Russia once again staged the genocide of the Ukrainian people/Zaxid.net
On December 9, 1948, in response to the mass atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, the UN General Assembly unanimously (South Africa, Costa Rica, El Salvador did not appear) adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Read more in the exclusive blog for the Channel 24 website.
ShareFbTwiTelegramViberShareFbTwiTelegramViber
But has the Convention become an effective remedy for the victims of this international crime and has it been able to prevent it? In particular, genocide against the Ukrainian nation.
A bomb planted since the adoption
Briefly describing the history of the Convention, the old saying “she knew how to cook and did not know how to serve” would come in handy. In general, the then states had an understanding of the need to criminalize acts aimed at the complete or partial destruction of a group of people.
This is a significant merit of the Polish lawyer Rafael Lemkin, who himself sent dozens of letters to governments. However, with their own skeletons in the closet, the states wanted to create an international treaty that would not pose a threat to either their sovereignty or top officials.
As a result, if we compare General Assembly Resolution 96 (I), the texts of the drafts and the Convention, we get a free fall into oblivion of the very spirit and initial goal of the prohibition of genocide.
The drafter of the Treaty, British lawyer Hartley Shawcross, emphasized that The convention could prove harmful, as any treaty definition of genocide inevitably runs the risk of being too narrow.And so it happened. After all, the reduction in the number of articles itself is not so dangerous as the “castration” of genocide, which ultimately led to the transformation of the Convention into a mechanism for political manipulation, and not a prevention of acts that cause a “shock of mankind.”
It should be emphasized that the USSR was the only state who voted against the draft that formed the basis of the Convention. Despite the fact that it no longer provided for the criminalization of most of what the Soviet totalitarian machine used to destroy “enemies of the people”.
However, very soon the USSR turned from an adversary into an active fighter for the adoption and implementation of the Genocide Convention. He hastily and with reservation ratified the Treaty in 1954. Obviously, his main goal was not the fight for human rights, but the victory of communism over capitalism, which also sinned racial discrimination.
Representatives of the Union accused the United States of genocide of the black population, trying to take advantage of the state's non-ratification of the Convention and undermine American leadership. At the same time, genocide was slowly becoming commonplace.
The destruction of the Nazi concentration camps did not end the genocide
Paradoxically, even during the drafting of the Convention, mass atrocities were powerfully committed in individual states. In 1947, at one of the meetings of the profile committee of the General Assembly, Pakistan accused India of acts of genocide. It should be emphasized that this, in turn, refers to the three states that initiated the conclusion of the Treaty.
None of the mentioned events, despite the fact that it claimed the lives of millions of people and was accompanied by similar Nazi practices, was not recognized as genocide. From the point of view of law, this was explained by the discrepancy between the “letter” of the Convention, from the point of view of common sense, by the cold war and the lack of political will. The genocide was untimely, as was the expansion or revision of the Convention.
The situation did not change with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Isolated cases of prosecution for genocide (Rwanda, Srebrenica) against the backdrop of mass atrocities in Myanmar, China and the Middle East are not evidence of the effectiveness of the Convention.
Moreover, for at least eight years, Russia has been preparing and carrying out genocide against the Ukrainian nation – for what? Contrary to the spirit of the Convention, the international community responded “this was not included in the Treaty, this is something from Lemkin, the destruction of national identity, mass deportations and colonization of the Crimean peninsula do not testify to anything” …
How politics killed Themis< /h3>
In the final version, the Convention contains a number of logical errors and inaccuracies that create a “legal vacuum” and do not allow achieving the goal of the Treaty: to protect groups of people from destruction. Opponents may insist that only four groups are protected, but in this case, it should be explained why the destruction of the Tutsi is more terrible for humanity than the extermination of “enemies of the people” in the USSR? Indeed, two ideas were originally laid down in Resolution 96 (I):
- genocide differs from homocide by the destruction of not one person, but a group of people;
- such destruction causes irreparable harm to humanity, depriving him of his cultural and other contributions.
Has mankind suffered from the destruction of Ukrainian kobzars, clergy, dissidents? Will humanity suffer if Ukraine is de facto turned into “Little Russia”? A question with a very clear answer. It should only be mentioned that the reduction in the number of protected groups is the work of diplomats, because from the pen of lawyers the draft Convention came with completely different wording.
The same applies to the transformation of the Convention into a mysterious young lady who says one thing and means another. The first draft of the Treaty, in addition to listing the acts themselves, which are genocide, also contained a brief “instruction” that included precisely the acts mentioned. For example, such an element as causing death to members of a group or creating conditions for the destruction of a group (Article 2 (a, b) of the Convention in the current wording) contained a reference to the deliberate deprivation of housing, clothing, food, medical care , confiscation of property, looting, denial of those benefits that are available to other residents of the relevant territory.
It is hard to disagree that, in an expanded form, the article makes it possible to unconditionally classify Russia's actions in stealing Ukrainian grain, obstructing humanitarian corridors, importing non-certified medicines, “nationalizing” Ukrainian real estate and deliberate attacks on the civilian population and civilian objects as a crime of genocide.
Magically, after the high-profile Julius Steiner case, a separate article criminalizing the propaganda of the crime of genocide also disappeared from the final version of the Convention. However, this will not save Olga Skabeeva, Vladimir Solovyov, Tina Kandelaki and others from individual criminal liability for incitement to genocide, which is nevertheless included in Article 3 (c).
Unfortunately, the Treaty does not contain a complete prohibition of cultural genocide. The final version has only one of its elements: forced transfer of children from one human group to another (Article 2(e))The drafters of the Treaty confirmed that the removal of children is physically and biologically destructive, and their familiarization with the customs, language and values of another group is tantamount to the destruction of a group whose future depends on the next generation, however, if the language, customs and culture of the current generation are banned, is it not tantamount to is it faster destruction?
In general, the Convention was “killed” even when, despite initial statements about the already existing ban on genocide, the states decided that the Treaty was not binding on those countries that he was not joined.
Therefore, today we have this syllogism: according to customary law, the prohibition of genocide is mandatory, but according to contractual law, it is only for participants. At the same time, the reference to the fact that a state is not a party to the Convention will not save one from being held accountable, although such involvement is impossible at the state level, since without participation in the Treaty there is no access to the International Court of Justice. Such “tricks” testify to nothing less than the politicized nature of the Convention.
Reanimation of the Convention
One should agree with David Nersesyan, who points out that the Convention was concluded under the circumstances of a single case: the Holocaust.
Therefore, it is quite logical that in the new conditions the Treaty “does not work”: over 80 years, not only states and societies have changed, but also the methods and techniques for the destruction of groups of people – isolated cases of mass meat grinder still occur, but much more often they attack national identity and culture, using deportations and creating conditions for a slow but sure liquidation.
In addition, such actions can easily be imagined under the guise of protecting national security, combating extremism, preserving one's own culture and identity. The international community begins to sound the alarm only because of physical destruction, but, as a rule, it is the last stage. The convention worked twice (!) in the context of punishing genocide, but was there at least one case when it managed to prevent it?
No. After all, there is no such mechanism in the Convention. Neither a special monitoring committee, as in most of the founding treaties, nor a judicial or quasi-judicial body, to which not only states, but also individuals would have access. For example, how could the genocide in Rwanda be prevented if, according to the logic of the Convention, Rwanda itself should apply to the International Court of Justice?
It is fair to emphasize that the other parties to the treaty also had such a right, but they did not use it. Firstly, States should seriously consider concluding an optional protocol to establish an oversight mechanism for the implementation of the Convention, as well as a body that would consider complaints from potential victims of genocide.
In -second , the Convention itself needs to be amended and clarified. The relevant practice of international courts and tribunals can be taken as a basis. In particular, the list of possible acts constituting genocide should be concretized and made open at the same time, so as not to limit the space for the protection of victims. We should stop turning a blind eye to cultural genocide and include its manifestations at least in the formulation of special intent.
After all, the Convention itself provides that it was concluded for 10 years with automatic renewal every five years, unless the parties agree on another (the next five-year period expires in 2023). If the Treaty cannot protect against genocide, why should it?
