Thread by @waitmanb

[Thread 🧵] No, it's not time to call Putin's War in Ukraine Genocide

Words have meanings and it's not helpful to call the Russian attack on #Ukraine genocide.

Gourevitch should know better...

newyorker.com/news/daily-com…

Before we start:

Pointing out that the war is not genocidal (atm) is NOT to a) deny that the war is illegal and in violation of international law
b) to excuse very real Russian war crimes, or
c) in any way to minimize the suffering of those in Ukraine.

So, in the @NewYorker, @PGourevitch seems to agree with Zelensky in defining the invasion of Ukraine as "genocidal."`

My sense is that this is wrong-headed. And Gourevitch who has written important things about the Rwandan genocide should know better. amazon.co.uk/Wish-Inform-To…

This may be an issue of the headline writer, but I don't think so.

The subtitle here (and some of G's argument here) is correct. "Genocide" is not tied explicitly to some magnitude of killing, numerically. Though, there is that element, if not explicitly stated.

For example, if someone were to say that they wanted to eradicate people from X country/racial group/religion, etc, and killed 4 of them, they would likely not be guilty of genocide in a legal sense. (Hate crime, mass murder, etc, yes, but not genocide.)

Conversely, if someone were to target and kill 30 people out of an uncontacted Amazonian tribe of 80 people, one could potentially term that genocide.

Point being: that "enormity" does (and doesn't matter) relatively speaking.

Another clarification before moving on: Gourevitch speaks of intent mattering. This is true. BUT...intent ≠ motive. Motive is nice and we always strive to understand it, particularly as historians, but it's not required for a claim of genocide.

Intent is meant in the sense of "intentional." Would a reasonable person be expected to understand that their actions would lead to death, etc?

If so, intent has been met.

Example: If I lock someone in a room without food and water and abandon them, I would be guilty of murder.

My intent was clearly their death. WHY I did that may not be immediately clear, but it is extraneous to my premeditation/responsibility of the act.

So, more or less agree with Gourevitch here. It's the rest of the piece that is problematic. Genocide does have at least one definition (the UN one- CPPCG) though this is certainly contested by many scholars and legal experts.

ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/357

I would suggest that in terms of precedent and interpretation, most would also be comfortable in adding "political groups" to the definition G quotes in this article.

Incidentally, this is one of the major reasons for calling the Holodomor (famine in Ukraine in the 1930s): conditions intentionally imposed on a specific group that would be reasonably understood to lead to their deaths.

But linking this argument about intent to claims of genocide in Ukraine is strange and is a non sequitur.

There are real problems with claiming that either in action or in rhetoric, that Putin's war in #Ukraine is actually genocidal.

Let's start with rhetoric. The CPPCG does explicitly note that both "conspiracy to commit" and incitement are punishable.

One could, I suppose, argue that Putin is guilty of this, but in the absence of genocidal acts, I suspect this holds very little sway legally. Gourevitch should know this. The leaders of Rwandan radio (RTLM) are a GREAT example of this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C…

Putin's rhetoric (and that cited in this piece) is certainly expansionist, imperialist, and disturbing. However, his desire to conquer Ukraine is not alone a call for genocidal action. (Cultural genocide is a different concept for another time).

It is alarming, and could PERHAPS be flagged as pre-genocidal or laying the groundwork for future actions, but this is not the way that Zelensky and Gourevitch are using the term genocide. They see it is as taking place. So, let's move to actions:

It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's important to distinguish some things. War crimes are not the same as genocide, though they are often closely linked. Indeed, and this is hard to hear at this point, not all civilian deaths in war are war crimes.

Let's shelve the latter for another time except to say that is possible to fight an unjust war (jus ad bellum) in a just way (jus in bello)...and vice versa. This means that some collateral damage of civilians remains lawful.

Indiscriminate or negligent targeting of civilians IS a war crimes and it looks like we ARE seeing that in Ukraine as well as clearer violations like firing on civilian vehicles etc.

This may well escalate moving forward.

BUT...it does not (yet) rise to a level of genocide. Flagrant or massive violations of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) do not by themselves meet the criteria of genocide.

Example: Atomic bombing of Japan in WWII. Many would with some support claim this was a war crimes, a massive (and repeated targeting of civilians).

However, was it an attempt to kill Jall apanese people AS A GROUP? No.

No more than "strategic bombing" constituted an attempt to eradicate Germans based on nationality or the Malmedy massacre was an attempt to destroy Americans as a group.

Given recent experiences in Rwanda/Bosnia/Sudan,etc, I think we have a good understanding of things to look for that constitute genocide in progress. Those things are not currently present in Ukraine.

For example, the indiscriminate targeting that is killing both Russian-leaning Ukrainians and those opposed to the invasion itself argues against an intent to destroy Ukrainians as an ethnic group at this moment.

Gourevitch seems to take Kamala Harris to task for only mentioning "atrocities" while applauding Duda for calling it genocide.

This is a bit unfair and misguided for a couple reasons. One, (as I have suggested) the specific details of each civilian death will determine whether they were war crimes or not and Harris is likely waiting to allow those to be confirmed etc.

Two, the destruction of a nation (i.e. the absorption of a nation state into another) is not by itself genocide. It can (and sometimes does) lead to ethnic cleansing or genocide, but the redrawing of borders alone is not genocidal, though it is often a violation of intl law.

Aside: Consider why a nationalist president of POLAND might be so ready to argue that destroying a nation state is genocide.

So, what's at stake here? Why argue about the term genocide when such real human tragedy is unfolding before us? I don't think it's just an academic debate.

Some thoughts:

1) It creates a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation.

It is not, of course, outside the realm of possibility that Putin may start rounding up and executing mass numbers of civilians or begin committing genocide. We need to be prepared for that.

But this also means that we can't claim every bad thing that happens to civilians IS already genocide or the term loses all meaning. After all, that's why we have war crimes, violations of IHL, etc: to cover other mass (and individual) atrocities.

2) It may obscure war crimes.

There often seems to be a subtext that somehow war crimes or violations of IHL are "less than" compared to genocide. But, sensationally claiming genocide may actually lead to a desensitization that makes it harder to prosecute these things.

We don't want the world to explain away real crimes as the result of overblown rhetoric. I think this is a real danger with the kneejerk tendency to immediately shout "Never Again" and invoke genocide.

3) It may impede legal reckoning with Putin and in the future.

If we preemptively claim genocide is taking place, it might actually hinder future attempts to prosecute (based in part on 1). We need to be precise in order that the legal parameters are not lost in hyperbole.

4) It may weaken the impact of genocide accusations in general.

Certainly, merely accusing a leader of committing genocide will not usually prevent or end a genocide. However, there are arguments that such statements that the world is watching, etc do have weight.

Putting a leader on notice that the world is moving to a consensus that they are committing genocide is not a completely empty gesture. However, if genocide is used to describe every human rights violation, war crime, or mass atrocity, the term becomes meaningless.

A couple notes on closing:

1) We should not be waiting for genocide to take place. We should definitely be paying attention to Putin's rhetoric and to how that may be impacting the behavior of Russian forces on the ground.

2) We SHOULD be beginning to compile evidence of all violations of IHL and LOAC that have already taken place with an eye to future prosecution. That goes for Putin as well regarding an aggressive (unjust) war.

3) Pointing out that genocide is not currently going on does not minimize civilian suffering or violations of IHL and LOAC that have already taken place.

Finally, another point of emphasis: a clear declaration of genocide by the international community comes with some important obligations such as intervention, prosecution, and extradition.

We need to understand the responsibilities we are incurring by making this claim AND then be prepared to live up to them. That will have serious consequences if the perpetrator is Russia...

...which is NOT to say that Russia should get a pass because it has nuclear weapons and a large military, but that we should be clear-eyed and correct about our accusations given what they may lead to.