As a side note, I would argue that even if you could successfully convince people that some act of cultural eradication wasn't technically genocide, that still doesn't make it moral, legal, or acceptable by any standard and that we are at some level merely playing at semantics. But if we are going to discuss genocide, let us understand what we are talking about.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has the text of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on its website. Articles 2 and 3 of that Convention provides the definition of genocide.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
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.
Some points and questions:
* It was a controversial process by which this definition was created, presumedly "watering it down" to eliminate mention of "political groups" and "cultural" genocide and the mere act of propagandizing in favor of genocidal practices. I'll likely be exploring more of that later.
* The process of persecution that the Baha'is have undergone for years in Iran is another example that smacks of genocide if you look at the definition above. See article here.
* Item (e) in Article 2 above certainly seems to fit the description of the lost generation in Australia and the reservation boarding schools in the United States and Canada.
* If ethnic cleansing fits the description of genocide, but cultural cleansing has been left out, what is the difference? Ethnicity versus culture. We'll explore that later, too.
* The United States did not ratify this convention until 1988, 40 years after originally signing it.
* When the United States did ratify it, the following Declarations and Reservations were made:
Reservations:
"(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, be fore any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
Understandings:
"(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.
(2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.
(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.
(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Germany responded to the United States' Declarations and Reservations with the following:
On 11 January 1990, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the following declaration:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the declarations made under the heading "Reservations" by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets paragraph (2) of the said declarations as a reference to article V of the Convention and therefore as not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a State Party to the Convention.".
Where Article 5 of the Convention is this:
Article 5
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
That's our genocide lesson for the day. We have gone far enough down the legalese rabbit hole for one day. Stay tuned...
