[Peace-discuss] Genocide

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Politics of Genocide (2010) by Edward S. Herman & David Peterson

"In this impressive book, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson examine the uses and abuses of the word 'genocide.' They argue persuasively that the label is highly politicized and that in the United States it is used by the government, journalists, and academics to brand as evil those nations and political movements that in one way or another interfere with the imperial interests of U.S. capitalism. Thus the word 'genocide' is seldom applied when the perpetrators are U.S. allies (or even the United States itself), while it is used almost indiscriminately when murders are committed or are alleged to have been committed by enemies of the United States and U.S. business interests. One set of rules applies to cases such as U.S. aggression in Vietnam, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Indonesian slaughter of so-called communists and the people of East Timor, U.S. bombings in Serbia and Kosovo, the U.S. war of 'liberation' in Iraq, and mass murders committed by U.S. allies in Rwanda and the Republic of Congo. Another set applies to cases such as Serbian aggression in Kosovo and Bosnia, killings carried out by U.S. enemies in Rwanda and Darfur, Saddam Hussein, any and all actions by Iran, and a host of others..."


On Feb 17, 2015, at 12:15 PM, 'Fields, A Belden' a-fields at illinois.edu [sf-core] <sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> First, I repeat that I fully agree that corporate interests have long been behind major US foreign policy moves.
> I also agree that those interests do not  align with the interests of the majority of American or  people of the world. 
> In addition, I would agree that  US policies int eh Middle East, from the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953,
> through the one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, to the disastrous invasion of Iraq have provided fertile ground for ISIS.
> 
> BUT, I do not take the position that corporate capitalism is the only evil in the world.  Fo me genocide, the killing, torturing, or enslaving of people (I  am aware that there is a broader definition in the UN Convention) just because of  who they are is a greater evil than of corporate capitalism.  While some Marxists do regard human rights as just a liberal mask for advancing the goals of capitalism and imperialism, I do not.  I take them seriously, and I regard genocide (which includes slavery of specific peoples) as the worst.  If the only force that can counter that of genocidal fanatics is a force that has often been used in human rights violations int he past,  I am willing to accept that--with the knowledge that ISIS is not  going to be defeated by military force alone.  ISIS was not just produced by Western imperialism, but also by poverty and lack of opportunity and development in most of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East, by repression in most of those countries, by religious conflict within Islam and between Islam and other religions.  Not all of  this can be ascribed to the capitalist West.
> 
> While I would much prefer a situation in which the UN Security Council could deal with ISIS as Carl suggests, that is simply not realistic for two reasons.  First because of the conflicting interests on the Council and the veto power that each member state has.  Second, and why I cited Yugoslavia as a case where I supported the Clinton-NATO military action to break the siege  of Sarajevo, the multi-national and multi-ethnic city against which the Serbs were using heavy heavy weaponry and snipers to kill civilians.  The Russians, with veto power in the Security Council, would never have approved of action the Serbian.  Where the UN did act, in placing a peace keeping force in Bosnia, that force was incapable of doing anything to protect the 8,000 Muslim male Bosnians from being rounded up and slaughtered by a Serbian force.   So, even where there is enough agreement in the UN to place a force on the ground, that force is small and incapable of countering well-armed and very aggressive forces like the Serbs let loose in Kosovo or ISIS.  I really wish that the UN had such a force and that there was sufficient agreement within the UN on when and how to counter atrocious human rights violations, but the reality is that this does not exist.  So my wishing, and Carl's proposing, doesn't really amount to much when facing a fanatic genocidal force like ISIS.
> 
> In regard to Carl's saying that I do not condemn Boko Haram, he is wrong.  My article responded to another article that dealt exclusively with the US and ISIS.  I just as strongly oppose Boko Haram, and I support the US's government's attempt to help the Nigerian government with whatever intelligence or military assistance it can.
> I do not favor the US going in lots of ground troops, just as I don't favor that in Iraq.  I think that it is good that Chad, Cameroon, and Niger are now committing troops to the fight against ISIS. 
> 
> I hope that this  adds some clarity to my  thinking.  I do think that democratic socialists, while condemning corporate capitalism, need to understand that it it not the only, nor the most egregious, evil that people are capable in a world in which we have also experienced brutal military dictatorship, totalitarianism (sometimes masquerading under the name of socialism), and genocide.