Government social media post in April 2017 shows detainees in a political education camp in Lop County, Hotan Prefecture, Xinjiang. © Xinjiang Bureau of Justice WeChat Account Genocide Emergency: Xinjiang, China 2025   Twelve million people, mostly Uyghur Muslims, live in Xinjiang, China, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region  (XUAR). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to assimilate Uyghurs, replacing their culture with Han Chinese language and culture. Uyghur social and political institutions are being destroyed and replaced by CCP communism.   Since the 1990s, millions of Han Chinese have been resettled in Xinjiang under the "Big Development of the Northwest Plan." The CCP has detained millions of Uyghurs in "reeducation" camps, forcibly placing Han Chinese monitors in Uyghur homes to suppress independence movements. Officials justify these policies as “counterterrorism” measures.   In 1997, protests erupted after China banned Uyghur traditional celebrations, leading to a CCP crackdown that killed over 200 people and resulted in mass arrests. Tensions escalated in the 2009 Urumqi riots , ethnic clashes that left 200 dead.   Xinjiang is heavily surveilled, with widespread biometric data collection and AI-driven monitoring. "Convenience police stations" enforce CCP control, particularly targeting Uyghurs at checkpoints. Advanced Surveillance  technologies,  including AI monitoring and biometric data collection, track and control Uyghurs' movements.   Since 2017, 800,000 to 2 million Uyghurs have been detained in mass detention centers where they undergo forced CCP indoctrination, physical abuse, sexual violence, and cultural erasure. The Uyghur language is banned in these “reeducation camps.”  During indoctrination, detainees are coerced into abandoning Islam. The CCP has demolished many Uyghur mosques, severely restricting Uyghur religious freedom.   The Chinese government continues its campaign of Mass Detention  in Reeducation Camps , where Uyghur Muslims face Forced Assimilation  and Cultural Genocide  through CCP indoctrination and Uyghur language bans.   After "reeducation," Uyghurs are subjected to forced labor in cotton fields and factories, amounting to slavery. Forced Labor in Han Chinese or CCP owned factories is Chinese state policy. Global scrutiny of supply chains linked to Xinjiang factories resulted in Volkswagen's exit from Urumqi .   Family planning policies  restrict Uyghur births, violating Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention . Researcher Adrian Zenz  found that Uyghur population growth dropped 84% from 2015 to 2018. Forced Sterilization , forced abortions, and restrictive birth control policies suppress Uyghur population growth. They violate Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention. This persecution is also a Crime against Humanity.   Uyghur children are removed from their homes and placed in Mandarin-only schools. Removal of children is genocide, violating Article 2(e) of the Genocide Convention.   Genocide Watch  considers the CCP's repression of freedom of movement and religion, and its Orwellian surveillance of Uyghurs as Stage 3: Discrimination. The CCP's torture and imprisonment of Uyghurs into “re-education camps” is Stage 8: Persecution . Mass rape of women inside and outside these camps and CCP removal of Uyghur children is Stage 9: Extermination,  violation of the Genocide Convention. The CCP's denial of its acts of genocide are  Stage 10: Denial.  The Uyghur genocide is aided and abetted by "genocide scholar" deniers like William Schabas and Jeffrey Sachs.    Genocide Watch recommends: The US and other members of the UN should prohibit imports of goods produced by Uyghur forced labor. The US and other members of the UN should implement stricter supply chain tracking to ensure companies do not source materials from Uyghur forced labor. UN members should ensure that Uyghurs have access to humanitarian protection claims. UN members should provide support for Uyghur communities abroad, Uyghur refugees, and asylum seekers, including legal aid and resettlement programs. The US should forbid investments in Chinese companies that exploit Uyghur forced labor. The US and EU should bar exports of technology (AI, facial recognition) used in the Uyghur genocide.

By Faisal Ali Report finds paramilitary group responsible for vast majority of attacks as conflict devastates civilian population. The report documents systematic sexual violence against women in Sudan [File: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters] A women’s rights organisation has documented nearly 1,300 cases of endemic sexual and gender-based violence across war-torn Sudan, with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) blamed for the overwhelming majority of attacks. The Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA) released findings on Thursday showing it had verified 1,294 incidents spanning 14 states since Sudan’s brutal civil war started in April 2023. The disclosure underscores how sexual violence has become a systematic weapon in the war, the report said, which is one gruesome part of what humanitarian organisations have called the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. The SIHA network attributed 87 percent of cases where perpetrators were identified as RSF fighters, describing the violations as “widespread, repeated, intentional, and often targeted” rather than contained incidents. Rape accounted for more than three-quarters of documented incidents, while 225 cases involved children as young as four years old. The group outlined a calculated three-stage pattern accompanying RSF territorial advances. Initial home invasions and looting accompanied by rape, followed by attacks in public spaces as control solidifies, and finally the long-term detention of women subjected to torture, gang rape and forced marriage. “Women and girls from non-Arab tribes in Darfur, including the Masalit, Berti, Fur and Zaghawa, were directly targeted,” the report said. In Al-Gezira state, witnesses described RSF forces singling out lighter-skinned girls and women aged 14 to 30 as “trophies”. Just last week, the Sudan Doctors Network, a medical monitoring organisation, documented 19 additional rape cases at al-Afad Camp in al-Dabba, where women fleeing the recently fallen city of el-Fasher were attacked by RSF forces. Two survivors are pregnant and receiving care. Fighting for control of Kordofan The main fighting has shifted from Darfur, following the RSF capture of el-Fasher in October, to the vast central Kordofan region, which sits between territory controlled by the government-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in the east and RSF-held areas in the west. The paramilitary force currently holds a commanding position and has been advancing on urban centres across West Kordofan. After RSF forces captured the Heglig oilfield near the South Sudan border on December 8, both warring parties agreed to allow South Sudanese troops to secure the site, which serves as a critical economic lifeline for both countries. South Sudan confirmed that seven of its soldiers were killed on Thursday in a drone strike by the SAF. On December 5, RSF fighters attacked a preschool in Kalogi locality, killing more than 100 people, including 46 children. The attackers then targeted paramedics and civilians who rushed to assist victims in what authorities described as deliberate suicide drone strikes. United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk warned days earlier that Kordofan faces “another wave of mass atrocities,” saying history was “repeating itself” after international warnings before el-Fasher’s fall went largely unheeded. Since late October, the UN has documented at least 269 civilian deaths from bombardment, artillery fire and summary killings in the region, though communication blackouts suggest the actual toll is far higher. The conflict has displaced 12.4 million people and forced 3.3 million to flee as refugees since erupting in April 2023. In the meantime, the UN’s World Food Programme has said it will cut rations in Sudan from January because of severe funding gaps, warning that communities already facing famine will receive only 70% of their usual aid, with even deeper reductions for those at risk. The agency said that its resources could “fall off a cliff” by April. Massad Boulos, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, met this week with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, with both governments committing to “cut external financial and military backing for the belligerents” fuelling the war. The UK on Friday sanctioned four senior RSF commanders, including the group’s deputy leader and brother of its leaders, Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, over alleged mass killings and sexual violence in El Fasher. Washington sanctioned four Colombian nationals this week for running a recruitment network that has brought more than 300 military veterans to fight for the RSF, though the measures did not target a United Arab Emirates company that investigators say arranged the deployments. The UAE has repeatedly denied supporting the paramilitary force. © 2025 Al Jazeera Media Network

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addresses his supporters at a ceremony marking the third anniversary of the attempted coup. Photograph: Murad Sezer/Reuters The systemic oppression of Kurdish people in Turkiye dates back to the creation of the Turkish Republic. The Kurds have faced mass murders, deportations, wrongful arrests for expressing their identity, and political repression in the form of detaining democratically-elected members of the pro-Kurdish People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM). Turkiye’s political scene has taken a dramatic anti-democratic turn following the 2016 coup attempt. Civil society has been significantly constrained by limitations on freedom of speech, arbitrary arrests of opposition leaders on manufactured terrorism and corruption charges, and violent crackdowns on protestors. On May 12, 2025, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)  Abdullah Öcalan, announced the group’s decision to disband ;  this announcement came three months after his initial call for the group to disarm. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has continued his anti-Kurdish campaign, d espite the ceasefire and the apparent end to the conflict that has exacted a toll of 40,000 lives . Authorities have wrongfully arrested.  Kurdish writers and advocates of the Kurdish language on falsified charges of domestic terrorism, conducted extensive raids  in major cities   targeting Kurdish journalists and DEM party members, attempted to  intimidate  Kurds   living abroad, and continued their  military actions   despite the ceasefire.  On March 19, 2025, Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul and President Erdoğan’s biggest political rival,  was arrested   on trumped-up charges of corruption and terrorism. Since his detention, the  government has engaged in arbitrary arrests and violent crackdowns   on protesters on an unprecedented scale.  As reported by Amnesty International , police have used excessive force to disperse peaceful protesters with tear gas, water cannons, and kinetic impact projectiles. The authorities have broken international human rights law by firing at protesters’ upper bodies and heads at close range. Beatings and threats of sexual violence were reported by the victims. Around 2,000 people were detained during the protests.   The government also engaged in a campaign of censorship and misinformation, targeting human rights activists, journalists, and media outlets. Accusations of terrorism and links to the PKK were directed at over 100 politicians and officials .   Thirty-seven  people were detained   over social media posts, an arrest warrant was issued for the owner of   HalkTV , BBC correspondent Mark Lowen  was arrested and deported , and several radio and TV stations were threatened   with fines and revocations of their broadcasting licenses if they were to report on the protests.  On June 20, 2025, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan , made a visit to Turkiye   in an attempt to normalize diplomatic ties. The meeting follows Pashinyan’s recent decision to abandon the country’s efforts for international recognition of the Armenian genocide. The decision to exchange the pursuit of recognition of the Armenian genocide for political favors sets a dangerous precedent in international relations. The memory of genocide and its victims must never be reduced to political tools to be used at will.  Genocide Watch considers Turkiye to be at Stage 1: Classification, Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 6: Polarization, Stage 8: Persecution,  and  Stage 10: Denial .  Genocide Watch recommends:  The United Nations should create a dedicated U.N. special envoy tasked with facilitating dialogue, ensuring confidence-building measures are being employed, monitoring adherence to the ceasefire, and monitoring compliance with human rights law. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues should be appointed and tasked with investigating the lack of minority rights in Turkiye.  Prosecute police who engaged in beatings and threatened sexual violence against protesters.  INGOs should pressure the international bodies, such as the U.N., to officially recognize the Armenian genocide.

By Franzie Schatzl and Jack Budlow Before attending a local production of Chekhov’s “Ivanov,” two women publicly share a cigarette — a habit once considered socially unacceptable. Across Iran, women continue to find small ways to assert individuality, resist, and stretch the boundaries of what authorities deem acceptable behaviour. Photograph: Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times The erosion of the private sphere is a hallmark of totalitarianism. The demolition of individuality and individual rights gives a pathway to a new identity, one that is purposefully connected to the masses, to the power of the collective. Whilst individual rights may formally be retained on paper, they are actively hollowed out. Moreover, intrusion into the private sphere becomes normalized and therefore legitimate. By intruding into homes, relationships, and even our subconscious level, regimes dismantle the spaces where individuality and dissent may prevail. This paper examines how the Iranian regime erases the private sphere, focusing on home invasions and the “Loss of a Safe Space,” political polarization and apathy, loneliness and destruction of community spaces, the suppression of bodily autonomy, the erasure of women and history, and the extension of control into thought and imagination. This destruction of the private sphere not only undermines public and, therefore, private freedom, but it also extinguishes that freedom at its root by aspiring to extend state power into thought and emotion. The state systematically undermines the sanctity of private spaces, where individuality, trust, memory, and dissent can thrive. The destruction of the private sphere directly contributes to and accelerates the collapse of the public sphere – they are interdependent spheres. This results in freedom not only absent in public life, but extinguished in the most private corners of thought, memory, and identity. Resistance to authoritarian regimes must therefore recognize that the struggle for freedom is not only waged on the streets, but in families, homes, bodies, memories, and dreams . Full report available under:

Funeral for victims of a Boko Haram jihadist massacre credit: Al Jazeera Genocide in Nigeria 2025 By Greg Stanton, Founding President, Genocide Watch First published in 2024, updated to 2025   The Islamist genocide in Nigeria is now fifteen years old. Since 2012, Genocide Watch has issued Genocide Warnings for Nigeria because of Boko Haram, a terrorist group bent on genocide.  It has been the deadliest genocidal group in the world, with at least 27,000 murders.  Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.   Since 2015, Genocide Watch has also said that Fulani militias have been carrying out "genocidal massacres." The term indicates killing based on identity, but without centralized organization. It is now clear that the Fulani jihad is organized. It is financed by large Fulani cattle owners with the support of Fulani in the Nigerian Army.   "Genocide," like that being committed by Boko Haram, requires organization. That's because of the Genocide Convention's requirement that the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group must be "intentional."   The questions that have plagued the intent requirement is: intentional by whom? And how can you prove "intent?"  If a State or an organization like Boko Haram orders the genocide, it's possible to find intent two ways: 1. Orders from the leaders; or 2. A pattern of acts that show from their consequences that they are coordinated or connected by deliberate intent.   Boko Haram’s massacres are intentional genocide with orders from leaders. They also have a systematic pattern.   It is harder to prove that Fulani jihadist massacres are intentional genocide because: ·       Orders or policy statements from identifiable leaders have not been gathered. ·       Proof of coordination to show a systematic pattern of massacres has not been compiled.   Proving a coordinated, systematic pattern of massacres by Fulani jihadists   Fulani jihads spread Islam across northern Nigeria from 1804 - 1903, begun under Usman Dan Fodio of the Sokoto Caliphate.  Hausas, Kanuris, and other northern groups were forced to convert. There are now 25 million Fulani across West Africa, 15 million in Nigeria.   There is evidence that Fulani jihadism has been revived since 2015, and that Fulani militias are now in communication with Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).   Massacres by Fulani militias have killed over 17,000 Christians in Nigeria since 2015. That's why Genocide Watch calls them "genocidal massacres."  They target Christians, members of a religious group.    Do Fulani militias have the organization necessary to prove “genocide”, with genocidal intent?   Only a well-organized, credible investigation will be able to prove that Fulani massacres constitute genocide.   Law enforcement agencies in Nigeria do not have an effective unit to investigate and prosecute Fulani militias. The International Criminal Court’s preliminary investigation of Boko Haram in 2013 resulted in no charges.  The ICC has not launched a similar investigation of Fulani jihadists or ISWAP.   The current dominant narrative: “Herder-Farmer conflict” = Denial     Genocide deniers explain the massacres by Fulani Muslims against Christians as traditional herder-farmer “conflicts.” That is still the dominant narrative used by the US State Department and UK Foreign Office to “explain” these massacres. The "conflict" is blamed on "climate change," as the Sahel has been stricken by drought.   This narrative is the position of the US Ambassador to Nigeria, the State Department Africa Bureau, and the President of the American University in Nigeria. Unfortunately, they are wrong. Like Ambassador David Rawson in Rwanda in 1994, they seem to be unable to read the bloody handwriting on the church walls of Nigeria.   Conflict prevention organizations like The International Crisis Group, academic experts, and pacifist groups are fond of this narrative. So is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide.   Since 2015, when Muhammadu Buhari became President, the massacres have become deadlier. Fulani militias use AK47’s and arrive in trucks with 100 or more armed killers. They burn and depopulate whole Christian villages. In 2022 they derailed a train and took 200 hostages. They have massacred hundreds of worshipers in churches.   Fulani massacres since 2015 have been part of a campaign to forcibly displace Christian farmers from their villages and land.  Emptied villages are declared Fulani Emirates and land ownership is transferred for Fulani cattle grazing. The Benue state governor’s order to prohibit free cattle grazing on farmland belonging to other ethnicities was ignored by Fulani herdsmen and reversed by President Buhari.   The Fulani cultural and ranching organization, Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) was headed by President Buhari, himself. He is Fulani. Military investors have purchased large herds of cattle that are tended by Fulani herdsmen. They pay for the weapons distributed to Fulani militias who carry out the massacres.   The current President of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu has a degree in accounting from Chicago State University. After working for Mobil Oil, he entered politics in Buhari’s party and was elected President in 2023. He has not persuaded the Nigerian Army to protect Christian villages and stop the massacres.   Is this “genocide” or simply “ethnic cleansing?”   A combination of genocidal massacres and forced displacement was the murderous methodology of the genocides in Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur, and Myanmar.  Those genocides coupled with forced displacement were usually misnamed, using Slobodan Miloševiċ’s euphemism, “ethnic cleansing.”   There is no treaty or international convention that outlaws “ethnic cleansing.”  “Ethnic cleansing” is a term invented by Milošević for genocide denial.  As long as “ethnic cleansing” is the dominant term used to describe massacres, genocide risk analysts have shown that there will be no forceful intervention to stop the killing. [1]   When the dominant term in the press, UN, law reviews, and human rights reports changes to “genocide,” forceful action to stop the killing becomes possible. Calling the crime “genocide” makes a difference, as we showed with ISIS. Genocide is an action word. [2]   Genocide Watch considers "genocidal massacres" to be acts of genocide, and therefore "genocide." But lawyers with narrower concepts of intent don’t agree.  We need to prove coordination to prove “genocide”.   Foucher [3] claims that there is insufficient evidence that Presidents Buhari and Tinubu and the Nigerian Army support the Fulani massacres. Without solid proof, the strongest statement that can be made is that they have been "bystanders" to the Fulani genocide. The Nigerian government has not launched a program to stop the massacres.   We need to collect evidence of coordination by Fulani jihadist groups, and evidence of connections with Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa. The UN Human Rights Council should appoint an independent fact-finding mission on Nigeria to investigate. It could be led by the respected Bob Gersony.   Are the Nigerian government and Nigerian Army complicit in these massacres?   Fulani jihadists, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State in West Africa are now carrying out massacres across the Sahel, in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, and Sudan.  Africa has become the global center for terrorism.   Nigeria has the largest population in Africa. Nigeria's population is doubling every twenty years.  By 2050, Nigeria will have more people than the United States.  The US can't abandon Nigeria.   The accompanying Options Paper proposes several ways to conduct training of Nigerians to conduct well-organized, disciplined, credible investigations of massacres by Fulani jihadists, Boko Haram, and ISWAP in Nigeria.  It also proposes ways to empower existing Nigerian churches to warn, police, and counter this genocidal terrorism. [1]   2007 Blum, Stanton, Sagi, Richter, ‘Ethnic cleansing’ bleaches the atrocities of genocide. European Journal of Public Health, Oxford University Press, 1-6. [2]   2015 Stanton. Weak Words Are Not Enough, Testimony by Dr. Gregory Stanton to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and International Organizations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs   [3]   https://africasacountry.com/2020/02/bernard-henry-levy-in-nigeria-spectacle-versus-analysis/ U.S. Options for Investigating and Preventing Massacres in Nigeria By Greg Stanton, Genocide Watch   This paper will propose U.S. options for investigating massacres in Nigeria, propose what organizations and people would carry out each option, estimate the costs, and give pros and cons for each option.  It will also propose options for creating ongoing surveillance networks to prevent future massacres.   1.     Organize and carry out training for Nigerian law enforcement investigators .   Law enforcement personnel from the Nigerian police, Nigerian armed forces, and Nigerian legal and political ministries will receive training in and practical experience in investigating massacres, conspiracy crimes, financial and logistical networks of terrorist groups.   They will receive training in: Interviewing- with emphasis on victim/witness considerations; Translation – with emphasis on accuracy without additions or translator opinions; Evidence collection, with emphasis on evidence of human rights violations;  Document collection; Photography; Exploitation of media (cell phones, computers); and Chain of custody. They will learn how to use EyeWitness, a powerful cellphone app developed by the International Bar Association to document crimes, with encrypted time stamped, GPS-ed images uploaded to a secure server in London.  This evidence preserves chain of custody and is now accepted in European courts. US agencies, Nigerian human rights organizations, and ICON will train Nigerian law enforcement and government personnel about genocidal processes, early warning signs, and steps to prevent genocidal massacres. The trainees will receive education on warning signs of genocide and crimes against humanity, and how to prevent these crimes.   Organizations to carry out this training: The FBI’s Human Rights Center, Global Training Unit, and Evidence Response Team and The Department of Homeland Security’s Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center will conduct the training as part of the USG/USAID Democracy and Governance program in conjunction with the US Embassy and USAID in Abuja. Nigerian government experts on terrorism, US military assistance personnel, and Nigerian NGO’s will also be consulted and involved in planning and training.   Estimated Costs:  budget to be provided by the FBI and Homeland Security, the US Embassy and USAID in Abuja and Washington.  Costs: $ 5 million program costs. $ 1 million travel, lodging, and per diem for trainers and trainees.   Management :  By the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau (DRL) in the US Department of State and an interagency working group at State and the USAID Democracy and Governance program. An existing DRL officer with experience in Africa and interagency work could coordinate USG participation. A Program Coordinator will be hired by DRL to coordinate this program.  A USAID contractor will be hired to go to Nigeria to work with USAID and set up the training.   Source of Funding:  US Department of State DRL and USAID Democracy and Governance. Salaries for USG trainers will be paid by their respective government bureaus.   Pros: ·       This program will train Nigerians to enforce their own laws against terrorism. ·       It will help to create a network of Nigerians who will work to end jihadist massacres. Cons: ·       Unless this option is accompanied by Option 2, Nigerians trained in this program will not join and receive support from a special cadre of investigators and law enforcement personnel devoted to countering genocidal terrorism, and to facilitating arrests and prosecutions of perpetrators. ·       This training cannot overcome collusion that may exist between Nigerian government officials, Nigerian armed forces officers, Fulani businessmen and arms dealers, and Fulani militias. ·       The program must be added to the budgets of State and USAID, both of which will resist the additions. 2.     Support a Nigerian Strike Force to investigate and prosecute genocidal massacres.   Using carefully chosen personnel from Nigerian government agencies who have been trained in Option 1, help the Nigerian government set up a Strike Force to investigate and prosecute genocidal massacres by Fulani jihadists, Boko Haram, and ISIS in West Africa.   Embed American experts with the Strike Force who will oversee all expenditures of US aid, provide continuing training, and provide organizational assistance for the work of the Strike Force for three years.   Organizations to organize and support this Strike Force: Dedicated, honest law enforcement leaders should be chosen by the Nigerian government with advice of US FBI agents to organize this Strike Force.  The Strike Force should be a cadre of carefully recruited, highly disciplined Untouchables, like the people who make up our own FBI and Department of Homeland Security.  Members should be well paid and under constant surveillance. Corruption will mean immediate dismissal. Special care must be taken to secure the Strike Force against infiltration by jihadist sympathizers and to protect all communications with advanced encryption and cybersecurity. Strike Force personnel will need firearms training and dedicated armed protection, especially during investigations.   US agencies that will help set up this Strike Force should include the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, State Department, and USAID, working as an interagency team. USG personnel or contractors experienced in work with African governments, particularly in Nigeria, should be chosen to be embedded with this Strike Force for three years.   Estimated costs:   Over $10 million per year for three years.  Budget to be calculated by FBI, Homeland Security, Justice Department, State Department, and USAID program budget planning experts, in conjunction with US Embassy and USAID Abuja.   Embedded US advisors to the Strike Force will be paid from the budgets of their contributing agencies in the USG. Those agencies could be reimbursed from a special State Dept/USAID budget for this program.   Management : By dedicated program managers from USG entities like USAID, the FBI, Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice, or by contracting organizations approved for USAID programs.   Source of Funding :  Department of State DRL; USAID   Pros: ·       This Strike Force will build a specialized Nigerian action institution to investigate, arrest, and prosecute Fulani jihadists and other terrorists. ·       It will be independent of local police and prosecutors, who are often corrupt or cowardly. ·       If the President creates it, it could carry the political will necessary to bring perpetrators to justice. ·       If it is adequately funded and has excellent technical assistance, it could utilize connections with the FBI, Homeland Security, Interpol, US and EU Treasury Departments, and with arms control agencies for investigations of financial and arms networks.   Cons: ·       If the Strike Force finds evidence of Nigerian government complicity with jihadist massacres, the Strike Force could be quickly shut down. ·       The Nigerian government needs to take ownership of the Strike Force and be willing to fund it. Without strong Nigerian ownership, the Strike Force will accomplish little and soon die. ·       If corruption invades the Strike Force, it could become another instrument of police oppression. ·       The composition and leadership of the Strike Force will be subject to the same ethnic rivalries that pervade all Nigerian governmental institutions.         3.     Lobby President Tinubu, Nigerian Army leaders, and police to prevent Fulani jihadist massacres.   Through purposeful diplomacy, the US Embassy and allied European and African embassies could lobby President Tinubu and the Nigerian government to crack down and stop massacres by Fulani militias.  The US could offer Options 1 and 2 as direct assistance to the Nigerian government in this campaign.   The US and its allies could also use negative legal pressure such as the Global Magnitsky Act, visa bans, freezing of bank accounts of corrupt Nigerian officials, and other targeted sanctions to provide incentives for much more aggressive prevention of massacres and other crimes against humanity.   Organizations to lobby the Nigerian government:  US Embassy, Abuja. Counter-Boko Haram/ISIS-WA Field Rep Embassy Abuja; Allied embassies, especially the British embassy.  US military advisors to the Nigerian armed forces.  British military advisors.  Major oil companies that worked with President Tinubu.  Director of the FBI.  Assistant Secretary of State for DRL. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Other persons who know or could influence Tinubu.   Estimated costs:  Flights, lodging, and expenses for USG officials to Nigeria. Costs of official visits to the US and UK for Tinubu and key Nigerian officials.  Rough estimate: $1 million plus flight costs.   Management:  Washington DC: By Nigeria working group at US State Department, including DRL, African Affairs, Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Office of Global Criminal Justice, Office of International Religious Freedom, Bureau of Counterterrorism, others.   Abuja, Nigeria: Counter-Boko Haram/ISIS-WA Field Rep Embassy Abuja, Working group appointed by the US Ambassador.   Source of Funding : To be determined by State Department budget experts.   Pros: ·       This option uses diplomatic persuasion and pressure to engage the Nigerian government in actively stopping the Fulani jihadi and other terrorist massacres. ·       It will build stronger relations with Nigeria, Africa’s most important country. ·       It recognizes that Nigeria must solve its own problems.  No other nation or organization can.   Cons: ·       If President Tinubu or powerful Nigerian Army officers are aiding Fulani militias, this project will fail. ·       Even if the Nigerian government becomes more engaged, its own military has committed massacres and brutal oppression in the campaign against Boko Haram. ·       The Nigerian military is dominated by officers from the Hausa and Fulani ethnic groups. They may be unwilling to crush militants from their own groups.     4.     Train Nigerian church leaders in human rights documentation. Establish Human Rights Centers in existing church facilities.   Ask existing Nigerian church groups to select key leaders to be trained in human rights documentation. Set up and operate Human Rights Centers in existing Nigerian churches where people will be trained in human rights documentation. The centers will also provide secure maintenance of records of massacres and other human rights violations.   Some of the subjects for training are those listed in Option 1 for Nigerian law enforcement investigators. However, most trainees would be ordinary people, not law enforcement officers.  The training would be at a more basic level.   The models for this program are the human rights documentation programs conducted by Saint Óscar Romero of the Roman Catholic Church in El Salvador and the UN sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala.   Following training, the Human Rights Center personnel would document all cases of massacres, disappearances, torture, and other crimes against humanity.  The records would be kept as secure physical records protected from destruction.   They would also be scanned and sent to secure digital storage.   Organizations to Establish these human rights training and documentation centers: The Christian Association of Nigeria, an umbrella organization of the Catholic, mainline Protestant, and Pentecostal churches.  The Roman Catholic church has a strong Nigerian organization.  It might provide the broadest base for these Human Rights Centers. Nigerian church leaders would provide a list of denominations that should be part of this human rights center program.   Many of the organizers and leaders of Human Rights Centers would be pastors and priests of churches.   Estimated costs: Nigerian churches should provide the buildings, equipment, and personnel for these centers.  American churches would be asked to contribute funds to equip these Human Rights Centers.   The US government and US religious organizations could provide trainers to train Nigerians to educate church leaders, investigators, and reporters to monitor human rights violations, and report warning signs of impending massacres promptly to church leaders and Nigerian police and armed forces, as well as to villagers in danger.    Management: This project would be managed by American and Nigerian religious organizations and human rights organizations.  With convening support from churches, a coalition would be organized to establish and fund the work of these Human Rights Centers.   Source of Funding:   American churches, organized through existing church hierarchies.   Pros: ·       This program would be funded by American churches, so it would be independent of both the American and Nigerian governments. ·       It would use already existing church buildings, church pastors and priests, and church members. ·       It would mobilize Nigerian Christians for early warning and self-defense against massacres. ·       Because this option uses the extraordinary grass-roots penetration of churches, it would be best equipped to listen for early warnings and report them to armed authorities.   Cons : ·       Churches should not be organizations for armed resistance to Fulani militias.  That is a state and police function. ·       Churches must be limited to collection of intelligence about potential attacks. ·       Christian churches would not support military training for their members. ·       Churches cannot become armories for storage of weapons. ·       Fulani militias must be defeated by village self-defense forces, not by armed church groups. Copyright 2024 Genocide Watch Published by Genocide Watch with Creative Commons licensing rules: Free to republish with credit to Genocide Watch and without alteration of meaning or substance.

India Must Accept Responsibility for Its 1984 Sikh Genocide Time Magazine   October 31, 2014   Members of the Sikh community hold aloft a banner calling for the 1984 storming of Sikhism's holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, by Indian troops, to be recognised as genocide as they join a demonstration in central London on June 8, 2014, to mark the 30th anniversary of the assault known as Operation Blue Star.LEON NEAL—AFP/Getty Images   By Simran Jeet Singh 1984 remains one of the darkest years in modern Indian history. In June of that year, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a military assault on the most significant religious center for the Sikhs, Darbar Sahib (i.e., the Golden Temple) in Amritsar, Punjab. The attack killed thousands of civilians.   On October 31, 1984, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards. Her assassination triggered genocidal killings around the country, particularly in India’s capital city, New Delhi. TIME reported on the massacres  just days after the violence subsided: Frenzied mobs of young Hindu thugs, thirsting for revenge, burned Sikh-owned stores to the ground, dragged Sikhs out of their homes, cars and trains, then clubbed them to death or set them aflame before raging off in search of other victims. Witnesses watched with horror  as the mobs walked the streets of New Delhi, gang-raping Sikh women, murdering Sikh men and burning down Sikh homes, businesses and Gurdwaras (Sikh houses of worship). Eyewitness accounts  describe how law enforcement and government officials participated in the massacres by engaging in the violence, inciting civilians to seek vengeance and providing the mobs with weapons. The pogroms continued unabated, and according to official reports , within three days nearly 3,000 Sikhs had been murdered, at a rate of one per minute at the peak of the violence . Unofficial death estimates are far higher, and human rights activists have identified specific individuals complicit in organizing and perpetrating the massacres. “Almost as many Sikhs died in a few days in India in 1984 than all the deaths and disappearances in Chile during the 17-year military rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet between 1973 and 1990,” pointed out  Barbara Crossette, a former New York Times bureau chief in New Delhi, in a report for World Policy Journal . Thirty years later, those who survived the violence  have yet to receive any semblance of justice. Most perpetrators have yet to be yet to be charged and held accountable for their crimes, and many of the affected families continue to live in poverty and disenfranchisement to this day.  The Indian government’s formal position for three decades has been that accountability comes in the form of silence. The Indian government is certainly not the first to massacre its own citizenry. Yet, as Crossette points out, so many of the nations complicit in ethnic cleansing – including Chile, Argentina, Rwanda and South Africa – have recognized the importance of addressing past atrocities. Yet the Indian state stubbornly refuses to admit its fault and take ownership of its participation in mass violence, despite enormous evidence to the contrary. It would help if we started with language. The term commonly used to describe the anti-Sikh pogroms of 1984 is “riot.” The word riot is problematic because it implies random acts of disorganized violence. It invokes images of chaos that overwhelms law enforcement and the government that is there to protect its people. The anti-Sikh violence of 1984 was not a riot. The massacres were not spontaneous, anomalous or disorganized. According to a report belatedly commissioned by the Government of India in 2000, “but for the backing and help of influential and resourceful persons, killing of Sikhs so swiftly and in large numbers could not have happened.” Our failure to properly define the problem has also meant that it has not received the appropriate response; neither the Indian government nor the international community has treated the violence for what it is – a crime against humanity. If we were to accurately update the language we use to describe the anti-Sikh violence, maybe we could then finally begin a proper discussion about accountability and reparations. Acknowledging the malicious intent underlying the massacres is the first step towards reconciliation. Although 30 years have now passed, India has a historic opportunity to make amends and seek reconciliation while those directly affected by the violence are still alive. It behooves the Indian state to seek closure on this issue, while the primary stakeholders – survivors and perpetrators alike – are around to reach a resolution. Until then, political stability will remain a challenge as minorities in India, including its more than 21 million Sikhs, will continue to feel alienated and targeted by their own government. Simran Jeet Singh is the Senior Religion Fellow for the Sikh Coalition and a PhD candidate in the Department of Religion at Columbia University. He currently serves as a Truman National Security Fellow and the Rachel F. and Scott McDermott Fellow for the American Institute of Indian Studies. Simran has earned degrees from Harvard, Columbia and Trinity Universities, and writes and speaks frequently on issues related to religion, human rights, civil liberties, hate violence, community advancement and social justice. https://time.com/3545867/india-1984-sikh-genocide-anniversary/ © 2014 TIME USA, LLC.

Translation of Ten Stages of Genocide into Punjabi   Source article in English by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton translated by Jaspreet Singh   The Golden Temple, or Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar photo© Tigerbarb/Shutterstock.com ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਦ (Process of Genocide)  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਇੱਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਦੱਸ ਪੜਾਅ   ਵਿੱਚ ਵਿਕਸਿਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਪੜਾਅ ਪੂਰੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਅੱਗੇ-ਪਿੱਛੇ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਪਰ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਨਹੀਂ। ਹਰ ਪੜਾਅ 'ਤੇ ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਕਦਮ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਸਿੱਧੀ ਰੇਖਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਹੀਂ ਚਲਦੀ; ਪੜਾਅ ਇੱਕ-ਦੂਸਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਮੇਂ ਉੱਭਰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਹਰ ਪੜਾਅ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸਦੀ ਤਰਕ ਸ਼ੈਲੀ ਇੱਕ ਰੂਸੀ ਮੈਟ੍ਰਿਯੋਸ਼ਕਾ (ਗੁੱਡੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਗੁੱਡੀਆਂ) ਵਰਗੀ ਹੈ — ਕੇਂਦਰ ਵਿੱਚ "ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ" (Classification) ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਬਾਕੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਂ ਅੱਗੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਵੱਧ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ। ਜਿਵੇਂ-ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸਮਾਜ ਹੋਰ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ-ਸੰਬੰਧੀ   ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਕਸਿਤ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਹ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਪਹੁੰਚਦਾ ਹੈ। ਪਰ ਸਾਰੇ ਪੜਾਅ ਮੁੜ-ਮੁੜ ਸਾਰੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਚੱਲਦੇ ਰਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ।    I.  ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ (Classification)   ਹਰ ਸਭਿਆਚਾਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ "ਅਸੀਂ" ਤੇ "ਉਹ" ਵੰਡਣ ਲਈ ਵਰਗ ਬਣਾਏ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ—ਨਸਲ, ਧਰਮ, ਜਾਤੀ ਜਾਂ ਕੌਮ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ: ਜਰਮਨ ਤੇ ਯਹੂਦੀ, ਹੁਤੂ ਤੇ ਤੁਤਸੀ। ਜਿਹੜੇ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੋ-ਧੁਰੇ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਿਲੀ-ਜੁਲੀ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਣੀਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀਆਂ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਰਵਾਂਡਾ ਤੇ ਬੁਰੁੰਡੀ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ-ਰਾਜ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ "ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ" ਹੈ। ਕਿਸੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੀ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਖਤਮ ਕਰ ਦੇਣਾ ਜਾਂ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਤੋਂ ਵੰਚਿਤ ਕਰਨਾ — ਉਸ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਖਤਮ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।    ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਜਰਮਨੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੋਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ   ਵੱਲ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਕਦਮ ਉਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਸਨ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਜਰਮਨ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਖਤਮ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ।    ਬਰਮਾ ਦੇ 1982 ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਨੇ ਰੋਹਿੰਗਿਆ ਸਮਾਜ ਨੂੰ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਨੇ ਮੁਸਲਿਮ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦਾ ਰਸਤਾ ਬੰਦ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਦੀਆਂ ਤੱਕ ਦੀ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ   ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ 1924 ਵਿੱਚ ਹੀ ਨੇਟਿਵ ਅਮਰੀਕੀ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ।    ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ  ਇਸ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਪੜਾਅ 'ਤੇ ਸਰਵਜਨਿਕ ਸੰਸਥਾਵਾਂ ਬਣਾਈਆਂ ਜਾਣ ਜੋ ਨਸਲੀ ਜਾਂ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ ਵੰਡ ਤੋਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਚੱਲਦੀਆਂ ਹੋਣ। ਉਹ ਸਹਿਣਸ਼ੀਲਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਸਮਝ-ਬੁੱਝ ਨੂੰ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਹਿਤ ਕਰਨ, ਅਤੇ ਵੰਡ ਤੋਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ ਨੂੰ ਉਭਾਰਣ। ਰਵਾਂਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੈਥੋਲਿਕ ਚਰਚ ਇਹ ਭੂਮਿਕਾ ਨਿਭਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਸੀ, ਜੇਕਰ ਉਹ ਖੁਦ ਵੀ ਉਸੇ ਨਸਲੀ ਵੰਡ ਨਾਲ ਵੰਡਿਆ ਨਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ।  ਤਨਜ਼ਾਨੀਆ ਵਰਗੇ ਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਵੀ ਇੱਕ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਪਹਿਚਾਣ ਨੂੰ ਮਜ਼ਬੂਤ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਰਸਤੇ — ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਵੱਲ ਰੁਕਾਵਟਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੋੜਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਇਹ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਦੀ ਖੋਜ — ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਰੋਕਥਾਮ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਹੈ।    II. ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਰਣ (Symbolization)  ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਹੋਰ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਾਂ। ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ “ਯਹੂਦੀ” ਜਾਂ “ਜਿੱਪਸੀ” ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਾਂ, ਜਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰੰਗਾਂ   ਜਾਂ ਕੱਪੜਿਆਂ   ਰਾਹੀਂ ਵੱਖਰਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਾਂ; ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੇ ਮੈਂਬਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਜੋੜ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਾਂ।ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ   ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਰਣ   ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਸਮਾਜ ਦਾ ਸਾਰਵਭੌਮ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਉਦੋਂ ਹੀ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ   ਵੱਲ ਲੈ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਦੋਂ ਇਹ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ-ਹੀਣਤਾ(insānīyat viheen karna) ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਜਦੋਂ ਇਹ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਤਦੋਂ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ, ਬੇ-ਮਨਜ਼ੂਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਲਾਏ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਸ਼ਾਸਨ ਹੇਠ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਪੀਲਾ ਤਾਰਾ ,  ਜਾਂ ਖਮੇਰ ਰੂਜ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਾਸਨ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਕਾਂਬੋਡੀਆ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਖੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਨੀਲਾ ਸਕਾਰਫ਼ ।   ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ  ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਰਣ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਭਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸਵਾਸਤਿਕਾ — ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨ) ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਰੋਕਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਭਰੇ ਬੋਲ   ਵੀ ਰੋਕੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਗੈਂਗਾਂ ਦੇ ਖਾਸ ਕੱਪੜੇ ਜਾਂ ਕਬੀਲਾਈ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨੇ ਵੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬੰਦ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਪਰ ਇਹ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਉਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਨਾਕਾਮ   ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਦੋਂ ਲੋਕ-ਸੱਭਿਆਚਾਰਕ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਨਾ ਮਿਲੇ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜੋਂ, ਬੁਰੁੰਡੀ ਵਿੱਚ 1980 ਦੇ ਦਹਾਕੇ ਤੱਕ “ਹੁਤੂ” ਅਤੇ “ਤੁਤਸੀ” ਸ਼ਬਦਾਂ ਨੂੰ  ਮਨ੍ਹਾਂ  ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ, ਪਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਬਦਲੇ ਗੁਪਤ ਜਾਂ ਕੋਡ ਸ਼ਬਦਵਰਤਣੇ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ।  ਜਦੋਂ ਵੱਡੇ ਪੱਧਰ 'ਤੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਮਿਲੇ, ਤਦੋਂ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਰਣ ਦੀ ਅਣਗਹਿਲੀ   ਬਹੁਤ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਸ਼ਾਲੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ ,  ਬੁਲਗਾਰੀਆ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੇ ਕਾਫ਼ੀ ਪੀਲੇ ਬੈਜ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਵਾਏ ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ 80% ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਉਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਹਿਨੇ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਵਜੋਂ ਪੀਲੇ ਤਾਰੇ ਦੀ ਮਹੱਤਤਾ ਖਤਮ ਹੋ ਗਈ।    III. ਭੇਦਭਾਵ (Discrimination)  ਇੱਕ ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ (ਸੱਤਾ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਮੂਹ) ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ,  ਰਿਵਾਜਾਂ   ਅਤੇ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਹੋਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ।ਗੈਰ-ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ (ਬੇਸੱਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਸਮੂਹ) ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ,  ਵੋਟ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਇੱਥੋਂ ਤੱਕ ਕਿ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ   ਵੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਦੀ।  ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਇੱਕ ਬਾਹਰਕਾਰੀ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾ (ਬਾਹਰ ਕੱਢਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਸੋਚ) ਨਾਲ ਚਲਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਵੰਚਿਤ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾ ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਲਈ ਤਾਕਤ ਦੇ ਇਕੱਠ ਜਾਂ ਵਿਸਥਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਠਹਿਰਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੀੜਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਰੂਪ ਦਿੰਦੀ ਹੈ।ਅਜਿਹੀਆਂ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਮਰਥਕ ਅਕਸਰ ਕਰਿਸ਼ਮਾਈ ਨੇਤਾ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਮਰਥਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਗੁੱਸੇ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਰਾਜ਼ਗੀ ਨੂੰ ਆਵਾਜ਼ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ:  ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਜਰਮਨੀ ਦੇ 1935 ਦੇ ਨਿਊਰਨਬਰਗ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਜਰਮਨ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਛੀਣੀ ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਨੌਕਰੀ ਮਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਕੀਤੀ।  ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਨੇਟਿਵ ਅਮਰੀਕਨਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਅਫਰੀਕੀ-ਅਮਰੀਕਨਾਂ ਖ਼ਿਲਾਫ਼ ਭੇਦਭਾਵ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੀ  ਦਰਜ  ਸੀ—ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ-ਯੁੱਧ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੇ ਸੰਸ਼ੋਧਨਅਤੇ 20ਵੀਂ ਸਦੀ ਦੇ ਮੱਧ ਦੇ  ਨਾ ਗਰਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਲਾਗੂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਏ।  ਮਿਆਨਮਾਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੋਹਿੰਗਿਆ ਮੁਸਲਿਮ ਘੱਟਸੰਖਿਆਕਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੇ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਨੇ 2017 ਵਿੱਚ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਲੱਖਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ ਬਣਨਾ ਪਿਆ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:  ਸਮਾਜ ਦੇ ਹਰੇਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਲਈ ਪੂਰੀ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸੁਨਿਸ਼ਚਿਤ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ।  ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ, ਜਾਤੀ, ਨਸਲ ਜਾਂ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਕਿਸਮ ਦਾ ਭੇਦਭਾਵ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮਨ੍ਹਾਂ   ਹੋਵੇ।  ਹਰ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਹੋਵੇ ਕਿ ਜੇਕਰ ਰਾਜ ,  ਕੰਪਨੀਆਂ ਜਾਂ ਹੋਰ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਉਸਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਲੰਘਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਾਮਲਾ ਦਰਜ ਕਰ ਸਕੇ।    IV. ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ-ਹੀਣਤਾ (Dehumanization)  ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੂਜੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੀ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਪੀੜਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੇ ਮੈਂਬਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ,  ਕੀੜੇ-ਮਕੌੜਿਆਂ ਜਾਂ ਬਿਮਾਰੀਆਂ   ਦੇ ਬਰਾਬਰ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਹੱਤਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਸਧਾਰਨ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ   ਖ਼ਤਮ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਮੰਚ 'ਤੇ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ   — ਅਖ਼ਬਾਰਾਂ, ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਰੇਡਿਓ ,  ਅਤੇ ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਮੀਡੀਆ ਰਾਹੀਂ — ਪੀੜਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਬਦਨਾਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਸਕੂਲੀ ਕਿਤਾਬਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਜਿਹੀ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾਤਮਕ ਧੁਲਾਈ (indoctrination / ਮਨ-ਧੋਇਆਂ ਵਾਲੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ) ਭਵਿੱਖ ਦੇ ਉਕਸਾਵਿਆਂ (incitement — ਭੜਕਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਦਮਾਂ) ਲਈ ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਸਿਖਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਦੂਜਾ ਸਮੂਹ “ਅਧੂਰਾ ਮਨੁੱਖ ”  ਹੈ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਮਾਜ ਦਾ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਾਸ ਦਿਵਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ:  “ ਅਸੀਂ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਹੋਰ ਚੰਗੇ ਹਾਂ ।”   ਪੀੜਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਇੰਨਾ ਗੈਰ-ਵਿਅਕਤੀਗਤ (depersonalized — ਵਿਅਕਤਿਤਾ ਤੋਂ ਰਹਿਤ) ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਥਾਂ ਨੰਬਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਕੈਂਪਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ। ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ  ਨੂੰ  ਗੰਦਗੀ ,  ਅਸ਼ੁੱਧਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੈਤਿਕਤਾ   ਨਾਲ ਜੋੜਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਬੋਲ ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਰੇਡਿਓ ,  ਅਖ਼ਬਾਰਾਂ   ਅਤੇ   ਭਾਸ਼ਣਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਫੈਲਾਏ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ।    ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਲਈ ਉਕਸਾਉਣ (incitement) ਨੂੰ ਕਦੇ ਵੀ  “ ਅਭਿਵਕਤੀ ਦੀ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀ ”  ਦੇ ਤਹਿਤ ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਠਹਿਰਾਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ।  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮਾਜਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਅਵਾਜ਼ਾਂ ਦੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ, ਇਸ ਲਈ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਲੋਕਤੰਤਰਾਂ ਵਾਂਗ ਬਰਤਾਅ (treat) ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ।  ਸਥਾਨਕ ਅਤੇ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਨੇਤਾ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਦੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਇਸਨੂੰ  ਸੱ ਭਿਆਚਾਰਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਅਸਵੀਕਾਰਯੋਗ   ਬਣਾਉਣ।  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਲਈ ਉਕਸਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ  ਨੂੰ  ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਤੋਂ ਰੋਕਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਸੰਪਤੀ ਜ਼ਬਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਫੈਲਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਰੇਡਿਓ ਸਟੇਸ਼ਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੰਦ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ ਜਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਗਨਲ ਜਾਮ   ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ।  ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਮੀਡੀਆ ਅਤੇ ਇੰਟਰਨੈਟ 'ਤੇ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਇਸਦੇ ਸਰੋਤਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀ ਲਾਈ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਅਧਾਰਿਤ ਅਪਰਾਧਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਅੱਤਿਆਚਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ।    V. ਸੰਗਠਨ (Organization)  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ   ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾ ਸੰਗਠਿਤ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਅਕਸਰ ਇਹ ਰਾਜ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਚਲਾਈ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਰਾਜ ਆਪਣੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ  ਤੋਂ  ਇਨਕਾਰ ਕਰ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ: ਦਰਫੂਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੰਜਵੀਦ)। ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਇਹ ਗੈਰ-ਰਸਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ   ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਆਰ.ਐਸ.ਐਸ. ਕਾਰਕੁਨਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਚਲਾਏ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹਜੂਮ),  ਜਾਂ  ਵਿਕੇਂਦਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਆਤੰਕੀ ਗਰੁੱਪ)। ਖ਼ਾਸ ਫੌਜੀ ਯੂਨਿਟਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਅਕਸਰ ਤਰਬੀਅਤ   ਅਤੇ ਹਥਿਆਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ-ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਲਈ ਯੋਜਨਾਵਾਂ   ਬਣਾਈਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਅਕਸਰ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ-ਯੁੱਧ ਜਾਂ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਜੰਗਾਂ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਹਥਿਆਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਪਲਾਈ (ਭਾਵੇਂ ਇਹ ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਦੀ ਹਥਿਆਰ-ਪਾਬੰਦੀ ਦੇ ਉਲੰਘਣ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਹੀ ਕਿਉਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ) ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਆਸਾਨ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਰਾਜ ਗੁਪਤ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਵਿਰੋਧੀਆਂ 'ਤੇ ਨਿਗਰਾਨੀ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ   ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰ ,  ਤਸ਼ੱਦਦ ਅਤੇ ਹੱਤਿਆ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਟੀਚੇ ਬਣਾਏ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਨਫ਼ਰਤ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਮਾਧਮਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਖ਼ਾਸ ਤਰਬੀਅਤ   ਰਾਹੀਂ ਫੈਲਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ—ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ,  ਡੈਥ ਸਕੁਆਡਾਂ   ਅਤੇ ਖ਼ਾਸ ਕਤਲ ਯੂਨਿਟਾਂ(ਜਿਵੇਂ ਨਾਜ਼ੀ ਐਨਸਾਟਜ਼ਗਰੂਪਨ, ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਯੂਰਪ ਵਿੱਚ 15 ਲੱਖ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰਿਆ) ਨੂੰ ਮਨੋਵਿਗਿਆਨਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਤਿਆਰ   ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ-ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਦੱਸਤਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਹੋਵੇ।  ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਵੀਜ਼ੇ ਰੱਦ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਸੰਪਤੀ ਜ਼ਬਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਐਸੇ ਰਾਜਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਹਥਿਆਰ-ਪਾਬੰਦੀ ਲਗਾਈ ਜਾਵੇ ਜੋ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ।  ਉਲੰਘਣਾਂ ਦੀ ਜਾਂਚ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕਮੇਸ਼ਨ ਬਣਾਈਆਂ ਜਾਣ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਬਾਅਦ ਰਵਾਂਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ।  ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਅਪਰਾਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਯੋਜਨਾ   ਬਣਾਉਂਦੇ ਅਤੇ ਅੰਜ਼ਾਮ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ।      VI. ਧ੍ਰੁਵੀਕਰਨ (Polarization)  ਅਤਿਵਾਦੀ ਤਾਕਤਾਂ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇੱਕ-ਦੂਜੇ ਤੋਂ ਦੂਰ ਧੱਕ ਦਿੰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ ਸਮੂਹ (hate groups) ਧ੍ਰੁਵੀਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ   ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਕਾਨੂੰਨਾਂ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਵੱਖ-ਵੱਖ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ   ਵਿਆਹ   ਜਾਂ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਮਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਸਮਾਜ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੰਡ ਹੋਰ ਗਹਿਰੀ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਅਤਿਵਾਦੀ ਆਤੰਕਵਾਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈਆਂ ਅਕਸਰ ਮੱਧਮਵਾਦੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਾ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ — ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਡਰਾਉਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਕੇਂਦਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਆਵਾਜ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਚੁੱਪ ਕਰ ਦਿੰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਣ ਦੀ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਸਮਰਥਾ ਅਕਸਰ  ਹਾ ਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੇ ਮੱਧਮਵਾਦੀ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ   ਵਿੱਚ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਲਈ ਉਹ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰ   ਜਾਂ ਕਤਲ   ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਟੀਚੇ ਬਣਾਏ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਨੇਤਾ ਅਗਲੇ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨੇ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ — ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਐਮਰਜੈਂਸੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਜਾਂ ਹੁਕਮਨਾਮੇ ਪਾਸ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਟੀਚੇ ਬਣੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਉੱਤੇ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਾਬੂ   ਮਿਲ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਬੁਨਿਆਦੀ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰ ਦਿੰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਟੀਚੇ ਬਣੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹਥਿਆਰੋਂ ਤੋਂ ਵੰਚਿਤ   ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਨਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਣ ਅਤੇ ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਹਕੂਮਤ ਯਕੀਨੀ ਬਣੀ ਰਹੇ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:  ਮੱਧਮਵਾਦੀ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਅਤਿਵਾਦੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਪਤੀ ਜ਼ਬਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵੀਜ਼ੇ ਰੱਦ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ।  ਜੇਕਰ ਅਤਿਵਾਦੀ ਤਖ਼ਤਾ ਪਲਟ (coup d’état) ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਤਾਂ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਰੀ ਇਕਾਂਤਕਰਨ (isolation) ਰਾਹੀਂ ਇਸਦਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੈਂਬਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰੀ ਖ਼ਿਲਾਫ਼ ਤਿੱਖਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਜਰੂਰਤ ਪੈਣ 'ਤੇ ਟੀਚੇ ਬਣੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਹਥਿਆਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਜਾਣ।  ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ   ਨੂੰ ਧ੍ਰੁਵੀਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਭਾਸ਼ਣ ਦੀ ਖੁੱਲ੍ਹੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਸ਼ਿਕਸ਼ਾ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀ   ਰਾਹੀਂ ਸਹਿਣਸ਼ੀਲਤਾ   ਸਿਖਾਈ ਜਾਵੇ।      VII. ਤਿਆਰੀ (Preparation)  ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੇ ਨੇਤਾ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਯਹੂਦੀ, ਅਰਮੀਨੀਅਨ, ਤੁਤਸੀ ਆਦਿ) ਲਈ “ਅੰਤਿਮ ਹੱਲ” (Final Solution)   ਦੀ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਅਸਲ ਮੰਸ਼ਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਓਹਲੇ ਰੱਖਣ ਲਈ, ਉਹ ਅਕਸਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਜਾਂ ਧੋਖੇਬਾਜ਼ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਿਵੇਂ — - “ ਨਸਲੀ ਸਫਾਈ ” (ethnic cleansing) - “ ਸ਼ੁੱਧੀਕਰਨ ” (purification) -“ ਆਤੰਕਵਾਦ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ” (counter-terrorism operation)  ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ:  ਫੌਜਾਂ ਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਹਥਿਆਰ ਖਰੀਦੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਫ਼ੌਜੀਆਂ ਤੇ ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤਰਬੀਅਤ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਆਮ ਜਨਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਡਰਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਸਮਾਜ ਲਈ ਖ਼ਤਰਾ ਹੈ ।   ਨੇਤਾ ਅਕਸਰ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ:  “ਜੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਮਾਰ ਦੇਣਗੇ।” ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਆਤਮ-ਰੱਖਿਆ ਵਜੋਂ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਘ੍ਰਿਣਾ-ਭਰੇ ਭਾਸ਼ਣਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਚਾਨਕ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਆ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸਦਾ ਮਕਸਦ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਡਰ ਅਤੇ ਨਫ਼ਰਤ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਂ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ-ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਜਾਂ ਭ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਾਚਾਰ ਦੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ) ਜੋ ਹਾਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੀ ਹਕੂਮਤ ਨੂੰ ਚੁਣੌਤੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਉਤੇਜਿਤ ਕਰ ਦਿੰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:  ਹਥਿਆਰ-ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ (arms embargoes) ਲਗਾਈਆਂ ਜਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਲਈ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਕਮੇਸ਼ਨ ਬਣਾਏ ਜਾਣ।  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਲਈ ਉਕਸਾਵਾ (incitement) ਅਤੇ   ਸਾਜ਼ਿਸ਼ (conspiracy) ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸਖ਼ਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਹ ਦੋਵੇਂ ਹੀ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਕਨਵੇਂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ Article   3   ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਅਪਰਾਧ   ਹਨ।  ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਲਾਗੂ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਏਜੰਸੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰ ਕਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਚਲਾਉਣਾ   ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ।      VIII. ਪੀੜਨਾ (Persecution)   ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਿਸਟਮੈਟਿਕ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਪਛਾਣ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਸਲ, ਧਰਮ ਜਾਂ ਜਾਤੀ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ ਵੱਖ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਮੌਤ-ਸੂਚੀਆਂ (death lists) ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ।ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਪਤੀ ਜ਼ਬਤ ਕਰ ਲਈ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਨੌਕਰੀਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਕੱਢਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਪੀੜਨਾ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ:   ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੈਟੋ (ghettos), ਕੈਂਪਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਅਣਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਹਾਲਾਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ— -  ਭੁੱਖਮਰੀ, - ਵੰਸ਼-ਨਾਸ਼ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਗਰਭਪਾਤ, -  ਬੱਚਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਅਪਹਰਨ, - ਲਿੰਗ-ਅਧਾਰਤ ਹਿੰਸਾ—ਵਿਆਪਕ ਪੀੜਨਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਸਰਕਾਰਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਉਲੰਘਣ ਦੇ ਉਦਾਹਰਨ:   ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੌਮੀ ਸੰਸਦਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਾ ਬਣੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਵਿਤਕਰੇ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਪਾਸ ਕਰਨਾ।  ਰਾਜ ਦੇ ਹਥਿਆਰਬੰਦ ਦਸਤਿਆਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਵੱਡੇ ਪੱਧਰ 'ਤੇ ਗ੍ਰਿਫ਼ਤਾਰੀਆਂ।  ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਨਸਨਟ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਕੈਂਪਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਧੱਕਣਾ।  ਇਹ ਪੜਾਅ ਅਕਸਰ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਦਾ ਮੋੜ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਸ ਸਮੇਂ ਵੱਡੇ ਪੱਧਰ 'ਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ:   ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸੰਕੇਤ ਮਿਲਣ 'ਤੇ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਹੈ।  ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਪਰਿਸ਼ਦ, ਖੇਤਰੀ ਗਠਜੋੜ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸੰਸਥਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਅਤੇ ਆਰਥਿਕ ਦਬਾਅ ਪਾਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ-ਪੂਰਵ ਕਾਰਵਾਈਆਂ 'ਤੇ ਨਿਗਰਾਨੀ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਜਾਂਚ ਕਮੇਸ਼ਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਥਾਪਨਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ—ਜਾਂ ਤਾਂ ਰਾਜ ਅੰਦਰਲੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਲਾਗੂ ਕਰਕੇ, ਜਾਂ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ-ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਦਸਤਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਮਦਦ ਨਾਲ I    IX. ਨਾਸ਼ (Extermination)  ਨਾਸ਼ ਪੜਾਅ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਬਹੁਤ ਵੱਡੀ ਹੱਦ ਤੱਕ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਹੱਤਿਆ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਦਲ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ ‘ਤੇ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਕਤਲ ਕਿਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਸਮਝਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾਂਦਾ, ਇਸ ਲਈ ਕਤਲ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ  “ਨਾਸ਼”  ਹੈ।  ਜਦੋਂ ਇਹ ਰਾਜ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਤ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਸਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਮਿਲੀਸ਼ੀਆਵਾਂ ਮਿਲਕੇ ਕਤਲ ਕਰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਕੁਝ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਪੂਰੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਖਤਮ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਲਕੜੀ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਅੰਸ਼ਕ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ:  ਬੁਰੁੰਡੀ 1972: ਸਾਰੇ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਮੈਂਬਰ ਮਾਰੇ ਗਏ।  ਸ੍ਰੇਬਰੇਨਿਕਾ, ਬੋਸਨੀਆ 1995: ਯੁੱਧਯੋਗ ਯੁਵਕ ਅਤੇ ਆਦਮੀ ਮਾਰੇ ਗਏ।  ਦਰਫੂਰ, ਮਿਆਨਮਾਰ: ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਔਰਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੁੜੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ।  ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਔਰਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਗਣਨਾ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਦੀ ਜੈਵਿਕ ਅਤੇ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਨਾਸ਼ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਇੱਕ-ਦੂਜੇ ਖ਼ਿਲਾਫ਼ ਬਦਲੇ ਦੀ ਹੱਤਿਆ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਦੋ-ਪੱਖੀ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ (bilateral genocide) ਦਾ ਚੱਕਰ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਬੁਰੁੰਡੀ ਵਿੱਚ)।  ਸੰਸਕਾਰਕ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ ਸੰਪਤੀ ਦਾ ਨਾਸ਼ ਵੀ ਇਸ ਪੜਾਅ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਟੀਚਿਤ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਿਟਾਉਣ ਦਾ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ: ਅਰਮੀਨੀਆ 1915-1922, ISIS 2014-2018)।  ਜੰਗ ਅਤੇ ਅਪਰਾਧ :  ਕੌਮੀ ਜਾਂ ਜਾਤੀ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਵਿਚਕਾਰ "ਪੂਰੀ ਜੰਗ" ਸਿਵਲ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਾ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਕਾਰਪੇਟ ਬੋਮਬਿੰਗ, ਹਸਪਤਾਲਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਹਮਲੇ, ਰਸਾਇਣਕ/ਜੈਵਿਕ ਹਥਿਆਰ ਵਰਤਣਾ ਜੰਗੀ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਆਤੰਕਵਾਦ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਲੜਾਕੂਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਫਰਕ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦਾ; ਜਦੋਂ ਇਸਦਾ ਮਕਸਦ ਨਸਲ, ਜਾਤੀ, ਧਰਮ ਜਾਂ ਕੌਮ ਨੂੰ ਖਤਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਹੈ।  ਨਿਆਕਲੀ ਹਥਿਆਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਅੰਤਮ ਅਤੇ ਭਿਆਨਕ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰੀ ਕਦਮ ਹੈ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ :  ਸਰਗਰਮ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਦੇ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਆਪਕ ਸਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ ਹਸਤਕਸ਼ੇਪ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਸੱਚੇ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਖੇਤਰ ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ ਰਸਤੇ ਬਣਾਏ ਜਾਣ, ਜਿੱਥੇ ਭਾਰੀ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ।  "ਅਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਖੇਤਰ" ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਟਾਲਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਹ ਖਤਰਨਾਕ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਜੇਕਰ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਿਕ ਤੌਰ ‘ਤੇ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਦੇ ਮਲਟੀਲੇਟਰਲ ਫੋਰਸ (Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response Force, NATO, ASEAN, ECOWAS) ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹਸਤਕਸ਼ੇਪ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ।  ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਦੀ  Uniting for Peace Resolution GA Res. 330 (1950)  ਅਧੀਨ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਜੇ ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਅਸਮਰਥ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਖੇਤਰੀ ਗਠਜੋੜ Chapter VIII ਅਧੀਨ ਹਸਤਕਸ਼ੇਪ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ।  ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਨੇਤਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹवाई ਜਹਾਜ਼, ਸਾਜੋ-ਸਮਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਵਿੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਵਾਉਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ।    X. ਇਨਕਾਰ (Denial)  ਇਨਕਾਰ ਅੰਤਿਮ ਪੜਾਅ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਦਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ ‘ਤੇ ਅਗਲੇ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰੀ ਹੱਤਿਆਕਾਂਡਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਦਾਰ ਸੰਕੇਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਇੱਕ ਹੈ।  ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਮਾਸ ਮੌਤਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਬਰਾਂ ਖੋਦੀਆਂ, ਲਾਸ਼ਾਂ ਜਲਾਈਆਂ, ਸਬੂਤ ਛੁਪਾਏ ਅਤੇ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਮਕੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ। ਉਹ ਦੋਸ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਪੀੜਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਠਹਿਰਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਸਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ ਸੰਘਰਸ਼ ਜਾਂ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ-ਯੁੱਧ ਹੋ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਕਈ ਵਾਰੀ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਨੂੰ  counter-insurgency  ਦੇ ਤਹਿਤ ਛੁਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।  ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਅਪਰਾਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਜਾਂਚ ਰੋਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਅਕਸਰ ਤਾਕਤ ਖੋਹਣ ਤੱਕ ਸੱਤਾਵਾਂ ‘ਚ ਰਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜੋਂ ਪੋਲ ਪੋਟ ਜਾਂ ਇਦੀ ਅਮੀਨ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਅਪਰਾਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਬਚ ਕੇ ਨਿਵਾਸ ਕੀਤਾ।  ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਕੀਲ, ਡਿਪਲੋਮੇਟ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਅਕਸਰ ਇਹ ਮੰਨਣ ਤੋਂ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਜਨਸੰਹਾਰ ਹਨ। ਉਹ ਇਸਨੂੰ  “ਨਸਲੀ ਸਫਾਈ”  ਜਾਂ ਹੋਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਸ਼ਬਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਦਰਸਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਉਹ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਦਲੀਲ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਇੱਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਨੂੰ ਨਸ਼ਟ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਇਰਾਦਾ ਸਾਬਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕੀ।  ਰੋਕਥਾਮੀ ਉਪਾਇਆ :  ਇਨਕਾਰ ਦਾ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਸ਼ਾਲੀ ਜਵਾਬ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਸਜ਼ਾ   ਹੈ।  ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਬੂਤ ਸੁਣੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਯੂਗੋਸਲਾਵੀਆ, ਰਵਾਂਡਾ, ਸੀਰਾ ਲਿਓਨ, ਖਮੇਰ ਰੂਜ (ਕਾਂਬੋਡੀਆ) ਅਤੇ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਫੌਜੀ ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ (ICC) ਨੇ ਇਹ ਕੰਮ ਕੀਤਾ।  ਭਾਰੀ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਇਰਾਦਾ ਹੋਣ 'ਤੇ, ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਮਿਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।  ਸਥਾਨਕ ਨਿਆਂ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਲੀਆਂ, ਸੱਚਾਈ ਕਮੇਸ਼ਨ ਅਤੇ ਸਕੂਲੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਵੀ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਣ ਅਤੇ ਪੀੜਤਾਂ ਲਈ ਪੁਨਰ-ਮਿਲਾਪ ਦੇ ਮੌਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਦਾਨ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ।

Sudan Doctors Network says ‘deliberate suicide-drone attacks’ targeted a kindergarten and several civilian facilities. Dec. 5, 2025 Members of Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) stand in front of the main gate of the 22nd Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Infantry Division, in Babanusa, Sudan, on December 1, 2025 [Social Media/via Reuters]. The death toll from Rapid Support Forces (RSF) attacks on a kindergarten and other sites in the city of Kalogi in South Kordofan state has risen to about 47 people – mostly children – with about 50 others injured, two military sources in the government-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have told Al Jazeera. According to the sources, the RSF attacked the kindergarten on Thursday and then returned to target civilians who had gathered to offer assistance amid the carnage. The city’s hospital and a government building were also bombed. The sources indicated that this toll is not yet final, due to the serious injuries sustained by some of those who were treated. On Thursday, the Sudan Doctors Network initially reported that at least nine people were killed, including four children and two women, in “deliberate suicide-drone attacks carried out in Kalogi town” carried out by the RSF and its ally, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (al-Hilou), on the kindergarten and several civilian facilities. “This attack constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and is a continuation of the targeting of civilians and vital infrastructure,” they added. It’s the latest instance of RSF atrocities against civilians in the ongoing brutal civil war, now deep into its third year, pitting the SAF against the paramilitary RSF. The SAF has also been accused of committing atrocities in the war. ‘History repeating itself in Kordofan’ On Thursday, the United Nations warned that the Kordofan region of Sudan could face another wave of mass atrocities as fierce fighting between rival armed forces threatens a humanitarian catastrophe. UN human rights chief Volker Turk said that history was “repeating itself” in Kordofan following last month’s fall of el-Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, where warnings of impending violence were largely ignored by the international community before widespread killings occurred. “It is truly shocking to see history repeating itself in Kordofan so soon after the horrific events in el-Fasher,” Turk said, urging global powers to prevent the region from suffering a similar fate. Since late October, when the paramilitary RSF captured Bara , in North Kordofan state, the UN has documented at least 269 civilian deaths from aerial bombardment, artillery fire and summary killings. Communication blackouts across the region mean the actual toll is possibly far higher, with reports emerging of revenge attacks, arbitrary detentions, sexual violence and the forced recruitment of children. The RSF   claimed   control of the West Kordofan city of Babnusa earlier this week, with footage showing its fighters moving through the military base there. The army denied that the city had fallen. Following the fall of el-Fasher, the last major Darfur city under the army and its allies’ control, attention has shifted to Kordofan in central Sudan. Kordofan’s strategic importance makes it a key territory for both sides. The region sits between RSF-controlled Darfur in the west and government-held territory in the east and north, serving as a vital corridor that links the warring factions’ heartlands. Control of major cities like el-Obeid would give the RSF a direct route  towards the capital Khartoum, which government forces recaptured earlier this year. Before el-Fasher  fell   in November, the UN issued urgent warnings about potential atrocities. Those alerts went largely unheeded. After the city’s capture, mass killings ensued, with corpses visible from satellite imagery, prompting UN chief Antonio Guterres to describe it as a “ crime scene ”. Amnesty International has since   called   for war crimes investigations, and the European Union has   placed sanctions on Abdelrahim Dagalo, the RSF’s deputy and brother of the group’s chief, Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo. © 2025 Al Jazeera Media Network

With the rise of the digital era emerges the opportunity for governments to manipulate technology and use it as a means of repression.  Iran has used various means of censorship to limit citizens’ access to independent media: it has slowed down internet access or “throttling,” caused internet blackouts, nationalized the internet, and more.  During the 2025 conflict between  Iran and Israel,  when more than  90 million Iranians were taken offline , Iran used internet blackouts, leaving the Iranian population without warning of when aerial strikes will occur and placing them at extreme risk.   Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times History of Digital Censorship in Iran   Over the past two decades, the Iranian government has repeatedly  shut down the internet  as a means of quelling uprisings and protests, most prominently during the Green Movement Protests of 2009 and the Gas Price Protests of 2019. During this period, the Iranian government used a  plethora of methods to restrict internet  access for their population, including short and long-term internet outages, restrictions such as filtering, domestic regulations, and speed limitations through minimizing international bandwidth. This not only limits access to media for citizens, but also hinders vital communications between individuals.   The Green Movement Protests of 2009 led to an internet blackout in the weeks surrounding the presidential elections, as the re-election of the prior president was widely believed to be  fraudulent . However, the Iranian government disputed these claims and used forceful measures  to enforce the election result, which led to the death of hundreds of individuals. In addition, the Iranian government filtered access to foreign media and any opposition websites that promoted the reformist agenda of the incumbent’s opponent.  The Gas Price Protests   occurred due to a violent spike in gas prices caused by the government in November of 2019. In the midst of economic turmoil, citizens protested the increase, fearful that they could no longer afford fuel. This led to a government-controlled blackout, where the entire population lacked access to the internet for a period of five days. During those five days,  323 people were killed , a serious violation of human rights  with no consequences, as there was no documentation of the atrocities due to the internet shutdown.   Blackouts also occurred in response to the Women Life Freedom protests in 2022 , triggered by Mahsa Amini’s death. Thousands of women protested in response to her murder by the morality police. Over 551 Iranians  are believed to have died at the hands of the government during the protests. Once again, consequences eluded the government because this violence could not be documented due to the internet blackout.  The most recent significant use of censorship occurred in June 2025 during the dropping of aerial bombs by Israel on Iranian territory. Iran shut down the internet  and limited the population’s access to the media, not only limiting their access to their families , but also to the news channels informing citizens where the designated safe areas were amidst Israeli strikes. In this case, the government escalated censorship to limit pushback at the  detriment of their own citizens’ safety .  It is clear that there is no one defined reason for Iranian censorship, aside from combatting government criticism. From election fraud to economic deterioration, women’s rights, and war with Israel, the Iranian government has responded  by protecting its power and authority. Such authority is maintained to the detriment of the citizens who have died at the hands of the government but also simply because of restricted access to vital humanitarian information.  Linking Censorship and Atrocity Effective and truthful media coverage acts as an “early warning” mechanism for genocide, aside from providing necessary information when it comes to humanitarian protection in conflict. As foreign correspondents disappear, and news proliferates from local sources and social media, the risk for falsified information increases as a result of artificial intelligence. With internet blockage, documentation and recognition of human rights atrocities dwindles  when authoritarian regimes and citizens clash without evidence of humanitarian breaches. Furthermore, the media tends to skew towards conflict, mainly focused on the countries from which they are reporting. Countries without representative media are systematically underrepresented and risk their conflict and atrocities going unnoticed. In 2024,  296 internet shutdowns  were recorded in 54 countries, a 35% increase from 2022 and evidence of a global increase in weaponization of the internet.  Report available under:

The Call 2025   By Gregory H. Stanton Founding President Genocide Watch Updated 2025   I probably have human rights in my family unconscious, if there is such a thing. I am a descendant of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a founder of the woman’s liberation movement, and of Henry Brewster Stanton, Vice President of the world anti-slavery movement. Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s portrait hung over my great grandfather’s mantel in Johnstown, New York.   I grew up in the home of Howard Stanton, a Presbyterian pastor, and Alison Stanton, an English teacher. While my father was a student at Oberlin in 1942, he led one of the first sit-ins in the United States, to integrate the town barbershop. In the small Illinois town where I grew up, Dad was the pastor of the elite church in town. When community leaders asked him to head the campaign to raise funds for a new swimming pool, his barber tipped him that they intended to exclude Negroes. Dad went to them and quietly told them that he would not only refuse to raise the money if they did so, he would denounce a segregated pool from the pulpit. The leaders backed down, Dad raised the money and the town got an integrated swimming pool.   The secret of Dad’s influence was that people knew he loved them. He persuaded the manager of the largest factory in town, a member of his church, to give African Americans jobs other than janitor. He formed an inter-racial council to get realtors to stop confining African Americans to the other side of the tracks, bringing housing integration long before it was mandated by law.   Sometimes it took courage. We once had a brick thrown through our front window after Dad preached a sermon denouncing Senator Joseph McCarthy’s politics of character assassination.   My parents taught us that true meaning in life comes from service to God and to other people, not fame or fortune. Just before I began high school, I committed my life to God. It was a conversion experience, the sort William James writes about, and it changed my life.   Like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Pope John 23rd, my theology is “personalist.” I have had a personal relationship with God. I also believe that it is between persons that God’s presence can be most palpably experienced: through love and justice.   I have prayed about every important decision in my life. I believe that we should not be concerned about our own salvation, but about the suffering of others, about healing the sick, clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry. That is what Jesus and the prophets taught, and their teaching is what guides me.   I was a voting rights worker in Leake County, Mississippi in 1966 and still think it was the most dangerous place I’ve ever worked, including Cambodia and Rwanda. Two of my friends were wounded one night when the Ku Klux Klan shot up the house the group was staying in.   I joined the Peace Corps after college and then attended Harvard Divinity School to prepare for a secular ministry. But my personal call to work against genocide came only after I had completed my Ph.D. coursework in cultural anthropology at the University of Chicago and enrolled at Yale Law School.   Learning About the Cambodian Genocide First-­Hand   In 1980, while in my first year at Yale Law School, Church World Service (CWS), the relief arm of the National Council of Churches, U.S.A., called me and asked me to become the Phnom Penh Field Director for a consortium of American relief groups that included CWS, CARE, and Lutheran World Relief. I was to plan and set up a relief and rehabilitation program that would not only bring in immediate food aid, but also provide longer-term assistance for Cambodian recovery, including veterinary medicine, irrigation engineering, rice seed production, and primary school education.   I had not sought the job. CWS called me because my college roommate was in charge of the CWS Cambodia program in New York and figured I was tough enough to take the assignment.   At first, I asked CWS to try to find someone else. My wife, Mary Ellen, and I hoped to start a family, and thought that service in Cambodia would postpone our dream.   Little did we know!   Six weeks later, CWS called back and asked again, and I promised that I would pray about it. It was a fateful promise.   I don’t hear voices or see visions, but I do believe in God’s inspiration. The response to my prayers was consistent and clear. As my favorite Labor Law professor, Jack Getman, who is Jewish, told me, “Greg, you have to go. You’ve been called.”   What I did not expect was that I had been called to witness the aftermath of the Cambodian genocide. It was a call that changed my life.   In the months before I left for Cambodia, I read the accounts of the Khmer Rouge killing fields. Haunting images of Cambodian refugees were appearing on the covers of magazines, and tales of the Khmer Rouge atrocities were finally being told to a world that didn’t want to believe them.   Books like Murder of a Gentle Land by John Barron and Anthony Paul and Cambodia Year Zero  by Francois Ponchaud had been dismissed as “anti-communist propaganda” by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in After the Cataclysm . Now, as the weight and consistency of the refugee stories became overwhelming, and as the mass graves were opened, the world saw that the bloodbath predicted by “anti-communists” was a fact.   As a student of international law, I realized that because Cambodia was a state-­‐party to the Genocide Convention and because the Khmer Rouge still held Cambodia’s seat in the United Nations, a compelling case could be taken against Cambodia to the World Court for violation of the Genocide Convention. The same regime that committed the crimes would still be legally required to answer the charges. It was a unique opportunity.   A well-organized group of human rights investigators, preferably an already existing, well-financed group like the International Commission of Jurists, could gather the evidence of genocide because the Khmer Rouge no longer controlled Cambodia. A state-party to the Genocide Convention could charge Cambodia with violation of the Convention before the International Court of Justice. I discussed the idea with Yale Law Professors Myres McDougall, Michael Reisman, and Burke Marshall and all thought my idea sound.   In June 1980 on my way into Cambodia, I met David Hawk (the former executive director of Amnesty International U.S.A.) who was then working for the World Conference on Religion and Peace in Bangkok. I proposed my plan to him. It was the first time he had heard the idea, and he encouraged me to contact leaders of human rights organizations in New York about it when I returned to the U.S.   In Cambodia, I discussed my idea with government officials. Ben Kiernan, who later became professor of history at Yale University and director of the Yale Genocide Studies Program, was in Cambodia doing research for his Ph.D. dissertation on the Khmer Rouge, and we also discussed the plan. Ben was enthusiastic about it.   Ben and I have worked together ever since to document the crimes of the Khmer Rouge and to bring their leaders to justice. Ben and I were among the first Westerners to see the newly opened mass grave at Cheong Ek, where the Khmer Rouge buried over 7,000 victims of the Tuol Sleng extermination prison in Phnom Penh. There were so many bodies in the mass graves that the decomposition was not yet complete. Flesh still clung to human bones. The stench of death seared my nostrils.   The stories of survivors still haunt me. Every Cambodian had lost family members, and their stories crushed my soul. In our interviews in Cham Muslim villages, Ben Kiernan and I learned that the Chams and other minorities were singled out for extermination.   Sop Pidas, a Cham Muslim grandmother told me through her tears how she had lost her entire family when the Khmer Rouge on one terrible night in 1977 forced 5,000 Chams over a cliff to their deaths. Her husband, a Cham leader, was singled out and soaked with gasoline before he was set on fire. Her infant grandchild was murdered by dashing her brains out against a tree.   Gai Marianne, another Cham woman, told me that she had helped her sister-­‐in-­‐law suckle her new-­‐born infant. Both women and their babies were moved to a new commune, but the sister-in-law fell behind, leaving Gai Marianne to care for both babies. A Khmer Rouge cadre took the sister-in-law’s eight-week-old baby and threw him into the jungle to die. “You have no need for two small babies,” he explained.   Cham children were taken away from their parents, put into youth communes, and all Chams were forbidden to speak the Cham language. This intentional destruction of the Cham ethnic and religious group was clear genocide under the Genocide Convention.   Daily I saw the beggars in Phnom Penh, the maimed victims of American cluster bombs and Khmer Rouge mines. Lars Salemark, a Swedish Red Cross surgeon, told me of operating on a boy who was born with congenital defects in his right leg and left hand. While taking his water buffalo to pasture, he stepped on a newly laid Khmer Rouge landmine that destroyed his left leg and right hand, leaving him crippled in all four limbs.   The stories of the orphans were the hardest to drive out of my mind. Chuan Phalla, a fifteen-year-old orphan, told me how she had managed to survive only by hiding under the body of her dead sister in a mass grave. The orphaned son of the Phnom Penh train station master had watched the Khmer Rouge disembowel his parents before his eyes. They left a hole in his heart that couldn’t be filled by all his tears.   At the Cheong Ek mass grave, I wept when I found a Mickey Mouse T-shirt on a tiny skeleton. Who, I asked, could commit such monstrous crimes?   Returning to Yale in 1981, I should have been elated to come home. A mission accomplished. A bright future. But instead, I slid into a deep depression. I finally consulted a Yale Health Services psychiatrist who told me, “Depression is often caused by repressed anger. What are you angry about?” “I’m angry at the Khmer Rouge — about the injustice in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge have gotten away with genocide.” It was then that I realized that instead of turning the anger destructively upon myself, I should devote my life to bringing the Khmer Rouge to justice. The Cambodian Genocide Project was born.   What that doctor at Yale told me about repressed anger has also helped me understand many of the experiences I have had in the human rights field since. If we do not convert our anger into constructive action, it can leak out sideways and be displaced upon the very people with whom we should be working.   The result is a phenomenon that is paradoxical: people in the human rights movement can be even more turf-conscious, backstabbing, and self-righteous than people in other fields. The internecine battles among Cambodia scholars and human rights advocates are among the bloodiest cases of academic fratricide I have ever experienced.   The attacks on Ben Kiernan by Stephen Morris, the Wall Street Journal, and Congressman Campbell were an extreme example of such vicious character assassination. Claiming that Kiernan had supported the Khmer Rouge in an undergraduate article in 1975, they attacked his credentials to lead the Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale. They ignored the fact that in 1978, Kiernan had publicly said he was wrong (something many have yet to do) and has spent the past twenty years documenting the crimes of the Pol Pot regime.   Ben was untenured at the time of the attacks, and they were aimed not only at his work to document the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, but also at wrecking his professional career. Fortunately, he withstood them. They did not stop him. It may be that such vicious personal attacks are indirect reflections of the evil we confront (see Kiernan, 2000, April/June).   The Cambodian Genocide Project   In the spring of 1981 after returning to the U.S., I went to New York lawyer William Butler, Chairman of the Board of the International Commission of Jurists, headquartered in Geneva, and asked his organization to document the Khmer Rouge crimes and call for a nation to take the case to the World Court. I was surprised when he sent me a reply saying that he had discussed the idea with the U.S. State Department, which opposed the plan. He even questioned whether the killings in Cambodia constituted “genocide.”   Such “definitionalism” has plagued the anti-genocide movement since Stalin got political mass murder removed from the Genocide Convention in 1948. It has paralyzed the will of thousands of lawyers. Stalin’s ghost must snicker that he again used the appearance of law to deny justice.   We again saw “definitionalism;” in the grotesque denial by the State Department’s Legal Advisor’s office in its refusal to use the word “genocide” to describe the mass murders in Rwanda in 1994.   Personally, I accept the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention, “the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.” But I am equally horrified by political mass murder, one more form of mass killing because of group membership. Debating whether mass killing fits the conventional definition of genocide is most often an excuse for nonaction, as it was in the Jurists’ refusal to investigate in Cambodia and in the West’s failure to stop the Rwandan genocide.   It is true that most of the Khmer Rouge killings were mostly political, so not technically genocide under the Genocide Convention. But the Khmer Rouge also singled out the Muslim Cham, Buddhist monks, Christians, and ethnic minorities, thus committing classic “genocide.”   One point many “definitionalists” often overlook about the definition of genocide in the Convention is the “in part.” The mass killing does not have to be intended to destroy an entire group for it to be genocide.   Definitionalists also often confuse “intent” with motive. Intent is what a reasonable person would conclude to be the consequences of his acts. The motive of genocide may be to seize property or power. But the only intent a prosecutor has to prove is the intent to destroy part of a group because of their national, ethnical, racial, or religious identity.   In late 1981, David Hawk asked me to solicit a contribution from CWS so that we could travel together to Phnom Penh to begin the project I had proposed to him in 1980. I was delighted, wrote the letter to CWS, which gave us funding, and then I obtained visas that enabled us to travel through Vietnam to Cambodia. We traveled to Phnom Penh together in the Spring of 1982, and I obtained the permission necessary to collect the evidence needed to bring charges against the Khmer Rouge. That summer I incorporated the Cambodian Genocide Project, Inc. as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit organization. Hawk later established his own Cambodian Documentation Commission.   I eventually became a law professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. Ben Kiernan finished his Ph.D. and became a history professor at the University of Wollongong in Australia, and then at Yale University. We continued to work together through the 1980’s and 1990’s, doing research together in Cambodia under the auspices of the Cambodian Genocide Project, Inc. with a grant from the Lewis Law Center of Washington and Lee University.   IIn 1986 we discovered the Cambodian equivalent of the yellow star. The Khmer Rouge had evacuated the entire Eastern Zone in 1977-1978 because, according to their racist ideology, the Cambodian population near Vietnam had “Khmer bodies but Vietnamese minds.”   At the end of a hard day of interviewing and videotaping witness testimony in a Cham village, as we sat on a bamboo floor above the squawking chickens of a house where we would spend the night, Ben began to ask about the evacuation of the Eastern Zone, when the Khmer Rouge had forced everyone in Eastern Cambodia to leave for labor camps in central Cambodia.   Being a cultural anthropologist with a keen sense of the importance of symbols, I asked what people wore during the evacuation. “Black clothing and head scarves,” we were told.   But then I asked, “What color were the head scarves?”   Everyone said, “They were blue and white.”   I asked if the Khmer Rouge cadres wore the same color.   “No.” was the reply. “Blue and white scarves were reserved for the evacuees.”   “What did the color mean?” I asked.   “It was the killing sign.”   A cold chill of recognition shot through us. We had discovered the equivalent of the Nazi yellow star.   We learned that evacuees from the Eastern Zone received the blue and white scarves at Chhbar Ampeu near Phnom Penh, evidence of the Communist Party Central Committee’s direction. Evacuees were required to wear them at all times in public, just as Jews were forced to wear yellow stars in the Third Reich.   Chris Munger, a professional filmmaker, accompanied me on one of my trips in the summer of 1986, and his steady hand on the video camera produced tapes that I hope will someday be made into a documentary film about the Cambodian genocide.   The Cambodian Genocide Project won a grant from the United States Institute of Peace to produce a rough cut of a film, but we have never secured adequate funding to complete the film. I have turned over copies of all the videotapes to the Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale. I have the originals, so I still hope a documentary filmmaker will be able to use the witness testimony we collected.   Leo and Hilda Kuper became the most important influences on my thinking about genocide. I first got to know them through their books, particularly Leo’s seminal work on genocide. We began to correspond, and the Kupers invited me to come out to Westwood in Los Angeles County to visit them on numerous occasions.   Leo Kuper was not only a great sociologist and lawyer, but also a wonderful mentor. I loved to go for walks with him and their dog in the California sunshine. Hilda, a fellow anthropologist, also shared my love of poetry, which she wrote beautifully both in English and in Siswati (as I was later told in Swaziland). Hilda and I discussed Swazi rituals, and I later became a Fulbright Professor of Law in Swaziland, where I was able to help arrange an invitation for Hilda to make a triumphal return to her anthropological homeland, where she was literally royally received.   Leo invited me to become the American vice president of International Alert Against Genocide, an organization based in London that he had helped found. Leo became disappointed that International Alert mostly held academic conferences and had never issued an International Alert against a genocide. He was convinced that a new organization was needed for early warning and political action to prevent and stop genocide.   In the late 1980’s, Leo and I made a futile trip together to New York to try to convince Human Rights Watch to establish a special project to be called Genocide Watch. Aryeh Neier, the Executive Director was too busy to meet with us, so we had coffee with an intern.   I never gave up the idea and established Genocide Watch in 1999, though it would be far more effective if it were part of Human Rights Watch. It was created to organize the International Campaign to End Genocide, which I will describe in more detail below.   In 1986, I spent part of the summer in Australia attempting to convince the Department of Foreign Affairs to take the case to the World Court. Australia was a good choice because it had no reservations to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Many countries, including the U.S., require consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention’s Article 9, a reservation that could have been invoked reciprocally by the Khmer Rouge to get the case thrown out on technical grounds.   Australian citizens had been murdered at Cambodia’s infamous Tuol Sleng prison. Australian Foreign Minister Hayden announced his support for a tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge the day after I met with him and appeared on Australian television and radio.   I lived at Wesley College of the University of Sydney. I acted as a consultant to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra. But the Australian government finally declined to take the case on the erroneous ground that to do so would be to “recognize” the Khmer Rouge — even though cases in the World Court are brought by states against other states, not by governments as governments.   I later learned that the Australians had consulted the U.S. State Department, which remained opposed to the prosecution because it might legitimize the Vietnamese-backed regime in Phnom Penh. It might undermine the opposition coalition backed by Washington, a coalition that included the Khmer Rouge.   Neither David Hawk, who took the case to Sweden, nor I could convince any other government to take the case to the World Court. I had learned lesson number one about the struggle against genocide:   Genocide continues and its perpetrators escape with impunity because of failure of political will to enforce the law.   The Genocide Convention is international law. But law is not effective until there is the authoritative decision to enforce it.   A group of Cambodia activists centered in Washington D.C., New Haven, and Virginia set out to change the political will of the U.S. government. Since the State Department was opposed to prosecuting the Khmer Rouge, we had to take the battle to the U.S. Congress.   Sally Benson, a veteran Washington peace activist, Ben Kiernan, and others formed a coalition called the Campaign to Oppose the Return of the Khmer Rouge (CORKR), and we hired Craig Etcheson to run it. Etcheson, a political science Ph.D., had written “The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea,” one of the first books that analysed the Pol Pot regime. Jeremy Stone, president of the Federation of American Scientists, provided us with office space.   I served as Co-chairman of CORKR’s Justice Committee. Working with the staff of Senator Charles Robb (D – VA), Craig Etcheson got the Cambodian Genocide Justice Act, drafted and attached to the State Department’s appropriation, which forced the State Department to establish an Office of Cambodian Genocide Investigations by July 1, 1994.   The State Department predictably opposed the Act because it earmarked funds for investigation of the Cambodian genocide. Passed by overwhelming votes in both the House and Senate and signed by President Clinton, the Act declared that it is U.S. policy to support creation of a tribunal to try the leaders of the Khmer Rouge for genocide and other crimes against humanity.   I realized that someone had to join the State Department to get the Cambodian Genocide Justice Act implemented. So, I took the Foreign Service Exam and In 1992, I joined the State Department Foreign Service. After my mandatory Consular Assignment in Bangkok, I was ordered back to Washington, DC in 1994 and was assigned to work on the steering committee of the Office of Cambodian Genocide Investigations, under the superb leadership of Al LaPorta, who was rewarded for this service with the Ambassadorship to Mongolia.   The act earmarked $800,000 for the project, and a competition was held to allocate $500,000 of it to conduct the main investigation in Cambodia. I recused myself from the decision about who would win the competition, but Yale’s Cambodian Genocide Program, led by Ben Kiernan and Craig Etcheson, unanimously won the contract to carry out the work of the Cambodian investigation.   The Cambodian Genocide Program established the Documentation Center in Phnom Penh, which is ably headed by Youk Chhang, a university-educated Cambodian citizen who is tri-lingual in Khmer, English, and French, and who, more importantly, has the courage to ignore political pressures from the government and to carry on the investigation in spite of many threats to his life from the Khmer Rouge.   Within the State Department, when it became evident that we knew the exact location of Pol Pot and could possibly encourage a commando raid from Thailand to seize him, several members of the War Crimes Working Group and Southeast Asia Bureau met to consider the matter. We jokingly referred to ourselves as the “Pol Pot Posse.” I wrote a paper entitled, “Options to Try Pol Pot,” on how to create a UN or a mixed Cambodian/UN tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge.   The paper was cleared at the top levels of the Asian, Legal, Human Rights, U.N., International Organizations, Political, Deputy Secretary’s, and Secretary of State’s offices and became U.S. policy. The U.S. took that policy to the U.N., which created a commission of experts to recommend how to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice. The U.S. supported creation of a mixed U.N./Cambodian Tribunal, a policy adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. The political will of the U.S. and the U.N. was finally changed.   The Cambodian government established a working group under the leadership of the brilliant Dr. Helen Jarvis, who was a Special Advisor to Deputy Prime Minister Sok An.  The Cambodian National Assembly passed the legislation to establish the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the Khmer Rouge tribunal.   Pol Pot was already dead. The other Khmer Rouge leaders were old men protected by amnesty deals. But the tribunal was finally established. It went on to convict three of the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes against humanity and genocide. 500,000 Cambodians attended the trials, which were also broadcast throughout Cambodia.   It was for me and for many Cambodians, a dream long denied but finally realized after twenty years of very hard work.   The Rwandan Genocide and Rwandan Tribunal (ICTR)   Creating the political will and establishing an international tribunal to try the perpetrators of genocide was much faster for Rwanda. Unfortunately, the political will to prevent the genocide came too late to save the 800,000 people who were murdered. In July 1994, I was assigned to the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs as the Africa officer in its Office of U.N. Political Affairs.   I was responsible for coordinating and writing U.N. Security Council resolutions on Africa. I also became a member of the Interagency War Crimes Working Group. That group was formed in the aftermath of the Bosnian massacres to establish the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and to coordinate U.S. assistance to that tribunal. In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, Rwanda was added to its agenda. The Working Group was composed of representatives from the Legal, Human Rights, U.N., and International Organizations Bureaus at the State Department, the Peacekeeping and Legal Offices at the Pentagon, and key officials at the Justice Department, and the National Security Council (NSC).   By the time I came to Washington from Thailand in July 1994, the Genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda was nearly over. The appalling cowardice in the State Department in April 1994, particularly in the Legal Adviser’s Office by Joan Donoghue, Ted Borek, and George Taft in the Africa section and others higher up, who denied that the Rwandan mass killing met the legal definition of “genocide” is now well known. Nevertheless, Joan Donoghue was later named by the U.S. to the International Court of Justice and became the ICJ’s President.   Worse yet, and little known, was the decision of the Interagency Peacekeeping Core Group to recommend withdrawal of 2500 UNIMIR U.N. peacekeeping troops from Rwanda in the first month of the genocide. The Peacekeeping Core Group was led by the National Security Council’s Susan Rice and the State Department International Organization Affairs Bureau’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary George Ward. Its two other members were Sarah Sewell from the Defense Department and Ambassador Prudence Bushnell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.   The Peacekeeping Core Group was convened by Dr. Rice and Mr. Ward in the conference room of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. There, without dissent, it was decided that the U.N. Peacekeeping Operation in Rwanda could not stop the killing in Rwanda without exceeding the mandate given to it by the U.N. Security Council. Burned by the “mission creep” that resulted in the deaths of 18 American troops in Somalia, the group never considered changing the mandate.   In an informal (private) session of the U.N. Security Council on April 18 attended by the representative of Rwanda, which sat on the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Carl Inderfurth announced that it was “inappropriate” for UNAMIR troops to remain in Rwanda.   The next day, the interim Rwandan cabinet met and decided to extend the genocide to southern Rwanda. An instruction cable was dispatched by the State Department to Ambassador Madeleine Albright to vote on April 21 for U.N. Security Council Resolution 912 to order the 2,500 UNAMIR peacekeeping troops to leave Rwanda.   The UNAMIR troops should have been reinforced and their mandate strengthened to defend the thousands of Tutsis who had gathered in churches and stadiums for protection. General Roméo Dallaire, commander of UNAMIR, begged for such a mandate, and estimated that the troops already on the ground could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. When I invited General Dallaire to Washington to speak at the invitation of the War Crimes Working Group, George Ward came into my office shaking with rage, and my supervisor, Ann Korky, tried to block the visit up to the last moment when General Dallaire was at the Montreal airport.   In August 1994, I was lent to the United Nations Commission of Experts on the Rwandan genocide and contributed to its first report, which recommended creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR.) Returning to the State Department, I drafted U.N. Security Council Resolution 955, which created the ICTR, and U.N.S.C. Resolution 978, which called on all U.N. members to turn over suspects to the tribunal. The way for the Rwanda Tribunal had been cleared in 1993 by the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The two tribunals are joined at the head, with a common appeals chamber, and common chief prosecutor.   In the Statute attached to Resolution 955, several problems were corrected that had arisen in the ICTY Statute. We eliminated the requirement that war crimes be committed in the course of an international conflict. In the Statute of the ICTR, we incorporated Common Article 3 and Optional Protocol 2 of the Geneva Conventions as crimes within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.   Common Article 3 criminalizes war crimes that are not committed during an international war, a point that was overlooked in the statute for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and that was especially important for a civil conflict like Rwanda. Optional Protocol 2 broadens the prohibitions of the Geneva Conventions, applies them to non-state armed forces, and extends further protections to civilian populations.   Some of the lawyers in the legal adviser’s office questioned whether we could do this, since the U.S. is not even a party to Optional Protocol 2. I simply pointed out that law is made by authoritative decision, in this case by the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council could make new law.   In his review of developments in international law for 1994, Justice Theodor Meron wrote that these jurisdictional additions to the ICTR statute were among the most significant advances in international criminal law since Nuremburg.   Getting the Rwanda Tribunal up and running was another matter. The State Department Legal Adviser’s office wanted a common prosecutor for the ICTY and ICTR, and even talked about having both tribunals sit in The Hague.   I insisted that the trials be held in Africa as near to the site of the genocide as possible, so that witnesses could be available, and the tribunal would not be seen as “white man’s justice.” I also recommended separate prosecutors, because I doubted that a single prosecutor in The Hague could devote himself or herself adequately to both tribunals equally. The unity of international criminal law could be maintained simply with a common appeals chamber for the ICTY and ICTR.   When I was advising the U.N. Commission of Experts, I visited the U.N. compound near Nairobi, which has huge, well-equipped hearing rooms already wired for simultaneous translation, as well as adequate office space. I recommended that the ICTR be located there. But Kenya did not want it, due to connections between President Moi and the former Rwandan regime. So, Arusha, Tanzania was chosen instead, requiring years of preparation of courtrooms, offices, and prison cells.   The U.N. appointed the ICTR’s Deputy Prosecutor. He was an eighty year old retired judge from Madagascar. He was sent to Kigali. In a nearly fatal mistake, a U.N. appointed one of its legal officers in Vienna as tribunal Registrar. He was sent to Arusha, an area near his Luo ethnic group homeland. All the pressures of African ethnic nepotism came to bear. He soon padded the payrolls with his Luo compatriots. The Tribunal judges did not arrive in Arusha until 1996.   In 1996, I was sent by the State Department to investigate the ICTR’s problems, wrote a terse three-page list of necessary reforms, including replacing the Deputy Prosecutor and Registrar, and forwarded it to the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Investigations. Changes soon followed.   After the genocide and establishment of the ICTR, U.N. Ambassador Albright and The War Crimes Working Group decided to undertake an inquiry into why the U.S. had made such grave “mistakes” in Rwanda. Ambassador Albright asked me to carry out the inquiry because I had not been involved in the decision making during the genocide. I was warned by the desk officer for Rwanda, “The State Department doesn’t make mistakes. You will be ending your career if you do this.” He was right.   What I learned was that Secretary of State Warren Christopher had received a call from the Belgian government saying that Belgium was withdrawing its contingent after ten of its peacekeepers had been murdered and mutilated. Belgium called on the U.S. to support withdrawal of all UNAMIR peacekeepers so the Belgian withdrawal would not appear to be the act of cowardice that it was.   What was classified until years after the genocide in Rwanda was the fact that the US had thousands of US Marines just off the coast of East Africa at the beginning of the genocide. I knew it because I had top secret codeword clearance. So did the National Security Council and the Peacekeeping Core Group.   The UNAMIR troops should have been reinforced and their mandate strengthened to defend the thousands of Tutsis who had gathered in churches and stadiums for protection. General Roméo Dallaire, commander of UNAMIR, begged for such a mandate, and estimated that the troops already on the ground could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. When I invited General Dallaire to Washington to speak at the invitation of the War Crimes Working Group, George Ward came into my office shaking with rage, and my supervisor, Ann Korky, tried to block the visit up to the last moment when General Dallaire was at the Montreal airport.   I wrote a report on the decision making in the State Department for Ambassador Albright and the War Crimes Working Group. At the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Affairs, I wrote a declassified version of my report entitled, “Could the Rwandan Genocide Have Been Prevented?” In the State Department, when George Ward read my report, he was furious. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Gaçaça Courts   The Rwanda Tribunal convicted many of the top leaders of the Rwandan genocide. It succeeded in capturing many of the “big fish” such as Interim Prime Minister Jean Kambanda, the main leader and arms procurer for the genocide, Theoneste Bagasora and Ferdinand Nahimana, the owner of the Radio Television Libre des Milles Collines hate radio and inciter of the genocide.   For years, over 100,000 prisoners were packed into overcrowded Rwandan prisons without being formally charged. The Rwandan justice system lacked the personnel and resources to process them.   During my study of the Rwandan justice system in 1988-1989, I learned that Rwanda had a fully African system for resolving disputes: the Gaçaça trial system. In 1989, I recommended that the system should be revived. But the Minister of Justice rejected my suggestion. “We will be considered ‘primitive’,” he said. “No, you won’t,” I replied. You will just be considered African.   In 1994, when I first met with Vice President Paul Kagame, I made the same recommendation. Gaçaça courts could be used to try many of the detainees in Rwandan prisons. The courts would be adapted to a very different purpose than their traditional function, which decided disputes over cattle, thefts, and misdemeanors.   Several years later, President Kagame revived the Gaçaça court system. Over 100,000 Gaçaça trials were held. They have been one of the most effective strategies for both justice and reconciliation that any post-genocidal society has ever adopted.   In the State Department, I proposed the Great Lakes Justice Initiative. It was adopted by Assistant Secretary Susan Rice and the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.). President Clinton announced it on his trip to Africa in 1998. It became a cornerstone of U.S. assistance in the African Great Lakes region. It disbursed over thirty million dollars to help Rwanda rebuild its court system.   For my work on the genocide in Rwanda, I won the American Foreign Service Association’s W. Averell Harriman Award for “extraordinary contributions to the practice of diplomacy exemplifying intellectual courage and a zeal for creative accomplishment.” It was signed by Tex Harris, President of our union, who had received a similar award for his contacts with the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires during the dictatorship of the Generals in Argentina. When I was a Fulbright Professor of Law in Swaziland, Tex was US Consul General in Durban, South Africa. I went to talk with him. it was Tex who first encouraged me to join the Foreign Service.   That same day, my supervisors, Ann Korky and George Ward, delivered an annual evaluation that recommended that I be “immediately terminated” from the Foreign Service. The evaluation said, “Stanton doesn’t understand that the State Department is a hierarchical institution.” (Of course I understood that!) I petitioned unsuccessfully to get their evaluation removed from my personnel file. But when I came up for tenure, their evaluation was fatal to my Foreign Service career.   In 1996, I moved to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Department of State, but remained actively involved in U.S. policy on central Africa. I strongly advocated sending a U.N. force to drive the ex-Rwandan Army and Interahamwe militias from control of the Rwandan refugee camps, so the refugees could return to Rwanda. Otherwise, I predicted in a memo written in 1994, we were “drifting toward Cambodia.” We were doomed to repeat the mistake of allowing a group of genocidists to hold hundreds of thousands of refugees hostage and of providing them with base camps at huge expense to the international community. In 1997, the Rwandan Patriotic Army invaded the camps instead, and hundreds of thousands of Rwandans came home. Other thousands fled into the jungle. I was in Kigali when the Rwandan Army invaded Zaire.   During the ensuing exodus, I was driven up to Gisenyi to see Rose Carr, an American who ran an orphanage and had lived in Rwanda for many years. Our car was engulfed by the human tide of refugees that was flowing back into Rwanda. Having been freed from their Interahamwe captors, they were finally going home, with hope and exhaustion engraved on their faces. It was a human flood of biblical proportions.   Among the refugees was an eleven-year-old orphan who was lame. He begged for help. There were many others who were sick. Although a skittish U.S.A.I.D. official I was with would not let me stop to take pictures and protested when I stopped for the boy, I nevertheless gave him and a sick pregnant woman a lift to the Ruhengeri Hospital where they could be cared for.   That night at the American Club in Kigali, Ambassador Richard Bogosian, U.S. Coordinator for the African Great Lakes, was having dinner with Ambassador Robert Gribbin, U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda. Bogosian joshingly said to me, “Well, Greg, do you still think we need that U.N. force?” I could only reply, “No, Ambassador, it’s too late now.”   As more and more reports came in of slaughters of Hutu refugees by the Rwandan Army and the forces of Joseph Kabila, I began to ask for more information from American intelligence about what was going on. In spite of my Top Secret Codeword security clearance, I could never get an answer.   So I decided to find $50,000 outside the normal Human Rights Bureau budget and hire private investigators through human rights groups who would find out what was going on. They confirmed my worst fears—a revenge genocide was in progress.   Working with colleagues from other countries–particularly Australia, Canada, and New Zealand–we put together a resolution for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the reports of human rights violations in what had now become the Democratic Republic of the Congo under President Joseph Kabila. Kabila refused to cooperate with it. The U.S. waffled and a new U.N. commission with a different chairman was appointed. Kabila wouldn’t cooperate with the new chairman either. So the mass murders at Mbandaka and south of Kisangani and throughout the Kivus have remained uninvestigated and unprosecuted.   The Rwandan Army soon broke with Kabila and a deadly civil war ensued, drawing in most of the Congo’s neighbors. An estimate by epidemiologist Dr. Les Roberts, a consultant for the International Rescue Committee, is that the war cost 1.7 million lives.   When there is no force of law, the world will be ruled by the law of force.     Projects since the founding of Genocide Watch in 1999   The International Criminal Court   Enforcement of the Genocide Convention has long been frustrated by the lack of the international institutions needed to enforce it. For two years both the Clinton administration and Congress opposed, rather than supported, the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. wants no international institutions created in which it lacks a veto.   In July 1998, the U.S. was one of only seven nations to vote against the Rome Treaty to create the ICC. We were in illustrious company—Saddam’s Iraq, the Ayatollah’s Iran, Bashir’s Sudan, and Red China. The real reason is that as the sole remaining superpower, the U.S., wants to be able to use its power with impunity. The U.S. wants no one to judge its actions, its leaders, or its troops.   The U.S. even wanted immunity for official acts of government officials, a position that would set international humanitarian law back over fifty-five years, to before the Nuremberg Tribunal. It would allow any tyrant to simply declare his mass murders “official acts” to become immune from judgment. It is a preposterous policy– more fitting for a nineteenth imperial power than for a twenty-first century advocate of democracy and the rule of law.   From January 1999 to March 2000, I served as Coordinator of the Washington Working Group for the International Criminal Court, a coalition of human rights, religious, legal, and veterans’ groups that support creation of the ICC. Our objectives were to educate policymakers and the public about the ICC, and to defend the ICC from retrograde views like those of Senator Jesse Helms. We also aimed to secure the signature of the United States on the Rome Treaty by December 31, 2000, the final date for signatures without simultaneous ratifications. We were successful.   The U.S. dropped its insistence on “official acts immunity.” In 2000, Congress did not consider Senator Helms’ misnamed “American Servicemembers Protection Act,” which Congressman Patrick Kennedy said should be retitled the “War Criminals Protection Act,” because it would make the U.S. a haven for war criminals. Former President Jimmy Carter called President Clinton, who authorized Ambassador David Scheffer to sign the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000. I worked closely with David for years and knew privately how much he wanted the U.S. to sign. It was a sweet victory.   Unfortunately, even when the ICC came into existence, the U.S., China, and India would not sign–nearly half the world’s population. (India abstained, rather than voted against the treaty in 1998, but is unlikely to sign.) Most of the worst genocide perpetrators (Sudan and Iraq, for example) won’t join.   The ICC will not have universal jurisdiction unless the U.N. Security Council refers a case to it. So, the court will lack jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territories of Sudan or Iraq unless the Security Council grants it. The ICC will have no retroactive jurisdiction over crimes committed before the ICC is created. But the ICC is an important step toward a world ruled by law. Eventually the U.S. must join the rest of the civilized world and ratify the Rome Treaty.   A Standing, Volunteer U.N. Rapid Response Force   Currently, there is no powerful international Rapid Response Force that could intervene quickly when genocide threatens or begins. I assisted Don Kraus of the Campaign for U.N. Reform in drafting the McGovern-Porter U.N. Rapid Deployment Peace and Security Act of 2000, which supported creation of such a force. It had two dozen co-sponsors but it never came to a vote. It is an idea whose time will come.   America should not and cannot be the unilateral policeman of the world. A step toward this standing rapid response force is the Danish and Canadian proposal for a U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) of 5,500 light infantry troops ready to fly to any place on earth within three weeks of orders by the U.N. Security Council. The command center in Copenhagen is already operational. “SHIRBRIG” will be made up of national units, so it suffers from the weakness that nations may decide not to participate at the crucial time when they are most needed. Such a force needs to be enlarged, and its mandate extended to Chapter Seven operations (mandatory, forceful peacekeeping without the consent of all parties) as well as Chapter Six operations (pacific settlement of disputes, with the consent of the country where peacekeepers will be stationed). But it is progress toward ending genocide.   Genocide Early Warning   The United Nations needs an effective early warning system for genocide, crimes against humanity, and political mass murder that will daily keep track of incidents in countries with potential ethnic and religious conflicts and that will forecast long-term problems. The U.N. Secretariat now holds monthly meetings of the Interdepartmental Framework for Coordination to keep watch on regions of special concern.   From March to July 2000, I worked with the Open-Source Solutions Genocide Early Warning Project (a private consulting firm) that provided daily and monthly reports to the Interagency Genocide Working Group led by Ambassador David Scheffer of the State Department’s Office of War Crimes.   We are now working with the United Nations to extend this Early Warning capability to U.N. agencies and the U.N. Security Council. In August 2000, a U.N. Commission on Peacekeeping Operations led by Lakhdar Brahimi recommended creation of just such an Early Warning operation in the U.N. Secretariat.   We have written a proposal recommending that the United Nations create an Office for the Prevention of Genocide to develop predictive tools and prevention programs. It would advise the UN Secretary General when genocide threatens and sponsor prevention programs in member states of the UN.   Kofi Annan created the Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide in 2004.   The Alliance Against Genocide   Currently, there is no international movement on the order of an Amnesty International dedicated to preventing and stopping genocide in the twenty-first century.   At the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999, organizations from the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Israel co-founded a coalition called the International Campaign to End Genocide. The coalition included Genocide Watch (USA), The World Federalist Association (USA), the Campaign for U.N. Reform (USA), the Cambodian Genocide Program (USA), International Alert, Physicians for Human Rights (UK), The Leo Kuper Foundation (UK), The Committee for an Effective International Law (Germany), and The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Israel).   Our first major action was in the East Timor crisis, when we worked together with other human rights, religious, and relief organizations to lobby the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, and Australia to put pressure on Indonesia to stop the rampage of militias and Indonesian troops in East Timor following the referendum for independence. We were quite successful in talking with leaders of these countries, who put direct pressure on the leaders of Indonesia. The U.N. authorized the extremely rapid deployment of the Australian-led ASEAN multinational force that intervened and stopped the bloodshed.   Catholic Relief Services sent in tons of food and medicines. Amnesty International succeeded in getting a Special Session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission convened, only the fourth in its history. I wrote an options paper, (“War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity in East Timor: Options for an International Criminal Tribunal”) calling for the creation of a tribunal to try those who were committing crimes against humanity. The day after our members presented it to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in London, he publicly called for creation of an international tribunal. The paper was also shared with the U.N. Commission, which made the same recommendation.   My employer in 2000, the World Federalist Association, U.S.A. agreed to act as coordinator of the international coalition, but in March 2000 the new CEO of the World Federalist Association – U.S.A., John Anderson, reversed the decision that the World Federalist USA Executive Committee had passed in July 1999. He claimed that a national branch of the World Federalists should not coordinate an international coalition. He ordered me to work exclusively with U.S. organizations and dissolve Genocide Watch and the International Campaign to End Genocide.   Anderson’s orders seemed shortsighted for an organization whose very name denies the primacy of divisions created by national boundaries. I therefore resigned from my job with the World Federalist Association, U.S.A. to continue Genocide Watch’s and the international coalition’s work. Genocide Watch, which I founded in 1999, took over coordination of the international coalition.   The International Campaign’s Steering Committee met in London in October 2000 to plan future directions and outreach to other groups. The Aegis Trust, a dynamic genocide prevention NGO based in Nottinghamshire, England, and Rwanda joined the International Campaign. The Campaign’s Steering Committee agreed that Genocide Watch would continue as coordinator. Genocide Watch has since assembled a prestigious board of advisors.   The name of the International Campaign to End Genocide was changed to the Alliance Against Genocide because ending genocide forever was criticized as utopian. The Alliance’s goal is to build the international institutions to prevent and stop genocides. We will proceed step by realistic step. The Alliance Against Genocide currently has 130 member organizations in 31 countries. What Is to be Done?   1.5 million Armenians. 3 million Ukrainians. 6 million Jews. 260,000 Roma (Gypsies). 10.5 million Slavs.  25 million Russians. 25 million Chinese. 1 million Ibos. 1.5 million Bengalis. 1.7 million Cambodians.  250,000 Burundians. 500,000 Ugandans. 2 million Sudanese. 800,000 Rwandans. 2 million North Koreans. 200,000 Bosnians.   Genocides and other mass murders killed more people in the twentieth century than all the wars combined.   “Never again” has turned into “Again and again.” Again and again, the response to genocide has been too little and too late. During the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, the world’s response was denial. In 1994, while 800,000 Tutsis died in Rwanda, State Department lawyers debated whether it was “genocide”, and the U.N. Security Council withdrew U.N. peacekeeping troops who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.   Genocide is the world’s worst intentional human rights problem. But it is different from other problems and requires different solutions. Because genocide is almost always carried out by a country’s own military and police forces, the usual national forces of law and order cannot stop it. International intervention is usually required. But because the world lacks an international rapid response force, and because the United Nations has so far been either paralyzed or unwilling to act, genocide has gone unchecked.   The Alliance Against Genocide is an international coalition dedicated to creating the international institutions and the political will to prevent and stop genocides. The Alliance Against Genocide has four goals:   1. The early and effective functioning of the International Criminal Court.   2. The creation of an effective early warning system to alert the world and especially the U.N. Security Council and regional organizations to potential ethnic conflict and genocide.   3. The establishment of powerful United Nations and regional rapid response forces in accordance with Articles 43-47 of the U.N. Charter.   4. The provision of public information on the nature of genocide and creation of the political will to prevent and stop it.   This Alliance is a decentralized, global effort of many organizations. In addition to its work for institutional reform of the United Nations, it is a coalition that will bring pressure upon governments that can act on early warnings of genocide through the U.N. Security Council, U.N. General Assembly, Regional Organizations, and national governments.   The Alliance will establish its own NGO early warning system. It has its own websites: www.genocidewatch.com and www.against-genocide.org   Bypassing the secrecy of government intelligence services, the Alliance hopes to facilitate establishment of truly confidential communication links that will allow relief and health workers, whistle blowers, and ordinary citizens to create an alternative open-source intelligence network that will warn of ethnic conflict before it turns into genocide.   The Alliance Against Genocide covers genocide as it is defined in the Genocide Convention: “the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” It also covers political mass murder and other crimes against humanity. It will not get bogged down in legal debates during mass killing.   Building the political will for action is the major task. Among the defense mechanisms used to justify non-action is denial of the facts. The first job in preventing and stopping genocide is getting the facts in clear, indisputable form to policy makers. Most of that job is done by the news media.   But conveying information is not enough. It must be interpreted so that policy makers understand that genocidal massacres are systematic. It must interpret portents of genocide in ways that are as compelling as warnings of a hurricane. Options for action must be suggested to those who make policy, and they must be lobbied to take action.   The Alliance works to create political will through:   1. Consciousness raising — maintaining close contact with key policy makers in governments of U.N. Security Council members, providing them with information about genocidal situations.   2. Coalition formation –working in coalitions to respond to specific genocidal situations and involving members in campaigns to educate the public about solutions.   3. Policy advocacy–preparing options papers for action to prevent genocide in specific situations and presenting them to policy makers.   The Alliance Against Genocide concentrates on predicting, preventing, stopping, and punishing genocide and other forms of mass murder. It brings an analytical understanding of the genocidal process to specific situations. It does not simply study genocide or hold conferences, but attempts to prevent genocide, and build institutions that can prevent and stop genocide.   The Alliance’s headquarters location in Washington, D.C. permits it to influence U.S. foreign policy, a key to forceful humanitarian intervention when genocide threatens. But it is also an international effort that will work with governments of other U.N. members to create the political will for United Nations and regional, rather than unilateral, intervention.   Genocide Watch and the Alliance Against Genocide will someday be seen in the same way we see the anti-slavery movement. It is time in human history to prevent genocide, the worst of all crimes against humanity. There were those who said that slavery couldn’t be stopped because the economic forces that supported it were too great, that it was human nature, or even worse, that it was ordained by religion.   There will be similar defeatism about the movement to prevent genocide. Doubters will say that there has always been genocide, so it must be the result of human nature. They will say that the world political order is not yet developed enough to prevent and stop genocide. Worst of all, advocates of genocide will say genocide is ordained by jihad or ethnic purity or religion.   But those who say we cannot abolish this curse upon mankind are no more correct than those who said slavery could not be defeated. It is a matter of human will. And we make that human will. As Archbishop Tutu was fond of saying, “God is a God of justice. But to do justice, God depends on us.”   It was a call to do justice that I answered in 1980 when I went to Cambodia. I had no idea what paths that call would lead me down. And I do not yet know where this call to do justice will lead me in the future. But neither did the Wise Men when they were called.   There’s an old evangelical saying, “God has a wonderful plan for your life.” I’ve always been tempted to reply, “Yes, but I wish God would show me the map.”   A map would have been a much easier way to find Bethlehem than a star. But it wouldn’t have required faith. Ultimately, reaching our goal, fulfilling our call, depends on our faith.   I have faith that we will succeed in our struggle whenever I look at our daughter.   Birth   On November 16, 1980, a month before we left Cambodia, a newborn baby was abandoned at the entry to the National Pediatric Hospital. The chief doctor couldn’t keep her at the hospital where an epidemic of hemorrhagic fever was raging. At the orphanages, newborns had only a fifty percent chance of survival. So, the doctor brought her back to our hotel, walked into our prayer service that Sunday morning, and laid her in my wife’s arms.   She asked us to care for the child until the government could determine what to do. We had told no one of our hopes to start a family, and we certainly didn’t expect to adopt a baby in Cambodia, which no foreigner had done since 1975. We were the wrong nationality, wrong religion, wrong ideology, and wrong race. Our own country still had Cambodia on its “enemies list,” under the Trading with the Enemy Act. All the barriers known to man stood between us.   But there is a personal force in the world that changes hearts and that can also change the course of history.   I knew from my study of the personalist theology of Martin Luther King, Jr. that if we took that baby to the Foreign Ministry, and if we ourselves went in person, our request to adopt her would become an entirely different issue than if we simply wrote a letter, which I had also done.   So, we bundled her up in a zip-open Grasshopper suitcase made into a bed and took her to the Foreign Ministry. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Uch Kiman strolled in and when he saw her, he was clearly moved. We explained what had happened, and our desire to adopt her. Then he began to speak to her in Khmer, “You are in God’s hands. I will pray for you.”   The decision could not be made by the Foreign Ministry alone. It had to go to the Revolutionary Council. Five weeks later the Revolutionary Council itself gave us permission to adopt her. (The permission was the first official act of that government ever recognized in a U.S. court.)   We named her Elizabeth Chantana, which means “gift of God.” We returned to the United States on Christmas Eve, 1980, and she was baptized by my father, Reverend Howard Stanton, at the Christmas Eve service in the First Presbyterian Church, Racine, Wisconsin.   When I went back to Cambodia in 1982 to found the Cambodian Genocide Project, I asked the officials at the Foreign Ministry, “Why did you let us adopt her?”   They said, “Because we knew that she needed you. And we knew that you needed her.”   That is love.   Love is God’s force personally expressed. Justice is God’s force socially expressed.   Evil and death and genocide are not the most powerful forces in Cambodia or Rwanda or anywhere else.   Love and life and justice are.   Through love outstretched across thousands of miles, across political, ideological, religious, and ethnic boundaries, Cambodia and Rwanda have come back to life.   And to us a child has come, our gift of God, a testimony to the ultimate power of a love that transcends all boundaries.           REFERENCES   Brahimi Report on UN Peacekeeping Operations (2000, August), UN Doc A/55/305 – S/2000/809, 21 August 2000. (Available at Kiernan, Ben (2000). “Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice,” Human Rights Review, 1(3): 92 – 108.   Roberts, Les. Mortality in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: Results from Five Mortality Surveys. New York, New York: International Rescue Committee.         2025 updated and revised version, Copyright © 2025 Gregory H Stanton

Dec. 5, 2025 Togolese President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé has intensified diplomatic efforts across the Great Lakes region. Since his appointment as Mediator by the African Union (AU) in April 2025, Togolese President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé has intensified diplomatic efforts across the Great Lakes region, successfully promoting a path toward lasting peace between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Gnassingbé’s comprehensive mediation strategy involved immediate bilateral and multilateral consultations with key regional players: Luanda: Meetings with Angolan President João Lourenço, the current AU Chairperson, to consolidate support for the Togolese initiative. Kinshasa & Kigali: Direct discussions with President Félix Tshisekedi and President Paul Kagame to address the deep-seated causes of the conflict, build confidence, and prepare a framework for constructive dialogue. Regional Coordination: Consultations with Presidents Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) and Évariste Ndayishimiye (Burundi) to consolidate regional coordination. Lomé has since emerged as a critical diplomatic hub. On May 17, 2025, Gnassingbé convened former heads of state who were part of the AU’s panel of facilitators to harmonize strategies. The meeting benefited from the participation of representatives from the United Nations, the African Union, and the United States, positioning Togo’s capital as a central meeting point for peace envoys focused on stabilizing the Great Lakes region. In October 2025, Gnassingbé co-chaired a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris focusing on the volatile situation in eastern DRC, where clashes between the Congolese army and the M23 movement continue to worsen the humanitarian crisis. This engagement aimed to reinforce international support and accompany African-led peace initiatives. The efforts by President Gnassingbé and other mediators culminated in the historic peace agreement signed by the DRC and Rwanda in Washington on Thursday, December 4, mediated by U.S. President Donald Trump. Gnassingbé’s presence in Washington for the signing marked an important step in aligning international partners—including the United States and Qatar, which have enhanced their cooperation with Togo—around a coordinated approach. His pivotal role in guiding the complex negotiations confirms his position as a figure of consensus and competence within African peace efforts, helping to lay the foundations for a new model of coexistence based on cooperation and shared prosperity in the Great Lakes region. © 2025 COPYRIGHT African Press Agency

Officers order suspension of electoral process, border closures a day before presidential vote results expected. By: Rédaction Africanews with AP Nov. 27, 2025 New Guinea-Bissau leader, General Horta Inta-A, takes the oath of office in Bissau on 27 November 2025.  -  Copyright © africanews TGB Guinea-Bissau via AP/Copyright 2025 The AP. Military officials in Guinea-Bissau on Thursday named a general as the country’s transitional president. Horta Inta-A’s inauguration came a day after soldiers toppled the civilian leadership in a swift power grab ahead of the announcement of the weekend’s election results. In a statement, he justified taking control of the country saying it faced threats to its stability from politicians and drug barons, without providing any details. The military government will oversee a one-year transition period starting from Thursday, it said in a declaration broadcast on state television. "Created in response to the events of November 26, this new military entity immediately assumed supreme power in the state of Guinea-Bissau,” said the general at his swearing-in ceremony. Guinea-Bissau is a notorious cocaine transport hub with a long history of military interventions in politics. The coup came after incumbent President Umaro Sissoco Embaló and opposition candidate Fernando Dias both declared victory in the Sunday polls. Before the announcement of Inta-A's presidency, Dias accused Embaló of staging a "fake coup" to derail the election because he feared he would lose. The capital Bissau was mostly quiet on Thursday, with soldiers on the streets and many residents staying indoors. African Union has condemned the coup and called for Embaló’s release. The deposed president’s whereabouts remain unknown. On Wednesday he told French media that he had been arrested by soldiers. The reported military takeover is the latest in a string of coups and attempted coups in Guinea-Bissau since it gained independence from Portugal in 1974. It is also the most recent in a surge of military takeovers in West Africa, where democracy has been challenged by disputed elections that analysts say could embolden militaries. Copyright © africanews TGB Guinea-Bissau via AP/Copyright 2025 The AP