Genocide is an ultimate state crime; as it is an actcommitted by states to create the country in a distinct image, which is used asa tool in state building. The state equally applies other violent means in thename of the state building. However, genocide as the deliberate exterminationof a group is placed in its category in the field of state crime. Bergin,S., 2008, also emphasised in his book titled; The Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian Genocide, that despite the UNconvention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, thetwentieth century saw one of the appalling genocide in Cambodia. This genocidetook the lives of almost two million Cambodians, who were killed throughexecution, starvation, torture and exhaustion under the Khmer Rouge Communistregime by the militant dictator Pol Pot.PolPot was a Khmer, a member of Cambodia’s presiding ethnic group accounting forabout 80 percent of the population. He established an exceptionallysurprisingly ruthless and brutal reorganisation of Cambodian culture.
Hepersuaded to cleanse the nation of foreign influence and non-Khmers ethnictrace and imposed a more original communist agrarian classification. Pol Potpersecuted ethnic Vietnamese, Thai and Chinese Cambodians. He cleared thecities and moved all the urban dwellers and well educated to the country andforced them into physically demanding agricultural labour. Positioning theKhmer peasant as the state ideal, whiles his Khmer Rouge comrades performed theintellectuals’ role, killed anyone unable to cope with arduous work andannihilated all ethnic and religious minorities.
According to Kiernan, B., (2014), in his book; Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide inCambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79. He emphasised that, Pol Pot’s aimof barring 50,000 Muslim Chams from arriving and deporting 150,000 solelybecause they were not ‘pure Khmer people’. The Khmer Rouge regime referred tothe Islamic people as ‘enemies’ and engaged in racial suppression and forceddispersal of the Chams. It was common in Pol Pot’s reign of power that, he abused power byseising full control of the country in April 1975. During his four years ruleof Cambodia until 1979, Pol Pot oversaw nearly four years of genocide, crimesagainst humanity and aggression and crimes against neighbouring Vietnam andThailand. The scale of genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot could only be carriedout, due to that fact that, he seized full country of the country and henceharness state institutions in carrying out this heinous crime against humanity.This was an explicitly an ultimate state crime of genocideas passed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution, that it is thedenial of the right of existence of an entire human group.
Pol Pot’s regimeaimed to simultaneously eliminate urban classes, considering them as traitorswho have been contaminated by foreign influences and ethnic groups, which isstereotyped as suspect social classes. Thiswas in clear terms an obliteration of ethnic groups. It is evident that thenature of the ideology that drove this genocide was notably the explosivecombination of totalitarian political ambition and a racialist project ofethnic cleansing, (Ibid).The Rohingya’s In the case of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar according toBBC Report, 2017, titled; Myanmar bars UNprobe as mass grave found in Rakhine. It emphasised that the Rohingya ArsaMilitants attacked police posts and Myanmar’s army responded with a militaryclampdown. This incident has resulted in more than 650,000 Rohingya to escape Bangladesh,which is two-thirds of the entire population.It further stressed that aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres(MSF) estimates at least 6,700 Rohingya have been killed between 24 August – 25September 2017. The UN has held that the actions of state forces in Myanmaragainst Rohingya could potentially be classified as an act of genocide.
What is worse in this Rohingya crisis is that all humanrights monitors have been denied access to the country. Two reporters weredetained, threatening press freedom in Myanmar, (Ibid). The Rohingya crisis is in no doubt a clear case of genocideas already held by the UN; this is a systematic destruction of a group asargued by Balint, J., (2011), these are acts defined in international law as’crime against humanity’. The BBC Report further highlighted that the Myanmargovernment deprived of the Rohingya nationality and even omitted them from the2014 enumeration, thus rejecting to identify them as a people. The Myanmar regimesee’s Rohingya as unlawful settlers from Bangladesh. This is an ultimate statecrime of genocide as stated in 1948, United Nations definition of genocide, asan attempt to destroy an ethnic or religious group, by creating conditions thatwould cause the group’s destruction by starvation and to kill members of the group.
The past few years, before the up-to-dateemergency, numerous members of Rohingya have made dangerous voyages out ofMyanmar to escape public violence by the security forces. The Rohingya werealso attacked by the indigenous Buddhist mobs, and burnt their communities and confrontedand killed civilians, whiles seeking shelter in the area recognised as Cox’sBazaar. The BBC report stressed that Amnesty International has confirmed thatMyanmar military raped and ill-treated Rohingya females and teenagers.The Myanmar government who positions the quantity of departedRohingya at 400, claims the ‘clearance operations’ against the fighters finishedon 5 September 2017, but the BBC disputes that and claims as it has seenevidence of continuous violence. The current crisis inMyanmar against the Rohingya tribe stands on the edge of genocide. The Myanmargovernment has deliberately denied them primary health care, unable to work,which has forced them to abscond. What is more concerning is that many in theregime, of the Rhakine establishment and amongst the Buddhist extremists arekeen to encourage them to escape, so intense that the use of savagery toactivate a final mass departure of the Rohingya’s from Myanmar cannot be ruledout. The Rohingya crisisis a clear violation of the United Nations General Assembly resolution passedon the 11 December 1946.
It is a transparent intentional elimination of anidentified ethnic group, Ibrahim, A., 2016.Rwandan Genocide The Rwanda genocide as highlighted by Melvern,L.
, (2006), in his book: Conspiracy toMurder: The Rwandan Genocide, he emphasised that the role of the statemaking genocide the ultimate state crime. The then prime minister Jean Kambandaof Rwanda planned to and perpetrated the 1994 genocide that claimed the livesof an estimated 800,000 Rwandans. It was clear that the prime minister wasanti-Tutsi and hence believed that the Tutsi were racially alien. Thegovernment policy was to create a Hutu state without the Tutsi by exterminatingthem, which was against the United Nations General Assembly resolution passedin 1946, that genocide is the denial of the right to existence of an entirehuman group. Jean Kambanda was able to perpetuate the act of genocide byexercising de jury authority over the senior public servants and seniorofficers in the military. He used his influence in power to ensure all theTutsi tribe is exterminated, and this authority was aided by state institutionsmaking it possible for this crime against humanity to take place. The government in exterminating the Tutsi claimed that the Tutsinever had a country of their own to make themselves into people, and hence cameto Rwanda and got naturalised.
The Tutsi should have lived in neighbouringcountries where they were given refuge, but out of pride and arrogance, theywanted to impose their dominion on the Hutu people of Rwanda. The Tutsi hadmaltreated and eliminated all the Hutu kings and their dependents and ruled theHutu tribe with cruelty until the colonisers came in. The Hutu saw the Tutsi asproud, imperious, awkward and unreliable, whiles the Hutu were viewed ashumble, sincere, faithful, independent and impetuous.
These are the ideals thatunderpinned the genocide in Rwanda. Despite the origins of Rwandan’s history, both historians andanthropologist cannot agree on the sources of the divisions that were behindRwandans Cruel and terrible history. Whereas, others maintain that the raceidea of Hutu and Tutsi was orchestrated when the Europeans colonisers came tothe shores of Africa, that the Tutsi formed a superior race and wereintelligent and refined than the Hutu and majority of the other tribes. In thisview it was the colonisers who thought up the idea that the Tutsi had come fromsomewhere to invade the Hutu’s land, sadly the Hutu extremist based on theseversions of history during genocide presented the Tutsi’s as aliens, (Ibid).
The Rwandan genocide is further emphasised by Guichaoua, A.,2015, in his book: From War to Genocide:Criminal Politics in Rwanda, 1990–1994, that genocide is the ultimate statecrime as the military abused their power. It was done by pursuing the option ofconquering power by the insanity annihilating democratic organisations andforces, and eventually the Rwandan Tutsi civilian population. According to McLaughlin, E, 2001; in his book titled: The Problem of Crime 2nd edition,emphasised that it is difficult to distinguish between political and otherforms of violence. He believes it is state-sanctioned violence or internalviolence against the state.
It was asserted that it is only the state who canclaim the exclusive right to the use of physical force within a giventerritory, making it possible for the state to sanction violence. Theexceptional power invested in the country, regardless of its political orethnic formation, lies in its domination and institutionalisation of brutality.This assertion further substantiates the claim that genocideis the ultimate state crime, since it is only those in authority with the helpof governmental institutions who can cause murder, extermination, enslavementand other acts of crime against humanity. The acts of genocides that have beencovered from, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda genocide to mention but a few,are all traits that indicate that these were acts committed by individuals whowere in power at the time.
These individuals by their power enact laws with thehelp of state institutions to carry out these heinous acts of genocide. Genocide in DarfurAccording to Hagan, J., and Wenona, R., 2008, in their book; Darfurand the Crime of genocide, they emphasised that the genocide in Darfur wastribally motivated; thus, the Sudanese government feared that the Zaghawa tribewere leading a rebellion and hence targeted the tribe in early 2003.The Sudanese governmentspearheaded the ethnic exploitation including in the targeted brutality anddestruction of specific African groups in Darfur. The leaders in power residingin the capital Khartoum have learned thoroughly a technique of divide and rule,of throwing into confusion and co-opting ethnic, regional elites.
Ethnicity inthe warfare in Africa has proven to be by far one of the superior ideologicalweapons. The government encouraged racial and ethnic dissections by deployingArab militias for nearly twenty years in the south and then shifted thatactivity to the west, in Darfur. The government strategically mobilised thearmies among the landless, nomadic Arab leaders who were desperate for accessto water and grazing land for their livestock in an ecological community ofgrowing deforestation, (Ibid). Attacking a group because oftheir ethnicity is intentional, and intent is by law required element ofgenocide. The attack on ethnic groups was precisely what was happening inDarfur, and this intention was uttered both at specific individuals and tocorporate groups of people. From the level of individuals leading and takingpart in attacks to an organised groups level; i.e. the government of Sudanmilitary and the Janjaweed militia, who merge to terrify and target clusters ofsettlements for assaults, (Ibid).
It is clear; however, thatgenocide is an ultimate state crime as the genocide in Darfur recognise as asocially, politically, and historically manufactured race-related break-upbetween Arab and Black African groups in Sudan as a central part of theviolence in Darfur. The genocide was perpetrated by the Sudanese governmentbecause of racial insecurity in his state; that focuses on defensive reactionsto attacking threats. Transformational Model of Genocide inDarfurDiagram by: Hagan, J.
, and Wenona, R., 2008.Another contextualconsideration of the genocide is the contention for life-sustaining wealthstressed in a population perspective. This perspective sees agreement soliditynot merely a gathering of people but also the tender of desirable property,i.e.
possessions, livestock, and the settled land itself. Closely packed districts are whereopportunities and motivations are extreme and possessions most strained bythose that desire them. This influence of citizenry and wealth are also subjectto chance and more mediated by racial brutalisation.All these acts were carefullymanipulated by the Sudanese government with the aid of governmentalinstitutions, to suppress and ultimately annihilate ethnic groups. The diagramoutlines and elaborates on how systematic collective racial intent is builtfrom the summations and strenuous racial plan of individuals in a target set.In the diagram, thegovernment of Sudan is transformed genocidal state system produced by newcollaborative action at the far right of the description. The foundation ofthis state is also shown on the left side of the diagram; thus state-ledArabization philosophy with its dehumanisation “us” and “them”shared farming was discovered earlier from the mid-1980’s in Sudan.The advocacy for the supremacy of a group ideology explains theArabization policy and how it has played out regarding the emerging land andresources competition amongst the settled Black Africans and the nomadic Arabgroups in Darfur.
The government-backed militia leaders used their status,skills and efficiency to explode this vehemence with racial incentive. Thisculmination of the furious rage that connects apparent ethnic intent togenocidal brutality. Hagan, J., and Wenona, R.
, 2008, further highlighted that, politicalviolence can be tribal is well established, undeniably too well established,but how it is that ethnicity remains obscure. More assisted awareness needs to attributed to the forms and dynamics ofethnicization, to the many subtle ways in which cruelty and situations,procedures, actions and narratives linked to violence can take on ethnic tone. The Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir recently repudiated his owngovernment’s participation in genocide by acknowledging that; there were villagesburnt down, and people killed because there was war. However, he added that theSudanese culture and people of Darfur would not abuse and hence such acts donot exist in their learning. The president’s comments about sexual violence andunmethodical killings of civilians reflect some trepidation about the lessambiguous, indicating how the state is under-enforced in the constitutionalstanding of rape as a war crime.
Massacres are sometimes inevitable in war, butrape is not, (Ibid).It is explicit that the fighting in Darfur constituted genocideespecially when the brutality of state and race connected rape is regardedtogether with the broader evidence of death and obliteration. The crimes ofgenocide in Darfur extended well beyond the usual prominence on transience andshowed the existence that sexual violence occupies a central place in genocidalviolence. Dawn, R., and Christopher, M., 2010, in their book, State Crime: CurrentPerspectives; emphasised that, Ahmad Harun who was the former minister of statefor the interior of the government of Sudan, precisely head of security of theDarfur from April 2003 to September 2005. During his tenure in office, he wasanswerable for all military activities in Darfur. His actions remainedinfluential in fetching the Janjaweed military under the command of theSudanese army.
He provoked national and militia forces to engross in violationsof international criminal law on several occasions; mainly directing themagainst the Fur, Zaghawa and the Lasalit people. This charge is as a result of the actions of, Harun for using his officeto perpetrate acts of violence against ethnic groups. It could not havehappened had he, not been a government appointee, ultimately committinggenocide using state institution. This would equally be difficult for a non-governmental institution or agovernment appointee to perpetrate such acts since they do not command manypeople or organisations to carry out genocide. It is, however, clear thatgenocide is more comfortable and more efficiently perpetrated by governmentappointees or government organisation than a non-state institution.