By Erin Rodewald // September 24, 2015
(This article originally appeared in The Christian Post)
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation,” wrote Lemkin in his magnum opus, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
“It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”
Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, and to international cries of “never again,” Lemkin would lead a nascent United Nations in the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Today, more than 130 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention and over 70 nations have incorporated the punishment of genocide into domestic criminal law. Numerous studies have been conducted, data collected, and international conferences convened with the noble aim of preventing genocide.
Yet in the 21st Century, we are still talking about genocide. Or are we?
Since its rise in the summer of 2014, radical jihadists — under the banner of ISIS — have waged a calculated campaign of death and destruction throughout Iraq and Syria. Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities have been beheaded, crucified, raped, tortured, and held captive as sex slaves. Mass graves containing the remains of indigenous Yezidis have been uncovered in multiple locations in northern Iraq. An estimated 2.6 million Iraqis have been forced from their ancestral homes, and in the last decade, Iraq’s Christian community has plummeted from approximately 1.5 million to a mere 300,000.
In addition to the human toll, ISIS has decimated the cultural heritage of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria. Archaeological sites in the ancient Assyrian cities of Nimrud, Khorsabad and Hatra have been demolished. Priceless antiquities, artifacts, books and rare manuscripts once housed at the Mosul Museum and Mosul Library have been destroyed or defaced, while holy sites, such as the purported tomb of the Old Testament prophet Jonah, have been bulldozed.
Despite the gruesome headlines and grisly statistics, however, the international community has remained hesitant to define the atrocities in Iraq and Syria as genocide.
“If we call it genocide, we really put ourselves in the difficult position of having to do something about it,” says Dr. Daniel Mark, assistant professor of political science at Villanova University in Pennsylvania and a member of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. “A declaration [of genocide] really points the finger at ourselves and gives us no excuse to look away anymore. We can’t pretend we don’t know anymore.”
To see the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria through the lens of genocide is to recognize that current policies are not working. Despite all of our best intentions at prevention, the depraved side of human nature remains.
Something more dramatic needs to happen and quickly. Many would argue that if the international community is not willing to commit to increased military action in the region — to destroy, not merely degrade or contain the ISIS threat — then we cannot, with any legitimacy, claim to be offended by the consequences of our inaction. We can choose to intervene more, or we can continue to operate around the edges and watch the crisis expand.
“The problem is the failure to understand that there are major consequences to decisions to do nothing,” says David J. Kramer, Senior Director for Human Rights and Democracy at The McCain Institute for International Leadership. “Lots of people get killed, countries become destabilized, and the environment is open to terrorists/extremists. This is true of the Obama administration, which thinks about the consequences of taking action but fails to think through the consequences of doing nothing, especially when it paints problems around the globe in such stark black-and-white colors.”
Indeed, moral outrage in the present carries a certain taint when it follows a lack of collective will to make the hard decisions required to forestall a crisis. Why do we speak of genocide after the fact instead of mounting the courage to confront and put down the threat at its start?
He suggests that it would be imprudent to believe that a mere declaration of genocide would be an immediate tipping point. It can, however, provide much needed traction to begin a slow course correction of the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII.
“There needs to be sustained public attention, which will translate into political will. A resolution in Congress won’t save lives, but if it creates momentum and generates political will, then we have something to go on.”
To that end, over 75 members of Congress have added their names to a bipartisan resolution declaring as genocide the violence perpetrated by ISIS against Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities.
House Concurrent Resolution 75, introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), calls for Congress to acknowledge “that those who commit or support atrocities against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities, including Yezidis, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka’e, and Kurds, and who target them specifically for ethnic or religious reasons, are committing, and are hereby declared to be committing, ‘war crimes’, ‘crimes against humanity’, and ‘genocide’.”
A formal declaration of genocide by the U.S. Congress alone will not bring a halt to ISIS’s campaign of death and destruction. There are many other levers — military, political and diplomatic — that also must be engaged before that goal is achieved. Many are hopeful, however, that a declaration of genocide will provide a mechanism by which to change the trajectory of the deadly conditions in the region.
“Genocide is a true and heavy term. When we place a heavy term on what is happening, new policies will be passed, global leadership will come together, more aid will be available, and the world will start paying attention,” says Juliana Taimoorazy, founder of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council (ICRC).
“Genocide isn’t only about killing people,” adds Taimoorazy. “It is also about destroying communities and cultures. ISIS is destroying us on a human level, but it is also destroying our culture.”
Taimoorazy, who began ICRC in 2007 in response to increased attacks on the church in Baghdad, takes a long view of the humanitarian and political crisis in the Middle East. She believes it is important to look not just at evacuation and extraction of communities threatened by ISIS. While that is an important short-term strategy essential for survival, she says that a long-term solution must include the restoration and return of indigenous people to their historical homeland.
Taimoorazy believes that ISIS ultimately will be defeated and careful consideration must be given to what comes next.
“We are trying to encourage world leaders — as they start deciding the fate of the Middle East Christians — to engage us as a community.”
For Taimoorazy, a declaration of genocide provides a needed foundation for moving forward.
Rep. Fortenberry’s resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile, Pope Francis is scheduled to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday. The stage may be set for the world to firmly acknowledge what its eyes cannot deny — what is happening to Middle East Christians is more than persecution; it is, in fact, genocide. As with Berlin in 1945, however, ending the genocide in Iraq and Syria ultimately will require American power. Talk alone does not end genocide; strength and political will rooted in moral clarity end genocide.