hassan
        al-Majid defended himself against the potential critics who might dare
        question his 1988 wholesale execution of Kurdish men, women, and
        children: "Am I supposed to keep them in good shape? No! I shall bury
        them with bulldozers." Then, as if recalling the terms of a debate about
        how to settle the Kurds' fate, he added: "Where am I supposed to put
        all this enormous number of people? I started to distribute them
        among the governorates. I had to send the bulldozers hither and yon."
       In an address to top Ba'ath cadres, he spelled out a "systematic
        military plan" designed to surround the Peshmerga (Kurdish guerrilla
        fighters) in a small pocket, and attack them with chemical weapons: "I
        will attack them with chemicals one day, but I will attack them with
        chemicals for fifteen days." [94]
       On another tape, Ali Chemical was recorded bluntly informing a Jash:
        [95] "I cannot let your village stand, because [what would happen if] I
        attack it with chemical weapons? Then your families would die. You
        must leave your villages right now because I cannot tell you the same
        day I am going to attack with chemical weapons." [96]
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.3 Evidence to support the Kurdish case
       First: Speeches. Recorded on audiotape, Ali Hassan al-Majid
        (known in Kurdistan as 'Ali Chemical') justified the use of
        poison gas against the Kurds in a speech to the cadres of
        Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party.
            He says on the tape: [92] "Who is going to say anything? The
             international community? F… them -- the international community
             and those who listen to them!" Early in 1987, while ruminating at a
             meeting with subordinates (recorded on another tape), [93] Ali
             Hassan al-Majid defended himself against the potential critics who
             might dare question his 1988 wholesale execution of Kurdish men,
             women, and children: "Am I supposed to keep them in good
             shape? No! I shall bury them with bulldozers." Then, as if recalling
             the terms of a debate about how to settle the Kurds' fate, he
             added: "Where am I supposed to put all this enormous number of
             people? I started to distribute them among the governorates. I
             had to send the bulldozers hither and yon."
            In an address to top Ba'ath cadres, he spelled out a "systematic
             military plan" designed to surround the Peshmerga (Kurdish
             guerrilla fighters) in a small pocket, and attack them with chemical
             weapons: "I will attack them with chemicals one day, but I will
             attack them with chemicals for fifteen days." [94]
            On another tape, Ali Chemical was recorded bluntly informing a
             Jash: [95] "I cannot let your village stand, because [what would
             happen if] I attack it with chemical weapons? Then your families
             would die. You must leave your villages right now because I
             cannot tell you the same day I am going to attack with chemical
             weapons." [96]
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.3 Evidence to support the Kurdish case
       Second: Documents. There are tens of documents that
        have references to the chemical attacks. It is important
        to mention that the documents below have direct
        reference to chemical attacks carried out by Iraqi forces.
        The first document to mention is a top-secret letter sent
        by the Director of the Intelligence Centre of Kalar, a
        small Kurdish town in northern Iraq. [97]
            Top Secret - Document No. 9 [98]
            During the month of March 1988, our aircraft bombed the
             headquarters of the sabotage [99] bands in the villages of
             Saywan (4596) in a chemical strike. This resulted in the
             death of 50 saboteurs [100] and the wounding of 20 other
             saboteurs.
                 [Signed] Captain Kifah Ali Hassan
                  Director of the Intelligence Centre of Kalar.
        IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.3 Evidence to support the Kurdish case
      Third: Articles in newspaper and magazines.
       There are hundreds of articles.
          The following is an extract from an Iraqi and Western
           newspaper about the use of chemical weapons in
           Kurdistan 1998.
               My eyes became heavy, I had pain breathing, I vomited
                8 or 9 times ... Each time I opened a door of a house,
                there were children, women, & men agonising & dying.
                Mohamad Azizi, 25 years, Le Monde 08/04/1988.

                Al Thawra, the official organ of the Iraqi Government,
                states on 29 March 1988:
                   No one has the right to dictate to Iraq the type of
                     weapon it uses to defend itself. Those who talk
                     about the Geneva Convention (of 1925 on chemical
                     & biological weapons & to which Iraq is signatory
                     TKT) must bear in mind that this convention forbid
                     also the occupation by force of other's lands.
         IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   3.2.4 Conclusion
       It seems that it is not an easy legal task to
        interpret whether a genocidal act such as
        happened in Kurdistan was intentional, but the
        ICTR and ICTY have taken some steps forward
        in clarifying "intent." In the Kurdish case, the
        indications are there that there was an intent
        to destroy the Kurdish population in whole or
        in part, and there is enough evidence the
        action should be taken. There is a need to
        appoint a United Nations Commission of
        Experts to investigate alleged acts of genocide
        in Kurdistan, as was established in the Rwanda
        and Yugoslavia cases. To establish intent in a
        paper like this is impossible, as there are to
        many conflicting interpretations. What is
        needed is an International Criminal Tribunal
        for Iraq (ICTI), and this is proposed in the next
        chapter.
         IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   4.2 Introduction
       Trials are legal therapy. Virtually all Kurdish
        people lost relatives to the genocide, and many
        have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.
        Trials will help the Kurds' recovery, through the
        therapeutic value of judicial proceedings. In
        effect, trials help transform lingering
        grievances into past history.
       Bringing genocidal criminals to justice helps
        restore the legitimacy of the once-offending
        state. Croatian authorities, for example, turned
        over to the Hague Tribunal for the former
        Yugoslavia a number of its suspected war
        criminals, in order to enhance its image and
        promote its integration into European
        institutions.
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   4.3 Why the Need for Setting Up an International
    Criminal Court for Iraq?
       The setting up of an International Criminal Court for Iraq
        could provide the means to put an end to grave
        violations in Iraq and to contribute to the restoration
        and maintenance of peace. The establishment of an ad
        hoc tribunal would undoubtedly represent major
        progress towards those goals.
       In asking why there is a need for such a court, there are
        three main arguments to the answer, and all are related
        to the charge of genocide:
            1. The use of chemical weapons, prohibited by international
             law, in Halabja and other parts of Kurdistan in 1988 were
             possibly constituted as genocide. [111]
            2. The victims did 'constitute a national, ethnical, racial or
             religious group' and that the Iraqi government's actions
             were of criminal intent. Also, the number of Kurdish
             civilians killed by the use of chemical weapons were of such
             magnitude as may constitute a genocidal act.
            3. Genocide in Kurdistan was a threat to and a breach of
             peace. [112]
         IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   4.5 The Question of Political Will
       The political will of the prosecuting (or
        extraditing) state will be a critical factor
        in the possibility of a prosecution,
        particularly where the law does not
        allow victims to initiate a criminal
        proceedings directly. In the Pinochet
        case, [133] British police immediately
        executed the arrest warrant sent by
        Spain. Austria's decision recognised the
        political costs of a break with the
        international status quo. [134] Austria
        placed its relations with Iraq above its
        international treaty obligations.
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   5.3 Conclusion
       The Iraqi government leaders who perpetrate genocide and other
        mass atrocities are rightly held accountable for the deaths they cause -
        - deaths that almost certainly would not have occurred if they had not
        planned, authorised, and directed their perpetration. They are also
        especially accountable because they acted knowingly, intentionally,
        and voluntarily and, thus, deserve criminal punishment.
       International law is not yet fully equipped to answer clearly and
        precisely all questions relating to the prosecution and punishment of
        individuals for the commiting of such atrocities. The tree is there and
        branches are slowly growing but it has not yet attained full maturity.
        Nonetheless, genocide crimes are international crimes which entail
        individual criminal responsibility and give rise to universal jurisdiction.
       Despite the important moves to create a system of international
        criminal justice, there will still remain for the foreseeable future a role
        for national courts in prosecuting those suspected of international
        crimes who come within their borders. [181]
       Finally, it is also now widely recognised that under international
        customary law, and general principles of law, states may exercise
        universal jurisdiction over persons suspected of genocide, and crimes
        in non-international armed conflict. It is also increasingly recognised
        that states not only have the power to exercise universal jurisdiction
        over genocide crimes, but also that they have the duty to do so or to
        extradite suspects to states willing to exercise jurisdiction. The
        Austrian government may argue that the Kurdish genocide hasn't been
        recognised internationally. This argument adds strength to the reasons
        for establishing an international court for Iraq.
          IRAQI KURDS- 1979-2003
   6.0 General conclusion
       The experience of the Kurdish people in the period after the genocide
        illustrates an important issue. Unless the consequences of genocide
        are addressed in the immediate aftermath of the event, the passage of
        time very soon puts survivors at a serious disadvantage. Without the
        attention of the international community; without the intervention of
        major states seeking to stabilise the affected region; without the swift
        apprehension of the guilty; and without the full exposure of the
        evidence, the victims stand little chance of recovering from their
        losses. In the absence of a response and universal condemnation,
        genocide becomes "legitimised.―
    Chinese Female Infanticide
 http://www.gendercide.org/
  case_infanticide.html
   GENDERCIDE WATCH is a project of the Gender Issues Education Foundation (GIEF),
    a registered charitable foundation based in Edmonton, Alberta. We devote the bulk of
    our resources to maintaining and expanding the website and its data-base of case-
    studies; translating these materials into Spanish and, we hope, French; producing
    printed materials and multimedia projects; and sharing information with
    policymakers, mass media, and non-governmental organizations worldwide. Our
    survival and growth depends on contributions from individuals, institutions, and
    foundations. Please be as generous as your circumstances permit. All contributions
    are tax-deductible in Canada and many other countries; a tax receipt will be issued.
   Another way that visitors can support Gendercide Watch is by ordering books through
    Amazon or Chapters. Our case-study recommendations for "further reading" are
    linked to both these companies, and we receive a percentage of the sale price of
    whatever books are ordered -- even if they are not among those on our further-
    reading list. Simply going through a GW link every time you order from Amazon or
    Chapters will ensure that we receive important revenue to sustain our project.
   We welcome your comments and suggestions. Please direct e-mail correspondence to
    office@gendercide.org. Printed correspondence and financial contributions can be
    sent to:
   GIEF/Gendercide Watch
    Ste. #501, 10011 - 116th St.
    Edmonton, Alberta
    CANADA T5K 1V4
        Chinese Female Infanticide
   Case Study:
    Female Infanticide Focus:
    (1) India
    (2) China

   Summary
       The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many
        cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-
        selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical
        concern in a number of "Third World" countries today,
        notably the two most populous countries on earth, China
        and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide
        reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts
        of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and
        destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that
        pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to
        the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets
        female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl
        children.
        Chinese Female Infanticide
   Case Study:
    Female Infanticide Focus:
    (1) India
    (2) China

   Summary
       The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many
        cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-
        selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical
        concern in a number of "Third World" countries today,
        notably the two most populous countries on earth, China
        and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide
        reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts
        of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and
        destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that
        pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to
        the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets
        female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl
        children.
      Chinese Female Infanticide
   Background
      "Female infanticide is the intentional killing of
       baby girls due to the preference for male
       babies and from the low value associated with
       the birth of females." (Marina Porras, "Female
       Infanticide and Foeticide".) It should be seen
       as a subset of the broader phenomenon of
       infanticide, which has also targeted the
       physically or mentally handicapped, and infant
       males (alongside infant females or,
       occasionally, on a gender-selective basis). As
       with maternal mortality, some would dispute
       the assigning of infanticide or female
       infanticide to the category of "genocide" or, as
       here, "gendercide."
        Chinese Female Infanticide
   Background
       Nonetheless, the argument advanced in the maternal mortality
        case-study holds true in this case as well: governments and
        other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or
        tacit encouragement, as by direct murder. R.J. Rummel
        buttresses this view, referring to infanticide as
            another type of government killing whose victims may total millions
             ... In many cultures, government permitted, if not encouraged, the
             killing of handicapped or female infants or otherwise unwanted
             children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of
             female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in
             Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters. Among 79
             families, nearly as many had one child as two. Among all there
             were only 28 daughters to 118 sons. ... But classical Greece was
             not unusual. In eighty-four societies spanning the Renaissance to
             our time, "defective" children have been killed in one-third of them.
             In India, for example, because of Hindu beliefs and the rigid caste
             system, young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When
             demographic statistics were first collected in the nineteenth century,
             it was discovered that in "some villages, no girl babies were found
             at all; in a total of thirty others, there were 343 boys to 54 girls. ...
             [I]n Bombay, the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603."
       Chinese Female Infanticide
   Background
      Rummel adds: "Instances of infanticide ... are usually
       singular events; they do not happen en masse. But
       the accumulation of such officially sanctioned or
       demanded murders comprises, in effect, serial
       massacre. Since such practices were so pervasive in
       some cultures, I suspect that the death toll from
       infanticide must exceed that from mass sacrifice and
       perhaps even outright mass murder." (Rummel,
       Death by Government , pp. 65-66.)
                     Female Infanticide
   Focus (1): India
        As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old
         practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of
         action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los
         Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to
         census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ...
         the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In
         the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu
         [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in
         1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their
         windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer.
         Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to
         starve to death." Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil
         Nadu:
             Lakshmi already had one daughter, so when she gave birth to a second girl,
              she killed her. For the three days of her second child's short life, Lakshmi
              admits, she refused to nurse her. To silence the infant's famished cries, the
              impoverished village woman squeezed the milky sap from an oleander
              shrub, mixed it with castor oil, and forced the poisonous potion down the
              newborn's throat. The baby bled from the nose, then died soon afterward.
              Female neighbors buried her in a small hole near Lakshmi's square thatched
              hut of sunbaked mud. They sympathized with Lakshmi, and in the same
              circumstances, some would probably have done what she did. For despite
              the risk of execution by hanging and about 16 months of a much-ballyhooed
              government scheme to assist families with daughters, in some hamlets of ...
              Tamil Nadu, murdering girls is still sometimes believed to be a wiser course
              than raising them. "A daughter is always liabilities. How can I bring up a
              second?" Lakshmi, 28, answered firmly when asked by a visitor how she
              could have taken her own child's life eight years ago. "Instead of her
              suffering the way I do, I thought it was better to get rid of her." (All quotes
              from Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.")
                   Female Infanticide
   Focus (1): India
        A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras
         similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state,
         though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families.
         "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child
         and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted
         girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child
         whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika
         Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian
         Woman Studies, March 1995.)
        The bias against females in India is related to the fact that "Sons are
         called upon to provide the income; they are the ones who do most of
         the work in the fields. In this way sons are looked to as a type of
         insurance. With this perspective, it becomes clearer that the high value
         given to males decreases the value given to females." (Marina Porras,
         "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) The problem is also intimately
         tied to the institution of dowry, in which the family of a prospective
         bride must pay enormous sums of money to the family in which the
         woman will live after marriage. Though formally outlawed, the
         institution is still pervasive. "The combination of dowry and wedding
         expenses usually add up to more than a million rupees ([US] $35,000).
         In India the average civil servant earns about 100,000 rupees ($3,500)
         a year. Given these figures combined with the low status of women, it
         seems not so illogical that the poorer Indian families would want only
         male children." (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) Murders
         of women whose families are deemed to have paid insufficient dowry
         have become increasingly common, and receive separate case-study
         treatment on this site.
                 Female Infanticide
   Focus (1): India
       India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion.
        Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 "to ascertain birth
        defects in a sample population," but "was quickly appropriated
        by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions
        followed." (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.") Karlekar points
        out that "those women who undergo sex determination tests
        and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively
        taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls.
        In many cases, of course, the women are not independent
        agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based
        on preference for male children."
       Dahlburg notes that "In Jaipur, capital of the western state of
        Rajasthan, prenatal sex determination tests result in an
        estimated 3,500 abortions of female fetuses annually,"
        according to a medical-college study. (Dahlburg, "Where killing
        baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Most strikingly, according to
        UNICEF, "A report from Bombay in 1984 on abortions after
        prenatal sex determination stated that 7,999 out of 8,000 of
        the aborted fetuses were females. Sex determination has
        become a lucrative business." (Zeng Yi et al., "Causes and
        Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio
        at Birth in China," Population and Development Review, 19: 2
        [June 1993], p. 297.)
                    Female Infanticide
   Focus (1): India

        Deficits in nutrition and health-care also overwhelmingly
         target female children. Karlekar cites research

             indicat[ing] a definite bias in feeding boys milk and milk
              products and eggs ... In Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
              [states], it is usual for girls and women to eat less than
              men and boys and to have their meal after the men and
              boys had finished eating. Greater mobility outside the home
              provides boys with the opportunity to eat sweets and fruit
              from saved-up pocket money or from money given to buy
              articles for food consumption. In case of illness, it is usually
              boys who have preference in health care. ... More is spent
              on clothing for boys than for girls[,] which also affects
              morbidity. (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.")
                   Female Infanticide
   Focus (1): India

        Sunita Kishor reports "another disturbing finding," namely "that,
         despite the increased ability to command essential food and medical
         resources associated with development, female children [in India] do
         not improve their survival chances relative to male children with gains
         in development. Relatively high levels of agricultural development
         decrease the life chances of females while leaving males' life chances
         unaffected; urbanization increases the life chances of males more than
         females. ... Clearly, gender-based discrimination in the allocation of
         resources persists and even increases, even when availability of
         resources is not a constraint." (Kishor, "'May God Give Sons to All':
         Gender and Child Mortality in India," American Sociological Review ,
         58: 2 [April 1993], p. 262.)

        Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish
         the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. "The
         leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in
         the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent
         undergoes sterilization, the government will give the family [U.S.]
         \\$160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in instalments as the
         girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her
         20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the
         expenses of higher education. Four thousand families enrolled in the
         first year," with 6,000 to 8,000 expected to join annually (as of 1994)
         (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Such programs
         have, however, barely begun to address the scale of the catastrophe.
                Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China

       "A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially
        of females, existed in China before the foundation of the
        People's Republic in 1949," note Zeng et al.. ("Causes
        and Implications," p. 294.) According to Ansley J. Coale
        and Judith Banister, "A missionary (and naturalist)
        observer in [China in] the late nineteenth century
        interviewed 40 women over age 50 who reported having
        borne 183 sons and 175 daughters, of whom 126 sons
        but only 53 daughters survived to age 10; by their
        account, the women had destroyed 78 of their
        daughters." (Coale and Banister, "Five Decades of
        Missing Females in China," Demography, 31: 3 [August
        1994], p. 472.)
                  Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China

       According to Zeng et al., "The practice was largely forsaken in the
        1950s, 1960s, and 1970s." (Zeng et al., "Causes and Implications," p.
        294.) Coale and Banister likewise acknowledge a "decline of excess
        female mortality after the establishment of the People's Republic ...
        assisted by the action of a strong government, which tried to modify
        this custom as well as other traditional practices that it viewed as
        harmful." (Coale and Banister, "Five Decades," p. 472.) But the number
        of "missing" women showed a sharp upward trend in the 1980s, linked
        by almost all scholars to the "one-child policy" introduced by the
        Chinese government in 1979 to control spiralling population growth.
        Couples are penalized by wage-cuts and reduced access to social
        services when children are born "outside the plan." Johansson and
        Nygren found that while "sex ratios [were] generally within or fairly
        near the expected range of 105 to 106 boys per 100 girls for live births
        within the plan ... they are, in contrast, clearly far above normal for
        children born outside the plan, even as high as 115 to 118 for 1984-87.
        That the phenomenon of missing girls in China in the 1980s is related to
        the government's population policy is thus conclusively shown." (Sten
        Johansson and Ola Nygren, "The Missing Girls of China: A New
        Demographic Account," Population and Development Review , 17: 1
        [March 1991], pp. 40-41.)
                 Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China

       The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by
        allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is
        stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in
        September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional
        Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that
        "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in
        China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls
        due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to
        one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-
        cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29,
        1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single
        holocaust in human history."
                  Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China

       According to Peter Stockland, "Years of population engineering,
        including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created
        a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female
        populations." (Stockland, "China's baby-slaughter overlooked,"
        The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe
        reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
        claiming that "the imbalance between the sexes is now so
        distorted that there are 111 million men in China -- more than
        three times the population of Canada -- who will not be able to
        find a wife." As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of
        women has increased: "Since 1990, say official Chinese figures,
        64,000 women -- 8,000 a year on average -- have been rescued
        by authorities from forced 'marriages'. The number who have
        not been saved can only be guessed at. ... The thirst for women
        is so acute that the slave trader gangs are even reaching outside
        China to find merchandise. There are regular reports of women
        being abducted in such places as northern Vietnam to feed the
        demand in China." (Jonathan Manthorpe, "China battles slave
        trading in women: Female infanticide fuels a brisk trade in
        wives," The Vancouver Sun, January 11, 1999.)
                    Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China
       Since the first allegations of widespread female infanticide in China connected to
        the government's "one-child" policy, controversy has raged over the number of
        deaths that can be ascribed to infanticide as opposed to other causes. Zeng et
        al. argued in 1993 that "underreporting of female births, an increase in prenatal
        sex identification by ultrasound and other diagnostic methods for the illegal
        purpose of gender-specific birth control, and [only] very low-level incidence of
        female infanticide are the causes of the increase in the reported sex ratio at birth
        in China." (Zeng et al., "Causes and Implications," p. 285.) They add:
        "Underreporting of female births accounts for about 43 percent to 75 percent of
        the difference between the reported sex ratio at birth during the second half of
        the 1980s and the normal value of the true sex ratio at birth" (p. 289). The
        authors contended that "sex-differential underreporting of births and induced
        abortion after prenatal sex determination together explain almost all of the
        increase in the reported sex ratio at birth during the late 1980s," and thus "the
        omission ... of victims of female infanticide cannot be a significant factor."
        Moreover, "Both the social and administrative structure and the close bond
        among neighbors in China make it difficult to conceal a serious crime such as
        infanticide," while additionally "Infanticide is not a cost-effective method of sex
        selection. The psychological and moral costs are so high that people are unlikely
        to take such a step except under extreme circumstances" (p. 295). They stress,
        however, that "even small numbers of cases of female infanticide, abandonment,
        and neglect are a serious violation of the fundamental human rights of women
        and children" (p. 296). (2002 update: A recent article by John Gittings of the
        UK Guardian cites national census results released in May 2002 that show that
        "more than 116 male births were recorded for every 100 female births," but
        claims the cause is overwhelmingly sex-selective abortion: "Female infanticide,
        notorious in China's past as a primitive method of sex selection, is now thought
        to be infrequent." See Gittings, "Growing Sex Imbalance Shocks China", The
        Guardian, May 13, 2002.)
                  Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China
       In a similar vein, in April 2000, The New York Times reported
        that "many 'illegal' children are born in secret, their births never
        officially registered." And "as more women move around the
        country to work, it is increasingly hard to monitor pregnancies ...
        Unannnounced spot checks by the State Statistics Bureau have
        discovered undercounts of up to 40 percent in some villages,
        Chinese demographers say." (See Elisabeth Rosenthal, "China's
        Widely Flouted One-Child Policy Undercuts Its Census", The New
        York Times, April 14, 2000.)

       Johansson and Nygren attracted considerable notice with a
        somewhat different claim: "that adoptions (which often go
        unreported) account for a large proportion of the missing girls.
        ... If adopted children are added to the live births ... the sex
        ratio at birth becomes much closer to normal for most years in
        the 1980s. ... Adding the adopted children to live births reduces
        the number of missing girls by about half." (Johansson and
        Nygren, "The Missing Girls of China," pp. 43, 46.) They add (p.
        50): "That female infanticide does occur on some scale is
        evidenced by reports in the Chinese press, but the available
        statistical evidence does not help us to determine whether it
        takes place on a large or a small scale."
                   Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China
       Even if millions of Chinese infant girls are unregistered rather than
        directly murdered, however, the pattern of discrimination is one that
        will severely reduce their opportunities in life. "If parents do hide the
        birth of a baby girl, she will go unregistered and therefore will not have
        any legal existence. The child may have difficulty receiving medical
        attention, going to school, and [accessing] other state services."
        (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".)

       Likewise, if a Chinese infant girl is turned over for adoption rather than
        being killed, she risks being placed in one of the notorious "Dying
        Rooms" unveiled in a British TV documentary. Chinese state orphanages
        have come in for heavy criticism as a result of the degrading and
        unsanitary conditions that usually pervade them. In one orphanage,
        documentary producer Brian Woods found that "every single baby ...
        was a girl, and as we moved on this pattern was repeated. The only
        boys were mentally or physically disabled. 95% of the babies we saw
        were able-bodied girls. We also discovered that, although they are
        described as orphans, very few of them actually are; the overwhelming
        majority do have parents, but their parents have abandoned them,
        simply because they were born the wrong sex." Woods estimated that
        "up to a million baby girls every year" were victims of this "mass
        desertion," deriving from "the complex collision of [China's] notorious
        One Child Policy and its traditional preference for sons." (See Brian
        Woods, "The Dying Rooms Trust".)
                  Female Infanticide
   Focus (2): China
       The phenomenon of neglect of girl children is also dramatically
        evident in China. According to the World Health Organization,
        "In many cases, mothers are more likely to bring their male
        children to health centers -- particularly to private physicians --
        and they may be treated at an earlier stage of disease than
        girls." (Cited in Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide".)

       The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to
        combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective
        abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law
        and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female
        infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits
        discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.'
        ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the
        use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However,
        "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound
        machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the
        gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas." (Porras, "Female
        Infanticide and Foeticide".)
               Female Infanticide
   How many die?

       Gendercide Watch is aware of no overall statistics on
        the numbers of girls who die annually from
        infanticide. Calculations are further clouded by the
        unreliability and ambiguity of much of the data.
        Nonetheless, a minimum estimate would place the
        casualties in the the hundreds of thousands,
        especially when one takes into consideration that the
        phenomenon is most prevalent in the world's two
        most populous countries. Sex-selective abortions
        likely account for an even higher number of "missing"
        girls.
                  Female Infanticide
   Who is responsible?

       As already noted, female infanticide reflects
        the low status accorded to women in many
        societies around the world. The "burden" of
        taking a woman into the family accounts for
        the high dowry rates in India which, in turn,
        have led to an epidemic female infanticide.
        Typical also is China, where
            culture dictates that when a girl marries she leaves
             her family and becomes part of her husband's
             family. For this reason Chinese peasants have for
             many centuries wanted a son to ensure there is
             someone to look after them in their old age --
             having a boy child is the best pension a Chinese
             peasant can get. Baby girls are even called
             "maggots in the rice" ... ("The Dying Rooms
             Trust")
                   Female Infanticide
   Who is responsible?
       Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the
        Third and First Worlds. (This contrasts markedly with "infanticide in
        nonhuman primates," which "is carried out primarily by migrant males
        who are unrelated to the infant or its parents and is a manifestation of
        reproductive competition among males." [Glenn Hausfater, "Infanticide:
        Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives," Current Anthropology, 25:
        4 (1984), p. 501.] It also serves as a reminder that gendercide may be
        implemented by those of the same gender.) In India, according to
        John-Thor Dahlburg, "many births take place in isolated villages, with
        only female friends and the midwife present. If a child dies, the women
        can always blame natural causes." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls
        'is no big sin'.") In the United States, "every year hundreds of women
        commit neonaticide [the killing of newborns] ... Prosecutors sometimes
        don't prosecute; juries rarely convict; those found guilty almost never
        go to jail. Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly
        300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and
        Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail." Much of "the
        leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers" reflects the fact that they are
        standardly "young, poor, unmarried and socially isolated," although it is
        notable that similar leniency is rarely extended to young, poor, and
        socially isolated male murderers. (Steven Pinker, "Why They Kill Their
        Newborns", The New York Times, November 2, 1997.)
                  Female Infanticide
   Who is responsible?
     A number of strategies have been proposed and implemented to
      try to address the problem of female infanticide, along with the
      related phenomena of sex-selective abortion and abandonment
      and neglect of girl children. Zeng et al.'s prescriptions for
      Chinese policymakers can easily be generalized to other
      countries where female infanticide is rife:
           The principle of equality between men and women should be more
            widely promoted through the news media to change the attitude of
            son preference and improve the awareness of the general public on
            this issue; the principle should also be reflected in specific social
            and economic policies to protect the basic rights of women and
            children, especially female children. ... Government regulations
            prohibiting the use of prenatal sex identification techniques for
            nonmedical purposes should be strictly enforced, and violators
            should be punished accordingly. The laws that punish people who
            commit infanticide, abandonment, and neglect of female children,
            and the laws and regulations on the protection of women and
            children[,] should be strictly enforced. The campaigns to protect
            women and children from being kidnapped or sold into servitude
            should be effectively strengthened. Family planning programs
            should focus on effective public education, good counseling and
            service delivery, and the fully voluntary participation of the
            community and individuals to increase contraceptive prevalence,
            reduce unplanned pregnancies, and minimize the need for an
            induced abortion. (Zeng, et al., p. 298.)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:6/15/2011
language:English
pages:117