Genocide Definition

Genocide: The Risk of Focusing Too Much on the Definition

Many people would agree that genocide is a crime against humanity and is, therefore, punishable in the strongest way possible. It is also possible that most people believe they know what genocide looks like. However, the question is not as simple as many may think; the boundaries of genocide are, apparently, not as distinct as expected. There has been a longstanding debate about what exactly genocide is, what it looks like, and this debate is far from settled (Saul, 2001; Kersten, 2011). The question is, is this definition necessary? This paper argues that getting into the semantics is a worthless and futile pursuit that stands in the way of justice for the victims. Instead of the wrangles

For many years, the definition has remained the same. Essentially, article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as violence “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” (Saul, 2001, p. 1). In this respect, the prohibited genocide-related acts include the killing of members of a group, causing harm- bodily or mental to those who belong to a group, and inflicting upon the group those conditions that would cause them physical destruction, partly or wholly. It also includes imposition of measures aimed to prevent births within the group and transferring the children of group to another forcibly. Over the years, there have been more attempts- even if not intentionally- to broaden the scope of the term genocide, which is largely an embodiment of an ongoing search for the true meaning of genocide. Article III, for instance, adds to the list above: the conspiracy with the aim of committing genocide, incitement (directly or indirectly) of people to commit genocide; attempt and complicity to commit genocide (Saul,

However, many do not agree with this label for that conflict. Michael Clough, the former Director of the Africa Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, is one of the opposing voices. He argues that referring to the Darfur conflict as genocide is both inaccurate and misleading. It is ‘inaccurate’ because, while genocide involves ethnic group(s) aiming to wipe out another/other ethnic group(s), the case in Darfur is not the same. Although it is the Arabs targeting Africans, the main drive is a political one (i.e. counter-insurgency), rather than ethnicity-against-ethnicity per se. It is counterproductive because such a label makes it harder to achieve a peace process (reconciliation) if it is seen (by the victims) as an ethnic, rather than a political issue (NPR,