Expert Provides Social Science View of Genocide

The charge most difficult to prove against Slobodan Milosevic is genocide, a crime that was only named following the murder of 6 million European Jews in World War II. While mass murders of civilian populations have occurred throughout history, the term genocide was created by Rafael Lemkin as he worked on drafting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide for the United Nations. The Convention provides the legal definition of genocide which is applied by the ICTY and ICTR. The legal definition is broader and more inclusive than the genocide carried out against the Jews, which has become known as the Holocaust. Yet it is narrower and less inclusive than what is commonly understood as genocide or even what is understood in the social science community.

Dr. Ton Zwaan, an expert in the relatively new field of Genocide Studies, testified for the Prosecution from the social science point of view. According to him, the Holocaust was different from other genocides and mass killings in that the Nazis attempted a complete genocide of every Jew within reach. Other massacres that are generally considered genocidal campaigns in the social science community have not aimed at such completeness, he told the Court. Yet the Holocaust is often the model against which mass killings are measured to determine if they constitute genocide, excluding many cases that the social sciences (and the law) would consider genocide.

While Dr. Zwaan did not address it, genocide has taken on a popular, though undefined, meaning as well, something like: horrible crimes, including mass murder, targeting an identified group. In this case, the unspecific definition leads to over inclusion of crimes under the definition of genocide, thus reducing the seriousness and uniqueness of the crime. It likely results from the anguish of victims and survivors who want crimes against them to be recognized and taken seriously. To some victims, 'genocide' seems like the only way to describe the depth of their pain and the horror of what they experienced -- whether or not it meets the legal definition of genocide.

In the courtroom, however, only the legal definition of genocide matters. While it is clearly set out in the ICTY Statute, its exact meaning when applied to Bosnia, and most specifically to Srebrenica, continues to be at issue. An Appeals Panel is expected to provide additional enlightenment when it rules on the appeal of Radoslav Krstic from his conviction for genocide, perhaps sometime this year.

The Prosecution asked Dr. Zwaan to avoid any consideration of the former Yugoslavia in addressing his comments about the state of genocide research to the Trial Chamber. The four cases of mass killings he utilized in his analysis were those of the Armenians (by the Ottoman Empire), the Jews (by the Nazis), the Cambodians (by the Pol Pot regime) and the Tutsis by the Hutu majority in Rwanda.

Dr. Zwaan told the Court that genocide is not a naturally occurring phenomenon within societies. Nor is it generated from the bottom up (from the general populace to the state or elites). It is exclusively top down, originating with a plan by those who hold power or seek to grasp it. Two fundamental preconditions for its development are a society in crisis and a society divided. Under such conditions, the originators make a plan to eliminate a group, followed by propagation of an ideology that dehumanizes them, dividing the populace more firmly into 'us and them' and providing the impetus needed to overcome people's general resistance to large scale killing. Authorities often make use of collective historical memory of one group having been victimized by another. For example, Hutus (with some justification) saw themselves as the victims of Tutsi supremacy.

In the initial stages, Dr. Zwaan testified, a genocidal campaign faces a number of obstacles. As these are overcome, however, the campaign picks up more and more speed until it becomes difficult to stop. Indeed, Dr. Zwaan told the Court that in none of the four cases he studied was genocide stopped from within the society. They all required outside military intervention.

While initiating the plan and giving it the initial impetus, leaders are careful to keep a distance from the results to avoid leaving traces, according to the witness. Hitler, for example, never witnessed a genocidal act, he said. Nor did he write an order to 'kill all the Jews.' Yet, Dr. Zwaan testified, it is known from Himmler that Hitler must have given that order orally. It is the same, he said, in other cases. Only circumstantial evidence remains to tie the leader who originated the plan with its horrifying results.

Judge Robinson asked the witness if there is a point where the top down and bottom up actions merge. Dr. Zwaan answered that he was partly correct. 'Once a decision is made that large scale violence won't be stopped [by state authorities] . . . [it] might be . . . that groups at the bottom see an opportunity or gain impunity to continue violent crimes.' In other words, they realize they won't be punished, indeed, they have permission to continue their criminal behavior. The state-approved norm has changed to embrace what was formerly considered criminal. 'Many people at the local level will act violently only when they are sure they can get away with it.' As an example, Dr. Zwaan cited Poland under Nazi occupation. In 30 localities, it was the local leaders who decided to organize pogroms against the local Jewish population. This, he said, was only possible because of Nazi policies. It was something like the merger Judge Robinson hypothesized.

Dr. Zwaan's testimony may help the Trial Chamber put the allegations of genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in a broader context and perhaps understand a little more about the forces that create it. In the end, however, it is the legal definition of genocide they must turn to and apply.

While attention often focuses on Srebrenica when the genocide charge is discussed, it is important to remember that in the case against Milosevic, as opposed to that against General Krstic, he has been charged with genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in a broader area of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Initially, the Prosecution identified 18 locations, which it reduced to six due to time limitations for presenting its case. Those six are: Bijeljina, Bratunac, Sarajevo (Ilijas), Sarajevo (Novi Grad), Srebrenica and Zvornik. The acts include widespread killing of the civilian population during the takeovers of territory (especially targeting community leaders and the educated elite), and the killing, torture, rape, beatings, and starvation of thousands in detention facilities, as well as the mass exterminations at Srebrenica. General Krstic was charged with (and convicted of) genocide only for acts associated with the Srebrenica massacre.

As a reminder, the legal genocide charge against Milosevic is: 'From on or about 1 March 1992 until 31 December 1995, Slobodan Milosevic, acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim . . . national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such . . . .' He is charged with two counts, genocide and complicity in genocide. A future article will discuss the areas of contention in the legal definition of genocide as it applies to the facts of the Milosevic case.

Dr. Zwaan will be cross examined by the Accused tomorrow.