< Back Southeast and East Asia Team Report: September 23rd, 2025 Previous Next

796417fd-8885-44af-9377-ec2052c18f3b Vietnam Britannica Country Overview Targeted Groups Perpetrators Alert Status Genocide Stage(s) Pro-democracy activists and protesters Women and LGBTQ+ community members Dega and Montgnard Teams Chams Vietnamese government and authorities Watch Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 4: Organization, Stage 7: Polarization, and Stage 8: Persecution Details The Dega are a group of peoples that live in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The Dega were known as Montagnards by French colonial authorities, a term meaning “mountain dwellers.” The Dega are divided into sub-groups, including the Jarai, Rhade, Bahnar, and Koho. They are culturally and linguistically distinct from the majority Kinh (Vietnamese) population. The Dega have a long history of conflict with and discrimination at the hands of the Vietnamese majority. Read Report Resources Vietnam: Activists and Bloggers Under Attack Persecuting “Evil Way” Religion: Abuses against Montagnards in Vietnam Vietnam arrests blogger for ‘opposing the state’ just hours after human rights meeting with US Page last updated: 06/13/2025

September 11, 2007 Building an Anti-Genocide Regime Dr. Gregory H. Stanton First published in 2011, updated in 2026 When the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, "Never again." But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that "never again" became "again and again." The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed at least 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined (Rummel, 1994).[2] Genocide, the devil on horseback, still rides unchecked, armed not with a scythe but with a Kalashnikov. Why? Why are there still genocides? Why are there genocidal massacres being perpetrated in 2006 against the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa in Darfur; and the the Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why does ethnic and religious hatred still divide Côte d'Ivoire and Iraq and threaten to erupt again in genocidal violence? There are two primary reasons why genocide is still committed in the world: 1. The world has not developed the international institutions needed to predict and prevent it; and 2. The world's leaders do not have the political will to stop it. In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it. We must study and compare genocides and develop working theories about the genocidal process. There are many centers for the study of genocide that are doing that vital work in universities and research institutes in Europe, North America, Australia and Israel. But studying genocide is not enough. Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to prevent it. Three institutions, in particular, are needed: (1) politically effective centers for genocide prevention; (2) rapid response forces for non-violent prevention and armed military response; and (3) effective international courts for punishment. To create political will, an international movement to end genocide must be built, requiring a massive educational, media and political campaign. Creation of a Genocide Prevention Office at the UN The U.N. Security Council and key governments need strong, independent early warning systems to predict where and when ethnic conflict and genocide are going to occur, and to present options for prevention and intervention to policy makers. When the International Campaign to End Genocide (ICEG) (now the Alliance Against Genocide), a coalition of human rights organizations, attempted to contact officials at the UN about the genocidal massacres in East Timor in 1999, we discovered that no one had responsibility for receiving information or coordinating action about genocide. Therefore, in 2002, the Genocide Watch and the ICEG recommended that the UN create a Special Adviser to the Secretary General for the Prevention of Genocide with a small permanent staff at the highest level that would receive information about risks of genocide and coordinate UN responses. Despite negative reactions by some member states to previous proposals for a UN preventive capacity, the idea was discussed and refined. It gathered support from high ranking UN officials like Danilo Turk and Edward Mortimer, who recommended it to Secretary General Kofi Annan. The result was a proposal made at the Stockholm Forum on the Prevention of Genocide in 2004 by Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch (Stanton, 2004a), which recommended appointment of a Special Adviser to the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide and creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center. The Secretary General announced his support for the proposal at the Stockholm Forum, and in July 2004, he created the new post and named Juan Mendez as his first Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Establishment of a Genocide Prevention Center Realizing that the United Nations has limited resources, the ICEG also recommended creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center to support the work of the Special Adviser. The Center would be located in New York and staffed with full-time early warning, political and operational planning specialists who have direct access to an international network of government officials, country experts, human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the Special Adviser's office. It would be funded by governments, foundations, corporations, and private donors. It would work closely with the UN Special Adviser's Office, but would not be subject to funding by the UN itself. (Stanton, 2004a) The Brahimi Report of the Panel on U.N. Peace Operations (U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809: 2000) suggested such an office (the Information and Strategic Analysis Secretariat) at the U.N., but its recommendations were blocked by states (mostly from the G-77 developing nations plus India and China) that considered such a function to be "intelligence-gathering." That is precisely why a Genocide Prevention Center must be independent of the U.N., but on the U.N.'s periphery, and considered by the Special Adviser to be a trusted source of reliable information. If the Center is not independent, it will be unable to issue opinions that displease member states, particularly states at risk or that are committing genocide. Yet it must have the confidence of the Special Adviser and develop a close informal relationship with him. Several human rights groups, notably Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group (an ICEG member), currently have such relationships with the Secretary General. The Genocide Prevention Center would become a clearing house and validator for reports from human rights groups and open sources around the world. It would operationalize those reports into options and plans for preventive action, and the Special Adviser and the Secretary General would use them to formulate recommendations to the U.N. Security Council. One problem such a Center would face immediately is the closed nature of both government and U.N. information systems. Reports from UN field officials and government intelligence agencies are classified "confidential" or secret. Access to the country desk officers and top officials of the U.N. system would thus probably be indirect, through the Special Adviser. Access to government intelligence reports remains unlikely. However, the open secret of the new information age is that policy-makers would get better information if they ran a daily algorithm of world news media for early warning signs, and regularly read leading newspapers, magazines, and human rights groups' reports, than if they counted on their embassies' classified cables. Several such open source, unclassified reporting services (IRIN, Reliefweb) provide daily collections of articles to the U.N. and others interested in reading them. However, none currently focus on potential genocide. Even before a Genocide Prevention Center is established, coalitions of NGOs and genocide studies programs should establish independent early warning networks that can provide daily reports and regular policy options papers to the U.N.'s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, to the Security Council and to individual governments. Even after a Genocide Prevention Center is established, NGOs should continue to provide reports independently to the Special Adviser, UN agencies, and member governments. The Center is not intended to be a unique source. Regular briefings should be given to the Security Council by the Special Adviser. The first attempt by the Special Adviser to give such a briefing on Darfur was blocked by objections from the U.S., China, Russia and Algeria (Reuters, 10 Oct. 2005.) But the Secretary General, himself, could exercise his prerogative under Article 99 of the UN Charter to mandate direct reports by the Special Adviser to the Security Council and the General Assembly. Early Warning Models Early warning models matter. They must be comprehensible to policy makers, and provide specific guidance. The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency have each had contracts with social scientists who use multi-variate, statistical models to predict the likelihood of genocide and other forms of violence. The models assign country scores to a large number of abstract risk factors ("level of democracy, trade openness, history of armed conflict, ethnic diversity") and then assess the risk of genocide from their sum (Harff, 2003; Krain, 1997). These statistical models are useful to the extent that they demonstrate the benefit of promotion of democracy and other general policies. But statistical models do not describe the intentional process by which political leaders push a society toward genocide. They therefore are not sufficient to formulate specific counter-measures at each stage of the genocidal process. To provide immediate early warning signs, Harff (1998) has identified accelerators and triggers that may lead to genocide. They include refugee and internally displaced persons flows, compulsory visible identification of targeted groups, arming of ethnic militias, hate speech, killing of opposition leaders, and other political factors. But they are not continuous, event driven models that can predict when a genocide will happen. They fail to predict how close a genocide may be and do not suggest specific tactics to prevent it. Genocide Watch uses a process model of genocide, that breaks down the genocidal process into predictable stages that all genocides follow. It is not a linear model because the stages often occur simultaneously or out of order. It exposes the logic of the genocidal process so that policy-makers can recognize early warning signs and plan specific counter-measures at each stage to stop the process. The Ten Stages of Genocide 1. Classification : Underlying most social scientists' theories of genocide is an image of "ethno-centric man." Because all people grow up and live in particular cultures, speaking particular languages, they identify some people as "us" and others as "them." This fundamental first stage in the process does not necessarily lead to genocide. Genocide only becomes possible with another common human tendency -- considering only "our group" as human, and "de-humanizing" certain others. Thus, we not only develop cultural centers, we also create cultural boundaries that shut other groups out -- and the latter may become the boundaries where solidarity ends and hatred begins. "Us versus them" can be converted by political elites desiring to gain or retain power into ideologies of purity, exclusion, and destruction. Regimes bent on genocide take great pains to classify their populations. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. 2. Symbolization : Names or other symbols are assigned to the classifications. People are named "Jews" or "Gypsies", or distinguished by colors or dress. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: e.g. yellow stars for Jews. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. If widely supported, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, when many Jews refused to wear the yellow star and were not turned in by their Christian neighbors, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews. 3. Discrimination : Laws are passed or cultural practices exclude targeted groups from their civil rights. Group members may be excluded or fired from jobs. They may be prohibited from marrying members of the dominant group. They may be forced to live in ghettos or prohibited from entering areas controlled by the dominant group, except with passes to perform domestic labor. They may be prohibited from voting or holding public office. They may be excluded from leadership positions in government, the civil service or companies. They may be stripped of their national citizenship. They may be denied access to courts and rights of citizens. They may be denied the right to speak their own language in public, to meet in groups, and to bear arms for self-defense. The best defense against discrimination is passage and enforcement of laws prohibiting it. Religious and minority leaders may organize demonstrations against laws and practices that discriminate against targeted groups. Public media may be used to make racism and discrimination culturally unacceptable. 4. Dehumanization : One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating dehumanization, incitement to commit genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Incitement to commit genocide should be outlawed and prosecuted. Hate groups should be infiltrated, arrested, and broken up. 5. Organization : Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in such militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be arrested and denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and international commissions should investigate crimes against humanity. 6. Polarization : Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d'état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions. 7. Preparation : Leaders of the perpetrator group plan the genocide. Military forces are armed and incited to kill the targeted group. Ethnic militias are recruited, armed, and organized. Officials often claim killings are being committed by these militias, not by the army, in an effort to deny official culpability. The population is propagandized to believe that the targeted group is a threat that must be eliminated. In what genocide scholars call "mirroring," the targeted group is accused of planning a genocide against perpetrator group. Genocide is then justified as self-defense. When national and international leaders learn of plans to commit genocide, they should warn potential genocidists that they will be arrested and put on trial for their crimes. Nations should impose global Magnitsky sanctions on leaders who violate international laws for human rights. Their visas to travel should be revoked. Their finances held abroad should be seized. Opposition leaders and parties should be financed and protected. 8. Persecution : Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. They are often segregated into ghettos, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency should be declared. If the political will of the the U.N. Security Council or NATO can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance given to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees. 9. Extermination : Extermination quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide, as in Burundi. At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or A multilateral force authorized by the U.N., led by NATO or a regional military power, should intervene. Militarily powerful nations should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for the intervention. 10. Denial : is the stage that always starts when a genocide begins and continues long after a genocide ends. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The best responses to denial are public hearings by national truth commissions, and punishment by international tribunals or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. (Stanton, 2005.) Rapid Response Forces Early warning is not enough. What if the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to implement a peace agreement, and sent in peace-keepers, but then genocide began? That is what happened in Rwanda. There were plenty of early warnings. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) commander, General Roméo Dallaire learned of the plans for the genocide three months before it began, had conclusive evidence of massive shipments of half a million machetes to arm the killers, and knew of the training camps for the Interahamwe killers. Yet, when he cabled the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations requesting authorization to confiscate the machete caches, Undersecretary for UNAMIR's mandate. When the genocide actually began in April 1994, Dallaire desperately asked for a mandate and reinforcements to protect the thousands of Tutsis who had taken refuge in churches and stadiums. Led by the U.S. and U.K., the Security Council instead voted to pull out all 2500 UNAMIR troops. General Dallaire has since said that even those troops could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, had they remained (Stanton, 2004c). Among the problems with U.N. peacekeeping forces is that they are composed of national troop contingents voluntarily contributed by risk-averse national governments, and may even take their orders from those governments rather than their U.N. commanders. Such forces take months to organize and are seldom composed of the world's best-trained and equipped soldiers.[3] One regional military alliance lacks these drawbacks -- NATO. It has a coordinated command structure, extremely well-trained troops, and major resources. It proved to be quite effective once it was mobilized in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. But it has only begun to contribute to peace-keeping operations outside of Europe. The Standing High Readiness Brigade organized by Denmark, Austria, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden in 1996 (since expanded to include Finland, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain) was organized to provide a rapid response force of 5,000 heavy infantry and support personnel to the U.N. Security Council on thirty days' notice. It assisted Chapter VI (peacekeeping with the consent of the host country) monitoring missions in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Liberia, and Sudan. The European Union (EU) is organizing thirteen 1,500 person battle groups ready to respond within ten days to decisions by the EU. However, the EU is likely to be hamstrung by the requirement for unanimity in its foreign policy decision making. The United Nations needs a standing, volunteer, professional rapid response force that does not depend on member governments' contributions of brigades from their own armies. A standing U.N. force would need the support of some of the major military powers. It must be large enough to effectively intervene in situations like Rwanda. It should be composed of volunteers from around the world, the best of the best, who train together specifically for U.N. peace-keeping. Its capabilities and training would need to include many non-military functions, including policing, administration of justice, and conflict transformation. Although the U.S. and other Permanent 5 members of the Security Council do not currently support creation of such a standing U.N. force, it is an idea whose time will come. Non-violent Intervention We must build institutions to intervene non-violently before genocide begins. Every church, synagogue, mosque, and temple should teach peace-making, and inter-religious leaders' councils should be formed wherever there is religious division. In ethnically divided societies, radio and television and educational systems should be used to advocate tolerance and to humanize the other groups in the society, to show that they are like "us." The 2005 report of the U.N. High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005)) recommended creation of a U.N. Peacebuilding Commission to be tasked with prevention of conflict and state failure. The problem with the recommendation is that most genocide does not arise out of state failure or conflict. It is the result of unchecked state power. The Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997) is the best known example of the common assumption that conflict prevention will also prevent genocide. Conflict prevention is often a laudable goal, and sometimes it will contribute to genocide prevention. But it often will not. Jews had no conflict with Germans, nor did Armenians with Turks. In Rwanda, Kuperman (2001) argues that the Arusha Accords actually increased the likelihood of genocide when the Hutu Power elite realized they would lose their grip on power if the Accords were implemented. Faced with the negotiated reduction in their power, they instead decided to kill every Tutsi in Rwanda. Diplomats believe in conflict prevention, so it is the default position of most foreign ministries. But in cases of genocide, forceful intervention to overthrow a dictator or stop mass killing may be much more effective than a peace agreement. Negotiations with genocidists may result in appeasement that encourages their will to power, as it did with Hitler, Stalin, and Habyarimana -- and, currently, with al-Bashir in Sudan. The International Criminal Court The world needs and finally has an International Criminal Court (ICC). Impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity must end. The ICC must be backed by the will of nations to arrest those it indicts. The ICC may not deter every genocidist, but it will warn every future tyrant who believes he or she can get away with mass murder. Despite the opposition of the U.S. government, which is still advocating impunity for U.S. officials (a position that would have immunized every tyrant of the last century), the ICC is now a reality and will be able to try perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Through referral by the U.N. Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor has undertaken investigations and prosecutions of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Building a Mass Movement Against Genocide These institutional changes will not be enough to end genocide in the twenty-first century. Eventually we must return to the problem of political will. It was not for want of U.N. peace-keepers in Rwanda that 800,000 people were murdered. They perished because of the complete lack of political will by the world's leaders to save them. Indeed, it was their political will to actually withdraw the U.N. peace-keepers and leave them to their murderers. Neither the U.S. nor any other member of the U.N. Security Council had the political will to risk one of their citizens to rescue 800,000 Tutsis from genocide. There is something profoundly wrong about that. The wrong stems from the problem of ethno-centrism. The US, UK, France, Russia, China and the UN drew a circle, that shut Rwandans out of our common humanity. In October 2000, the second debate of the candidates for President of the United States demonstrated that neither candidate had learned the lessons of Rwanda. Then Governor George W. Bush said the U.S. was right not to send in U.S. troops because Rwanda is not in the sphere of America's national interests. Then U.S. Vice President Al Gore tried to excuse the Clinton administration's policy failure by saying the U.S. had no allies to go in with, as it did in Bosnia; ignoring the fact that 2500 U.N. peace-keepers were already on the ground in Rwanda. Evidently, he dismissed the use of the U.N. as a multi-lateral peace-keeper. We must create a world-wide movement to end genocide, like the movement to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century. National leaders must learn that if they do not stop genocides, they will be voted out of office.The Alliance Against Genocide was organized at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999 to mobilize the international political will to halt genocide once and for all.The Alliance envisions a world-wide network of organizations working together and separately toward that common goal. The first job in preventing and stopping genocide is getting the facts in clear, indisputable form to policy makers. Some of that job is done by the news media. But conveying the information is not enough. It must be interpreted so that policy makers understand that genocidal massacres are systematic; that the portents of genocide are as compelling as warnings of a hurricane. Then options for action must be suggested to those who make policy, and they must be lobbied to take action. Policy makers act when they feel public pressure to act. If the international campaign is to be effective, it must build an international mass movement that will exert the political and cultural pressure on world leaders necessary to create political will. Only fifty years ago, segregation was still the law in the southern United States and less than twenty years ago apartheid still ruled South Africa. But in both the U.S. and South Africa, mass movements created the political will to change the laws and gradually the cultures of racism are changing as well. Non-violent resistance finally broke up the Soviet communist empire, once thought to be frozen forever in tyranny. Mass movements must mobilize the religious leaders, the celebrities and stars, the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. We must make indifference to genocide culturally unacceptable and politically impossible. We must educate and advocate, demonstrate and legislate. Just as the nineteenth century was the century of the movement to abolish slavery, let us make the twenty- first the century when we abolish genocide. Genocide, like slavery, is caused by human will. Human will -- including our will -- can end it. References Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (2001), Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Harff, Barbara (2003). Assessing Risks of Genocide and American Political Science Review (February) 97(1): 57-73. Harff, Barbara (1998).In Preventive Measures: Building Risk Assessment and Crisis Early Warning Systems, ed. L. Davies and T.R. Gurr. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Krain, Matthew (1997). -Sponsored Mass Murder: The Onset and Severity of Genocides and Crimes Against Humanity. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 331-360. Alan J. Kuperman (2001). The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention. Genocide in Rwanda, The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Rummel, Rudy (1994). Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Stanton, Gregory (1998) Stanton, Gregory (1998) The Ten Stages of Genocide. Yale Genocide Studies Series, GS01, February, 1998. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages Stanton, Gregory (2004a) The UN Needs a Genocide Prevention Center, Stockholm International Forum on Genocide Prevention, Proceedings, January 2004. Stanton, Gregory (2004c) Could The Rwandan Genocide Have Been Prevented? Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2004, 211- 228. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/_files/ugd/df1038_f7be8c52217e42a98836121318b7d146.pdf Stanton, Gregory (2005). in Apsel, ed., Darfur: Genocide Before Our Eyes, Institute for the Study of Genocide, 43 - 47. U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809 (2000). The Brahimi Report of the Panel onU.N. Peace Opereations. New York: United Nations. U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005). A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. New York: United Nations. Endnotes [1] Forthcoming in Totten, ed. Genocide: An Annotated Bibliographic Review. Routledge, 2006. [2] Rummel has recently revised his estimate of the death toll from twentieth century genocide, politicide and other mass murder to 262 million. (personal communication) [3] It is worth noting that The Military Staff Committee envisioned by Article 47 of the U.N. Charter has never been formed. It was meant to be a permanent military command that would assist the Security Council in planning application of armed force under Chapter VII (peacemaking without host country consent.)

f8abd8d9-0530-4c12-8497-cff553f74df1 Guinea-Bissau Country Overview Targeted Groups Perpetrators Alert Status Genocide Stage(s) Anti-corruption advocates Human rights leaders Corrupt military government Drug cartels Watch Stage 5: Organization Details Guinea-Bissau is a narco-state, according to the UN. It is an entrepot for drug shipments from South America to Europe. Its military and police are corrupt. Anti-corruption campaigners are murdered. Read Report Resources Page last updated: 8/31/2023

Equatorial Guinea alert status : Genocide WARNING Genocide stage: 7- EQUATORIAL GUINEA AffECTED GROUP: BUBI MINORITY Current situation: THE GOVERNMENT AND POLICE ARE ACTIVELY HARASSING THE BUBI MINORITY Download Developments Reshaping Europe Through Parliament West Africa Monthly Report: July 2026 Nigeria and the Sahel: A growing security divide TTPS on alert after 11 bomb threats in 40 minutes Ecuador intelligence chief & 5 Americans killed in crash Death and torture of a man spark protests in Syria Israel strikes Idlib airbase; US, Türkiye condemn escalation Explosion in Kabul school injures at least 42 children Brazil Demarcates Land for Isolated Amazon Indigenous Group How Pakistan Crushed Protests in Kashmir

October 26, 2014 Building an Anti-Genocide Regime Dr. Gregory H. Stanton First published in 2011, updated in 2026 When the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, "Never again." But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that "never again" became "again and again." The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed at least 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined (Rummel, 1994).[2] Genocide, the devil on horseback, still rides unchecked, armed not with a scythe but with a Kalashnikov. Why? Why are there still genocides? Why are there genocidal massacres being perpetrated in 2006 against the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa in Darfur; and the the Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why does ethnic and religious hatred still divide Côte d'Ivoire and Iraq and threaten to erupt again in genocidal violence? There are two primary reasons why genocide is still committed in the world: 1. The world has not developed the international institutions needed to predict and prevent it; and 2. The world's leaders do not have the political will to stop it. In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it. We must study and compare genocides and develop working theories about the genocidal process. There are many centers for the study of genocide that are doing that vital work in universities and research institutes in Europe, North America, Australia and Israel. But studying genocide is not enough. Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to prevent it. Three institutions, in particular, are needed: (1) politically effective centers for genocide prevention; (2) rapid response forces for non-violent prevention and armed military response; and (3) effective international courts for punishment. To create political will, an international movement to end genocide must be built, requiring a massive educational, media and political campaign. Creation of a Genocide Prevention Office at the UN The U.N. Security Council and key governments need strong, independent early warning systems to predict where and when ethnic conflict and genocide are going to occur, and to present options for prevention and intervention to policy makers. When the International Campaign to End Genocide (ICEG) (now the Alliance Against Genocide), a coalition of human rights organizations, attempted to contact officials at the UN about the genocidal massacres in East Timor in 1999, we discovered that no one had responsibility for receiving information or coordinating action about genocide. Therefore, in 2002, the Genocide Watch and the ICEG recommended that the UN create a Special Adviser to the Secretary General for the Prevention of Genocide with a small permanent staff at the highest level that would receive information about risks of genocide and coordinate UN responses. Despite negative reactions by some member states to previous proposals for a UN preventive capacity, the idea was discussed and refined. It gathered support from high ranking UN officials like Danilo Turk and Edward Mortimer, who recommended it to Secretary General Kofi Annan. The result was a proposal made at the Stockholm Forum on the Prevention of Genocide in 2004 by Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch (Stanton, 2004a), which recommended appointment of a Special Adviser to the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide and creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center. The Secretary General announced his support for the proposal at the Stockholm Forum, and in July 2004, he created the new post and named Juan Mendez as his first Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Establishment of a Genocide Prevention Center Realizing that the United Nations has limited resources, the ICEG also recommended creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center to support the work of the Special Adviser. The Center would be located in New York and staffed with full-time early warning, political and operational planning specialists who have direct access to an international network of government officials, country experts, human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the Special Adviser's office. It would be funded by governments, foundations, corporations, and private donors. It would work closely with the UN Special Adviser's Office, but would not be subject to funding by the UN itself. (Stanton, 2004a) The Brahimi Report of the Panel on U.N. Peace Operations (U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809: 2000) suggested such an office (the Information and Strategic Analysis Secretariat) at the U.N., but its recommendations were blocked by states (mostly from the G-77 developing nations plus India and China) that considered such a function to be "intelligence-gathering." That is precisely why a Genocide Prevention Center must be independent of the U.N., but on the U.N.'s periphery, and considered by the Special Adviser to be a trusted source of reliable information. If the Center is not independent, it will be unable to issue opinions that displease member states, particularly states at risk or that are committing genocide. Yet it must have the confidence of the Special Adviser and develop a close informal relationship with him. Several human rights groups, notably Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group (an ICEG member), currently have such relationships with the Secretary General. The Genocide Prevention Center would become a clearing house and validator for reports from human rights groups and open sources around the world. It would operationalize those reports into options and plans for preventive action, and the Special Adviser and the Secretary General would use them to formulate recommendations to the U.N. Security Council. One problem such a Center would face immediately is the closed nature of both government and U.N. information systems. Reports from UN field officials and government intelligence agencies are classified "confidential" or secret. Access to the country desk officers and top officials of the U.N. system would thus probably be indirect, through the Special Adviser. Access to government intelligence reports remains unlikely. However, the open secret of the new information age is that policy-makers would get better information if they ran a daily algorithm of world news media for early warning signs, and regularly read leading newspapers, magazines, and human rights groups' reports, than if they counted on their embassies' classified cables. Several such open source, unclassified reporting services (IRIN, Reliefweb) provide daily collections of articles to the U.N. and others interested in reading them. However, none currently focus on potential genocide. Even before a Genocide Prevention Center is established, coalitions of NGOs and genocide studies programs should establish independent early warning networks that can provide daily reports and regular policy options papers to the U.N.'s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, to the Security Council and to individual governments. Even after a Genocide Prevention Center is established, NGOs should continue to provide reports independently to the Special Adviser, UN agencies, and member governments. The Center is not intended to be a unique source. Regular briefings should be given to the Security Council by the Special Adviser. The first attempt by the Special Adviser to give such a briefing on Darfur was blocked by objections from the U.S., China, Russia and Algeria (Reuters, 10 Oct. 2005.) But the Secretary General, himself, could exercise his prerogative under Article 99 of the UN Charter to mandate direct reports by the Special Adviser to the Security Council and the General Assembly. Early Warning Models Early warning models matter. They must be comprehensible to policy makers, and provide specific guidance. The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency have each had contracts with social scientists who use multi-variate, statistical models to predict the likelihood of genocide and other forms of violence. The models assign country scores to a large number of abstract risk factors ("level of democracy, trade openness, history of armed conflict, ethnic diversity") and then assess the risk of genocide from their sum (Harff, 2003; Krain, 1997). These statistical models are useful to the extent that they demonstrate the benefit of promotion of democracy and other general policies. But statistical models do not describe the intentional process by which political leaders push a society toward genocide. They therefore are not sufficient to formulate specific counter-measures at each stage of the genocidal process. To provide immediate early warning signs, Harff (1998) has identified accelerators and triggers that may lead to genocide. They include refugee and internally displaced persons flows, compulsory visible identification of targeted groups, arming of ethnic militias, hate speech, killing of opposition leaders, and other political factors. But they are not continuous, event driven models that can predict when a genocide will happen. They fail to predict how close a genocide may be and do not suggest specific tactics to prevent it. Genocide Watch uses a process model of genocide, that breaks down the genocidal process into predictable stages that all genocides follow. It is not a linear model because the stages often occur simultaneously or out of order. It exposes the logic of the genocidal process so that policy-makers can recognize early warning signs and plan specific counter-measures at each stage to stop the process. The Ten Stages of Genocide 1. Classification : Underlying most social scientists' theories of genocide is an image of "ethno-centric man." Because all people grow up and live in particular cultures, speaking particular languages, they identify some people as "us" and others as "them." This fundamental first stage in the process does not necessarily lead to genocide. Genocide only becomes possible with another common human tendency -- considering only "our group" as human, and "de-humanizing" certain others. Thus, we not only develop cultural centers, we also create cultural boundaries that shut other groups out -- and the latter may become the boundaries where solidarity ends and hatred begins. "Us versus them" can be converted by political elites desiring to gain or retain power into ideologies of purity, exclusion, and destruction. Regimes bent on genocide take great pains to classify their populations. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. 2. Symbolization : Names or other symbols are assigned to the classifications. People are named "Jews" or "Gypsies", or distinguished by colors or dress. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: e.g. yellow stars for Jews. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. If widely supported, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, when many Jews refused to wear the yellow star and were not turned in by their Christian neighbors, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews. 3. Discrimination : Laws are passed or cultural practices exclude targeted groups from their civil rights. Group members may be excluded or fired from jobs. They may be prohibited from marrying members of the dominant group. They may be forced to live in ghettos or prohibited from entering areas controlled by the dominant group, except with passes to perform domestic labor. They may be prohibited from voting or holding public office. They may be excluded from leadership positions in government, the civil service or companies. They may be stripped of their national citizenship. They may be denied access to courts and rights of citizens. They may be denied the right to speak their own language in public, to meet in groups, and to bear arms for self-defense. The best defense against discrimination is passage and enforcement of laws prohibiting it. Religious and minority leaders may organize demonstrations against laws and practices that discriminate against targeted groups. Public media may be used to make racism and discrimination culturally unacceptable. 4. Dehumanization : One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating dehumanization, incitement to commit genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Incitement to commit genocide should be outlawed and prosecuted. Hate groups should be infiltrated, arrested, and broken up. 5. Organization : Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in such militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be arrested and denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and international commissions should investigate crimes against humanity. 6. Polarization : Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d'état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions. 7. Preparation : Leaders of the perpetrator group plan the genocide. Military forces are armed and incited to kill the targeted group. Ethnic militias are recruited, armed, and organized. Officials often claim killings are being committed by these militias, not by the army, in an effort to deny official culpability. The population is propagandized to believe that the targeted group is a threat that must be eliminated. In what genocide scholars call "mirroring," the targeted group is accused of planning a genocide against perpetrator group. Genocide is then justified as self-defense. When national and international leaders learn of plans to commit genocide, they should warn potential genocidists that they will be arrested and put on trial for their crimes. Nations should impose global Magnitsky sanctions on leaders who violate international laws for human rights. Their visas to travel should be revoked. Their finances held abroad should be seized. Opposition leaders and parties should be financed and protected. 8. Persecution : Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. They are often segregated into ghettos, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency should be declared. If the political will of the the U.N. Security Council or NATO can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance given to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees. 9. Extermination : Extermination quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide, as in Burundi. At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or A multilateral force authorized by the U.N., led by NATO or a regional military power, should intervene. Militarily powerful nations should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for the intervention. 10. Denial : is the stage that always starts when a genocide begins and continues long after a genocide ends. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The best responses to denial are public hearings by national truth commissions, and punishment by international tribunals or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. (Stanton, 2005.) Rapid Response Forces Early warning is not enough. What if the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to implement a peace agreement, and sent in peace-keepers, but then genocide began? That is what happened in Rwanda. There were plenty of early warnings. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) commander, General Roméo Dallaire learned of the plans for the genocide three months before it began, had conclusive evidence of massive shipments of half a million machetes to arm the killers, and knew of the training camps for the Interahamwe killers. Yet, when he cabled the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations requesting authorization to confiscate the machete caches, Undersecretary for UNAMIR's mandate. When the genocide actually began in April 1994, Dallaire desperately asked for a mandate and reinforcements to protect the thousands of Tutsis who had taken refuge in churches and stadiums. Led by the U.S. and U.K., the Security Council instead voted to pull out all 2500 UNAMIR troops. General Dallaire has since said that even those troops could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, had they remained (Stanton, 2004c). Among the problems with U.N. peacekeeping forces is that they are composed of national troop contingents voluntarily contributed by risk-averse national governments, and may even take their orders from those governments rather than their U.N. commanders. Such forces take months to organize and are seldom composed of the world's best-trained and equipped soldiers.[3] One regional military alliance lacks these drawbacks -- NATO. It has a coordinated command structure, extremely well-trained troops, and major resources. It proved to be quite effective once it was mobilized in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. But it has only begun to contribute to peace-keeping operations outside of Europe. The Standing High Readiness Brigade organized by Denmark, Austria, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden in 1996 (since expanded to include Finland, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain) was organized to provide a rapid response force of 5,000 heavy infantry and support personnel to the U.N. Security Council on thirty days' notice. It assisted Chapter VI (peacekeeping with the consent of the host country) monitoring missions in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Liberia, and Sudan. The European Union (EU) is organizing thirteen 1,500 person battle groups ready to respond within ten days to decisions by the EU. However, the EU is likely to be hamstrung by the requirement for unanimity in its foreign policy decision making. The United Nations needs a standing, volunteer, professional rapid response force that does not depend on member governments' contributions of brigades from their own armies. A standing U.N. force would need the support of some of the major military powers. It must be large enough to effectively intervene in situations like Rwanda. It should be composed of volunteers from around the world, the best of the best, who train together specifically for U.N. peace-keeping. Its capabilities and training would need to include many non-military functions, including policing, administration of justice, and conflict transformation. Although the U.S. and other Permanent 5 members of the Security Council do not currently support creation of such a standing U.N. force, it is an idea whose time will come. Non-violent Intervention We must build institutions to intervene non-violently before genocide begins. Every church, synagogue, mosque, and temple should teach peace-making, and inter-religious leaders' councils should be formed wherever there is religious division. In ethnically divided societies, radio and television and educational systems should be used to advocate tolerance and to humanize the other groups in the society, to show that they are like "us." The 2005 report of the U.N. High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005)) recommended creation of a U.N. Peacebuilding Commission to be tasked with prevention of conflict and state failure. The problem with the recommendation is that most genocide does not arise out of state failure or conflict. It is the result of unchecked state power. The Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997) is the best known example of the common assumption that conflict prevention will also prevent genocide. Conflict prevention is often a laudable goal, and sometimes it will contribute to genocide prevention. But it often will not. Jews had no conflict with Germans, nor did Armenians with Turks. In Rwanda, Kuperman (2001) argues that the Arusha Accords actually increased the likelihood of genocide when the Hutu Power elite realized they would lose their grip on power if the Accords were implemented. Faced with the negotiated reduction in their power, they instead decided to kill every Tutsi in Rwanda. Diplomats believe in conflict prevention, so it is the default position of most foreign ministries. But in cases of genocide, forceful intervention to overthrow a dictator or stop mass killing may be much more effective than a peace agreement. Negotiations with genocidists may result in appeasement that encourages their will to power, as it did with Hitler, Stalin, and Habyarimana -- and, currently, with al-Bashir in Sudan. The International Criminal Court The world needs and finally has an International Criminal Court (ICC). Impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity must end. The ICC must be backed by the will of nations to arrest those it indicts. The ICC may not deter every genocidist, but it will warn every future tyrant who believes he or she can get away with mass murder. Despite the opposition of the U.S. government, which is still advocating impunity for U.S. officials (a position that would have immunized every tyrant of the last century), the ICC is now a reality and will be able to try perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Through referral by the U.N. Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor has undertaken investigations and prosecutions of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Building a Mass Movement Against Genocide These institutional changes will not be enough to end genocide in the twenty-first century. Eventually we must return to the problem of political will. It was not for want of U.N. peace-keepers in Rwanda that 800,000 people were murdered. They perished because of the complete lack of political will by the world's leaders to save them. Indeed, it was their political will to actually withdraw the U.N. peace-keepers and leave them to their murderers. Neither the U.S. nor any other member of the U.N. Security Council had the political will to risk one of their citizens to rescue 800,000 Tutsis from genocide. There is something profoundly wrong about that. The wrong stems from the problem of ethno-centrism. The US, UK, France, Russia, China and the UN drew a circle, that shut Rwandans out of our common humanity. In October 2000, the second debate of the candidates for President of the United States demonstrated that neither candidate had learned the lessons of Rwanda. Then Governor George W. Bush said the U.S. was right not to send in U.S. troops because Rwanda is not in the sphere of America's national interests. Then U.S. Vice President Al Gore tried to excuse the Clinton administration's policy failure by saying the U.S. had no allies to go in with, as it did in Bosnia; ignoring the fact that 2500 U.N. peace-keepers were already on the ground in Rwanda. Evidently, he dismissed the use of the U.N. as a multi-lateral peace-keeper. We must create a world-wide movement to end genocide, like the movement to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century. National leaders must learn that if they do not stop genocides, they will be voted out of office.The Alliance Against Genocide was organized at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999 to mobilize the international political will to halt genocide once and for all.The Alliance envisions a world-wide network of organizations working together and separately toward that common goal. The first job in preventing and stopping genocide is getting the facts in clear, indisputable form to policy makers. Some of that job is done by the news media. But conveying the information is not enough. It must be interpreted so that policy makers understand that genocidal massacres are systematic; that the portents of genocide are as compelling as warnings of a hurricane. Then options for action must be suggested to those who make policy, and they must be lobbied to take action. Policy makers act when they feel public pressure to act. If the international campaign is to be effective, it must build an international mass movement that will exert the political and cultural pressure on world leaders necessary to create political will. Only fifty years ago, segregation was still the law in the southern United States and less than twenty years ago apartheid still ruled South Africa. But in both the U.S. and South Africa, mass movements created the political will to change the laws and gradually the cultures of racism are changing as well. Non-violent resistance finally broke up the Soviet communist empire, once thought to be frozen forever in tyranny. Mass movements must mobilize the religious leaders, the celebrities and stars, the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. We must make indifference to genocide culturally unacceptable and politically impossible. We must educate and advocate, demonstrate and legislate. Just as the nineteenth century was the century of the movement to abolish slavery, let us make the twenty- first the century when we abolish genocide. Genocide, like slavery, is caused by human will. Human will -- including our will -- can end it. References Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (2001), Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Harff, Barbara (2003). Assessing Risks of Genocide and American Political Science Review (February) 97(1): 57-73. Harff, Barbara (1998).In Preventive Measures: Building Risk Assessment and Crisis Early Warning Systems, ed. L. Davies and T.R. Gurr. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Krain, Matthew (1997). -Sponsored Mass Murder: The Onset and Severity of Genocides and Crimes Against Humanity. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 331-360. Alan J. Kuperman (2001). The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention. Genocide in Rwanda, The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Rummel, Rudy (1994). Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Stanton, Gregory (1998) Stanton, Gregory (1998) The Ten Stages of Genocide. Yale Genocide Studies Series, GS01, February, 1998. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages Stanton, Gregory (2004a) The UN Needs a Genocide Prevention Center, Stockholm International Forum on Genocide Prevention, Proceedings, January 2004. Stanton, Gregory (2004c) Could The Rwandan Genocide Have Been Prevented? Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2004, 211- 228. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/_files/ugd/df1038_f7be8c52217e42a98836121318b7d146.pdf Stanton, Gregory (2005). in Apsel, ed., Darfur: Genocide Before Our Eyes, Institute for the Study of Genocide, 43 - 47. U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809 (2000). The Brahimi Report of the Panel onU.N. Peace Opereations. New York: United Nations. U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005). A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. New York: United Nations. Endnotes [1] Forthcoming in Totten, ed. Genocide: An Annotated Bibliographic Review. Routledge, 2006. [2] Rummel has recently revised his estimate of the death toll from twentieth century genocide, politicide and other mass murder to 262 million. (personal communication) [3] It is worth noting that The Military Staff Committee envisioned by Article 47 of the U.N. Charter has never been formed. It was meant to be a permanent military command that would assist the Security Council in planning application of armed force under Chapter VII (peacemaking without host country consent.)

< Back Nigeria Team Report: July 7th, 2025 Previous Next

September 2009 Building an Anti-Genocide Regime Dr. Gregory H. Stanton First published in 2011, updated in 2026 When the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, "Never again." But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that "never again" became "again and again." The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed at least 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined (Rummel, 1994).[2] Genocide, the devil on horseback, still rides unchecked, armed not with a scythe but with a Kalashnikov. Why? Why are there still genocides? Why are there genocidal massacres being perpetrated in 2006 against the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa in Darfur; and the the Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why does ethnic and religious hatred still divide Côte d'Ivoire and Iraq and threaten to erupt again in genocidal violence? There are two primary reasons why genocide is still committed in the world: 1. The world has not developed the international institutions needed to predict and prevent it; and 2. The world's leaders do not have the political will to stop it. In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it. We must study and compare genocides and develop working theories about the genocidal process. There are many centers for the study of genocide that are doing that vital work in universities and research institutes in Europe, North America, Australia and Israel. But studying genocide is not enough. Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to prevent it. Three institutions, in particular, are needed: (1) politically effective centers for genocide prevention; (2) rapid response forces for non-violent prevention and armed military response; and (3) effective international courts for punishment. To create political will, an international movement to end genocide must be built, requiring a massive educational, media and political campaign. Creation of a Genocide Prevention Office at the UN The U.N. Security Council and key governments need strong, independent early warning systems to predict where and when ethnic conflict and genocide are going to occur, and to present options for prevention and intervention to policy makers. When the International Campaign to End Genocide (ICEG) (now the Alliance Against Genocide), a coalition of human rights organizations, attempted to contact officials at the UN about the genocidal massacres in East Timor in 1999, we discovered that no one had responsibility for receiving information or coordinating action about genocide. Therefore, in 2002, the Genocide Watch and the ICEG recommended that the UN create a Special Adviser to the Secretary General for the Prevention of Genocide with a small permanent staff at the highest level that would receive information about risks of genocide and coordinate UN responses. Despite negative reactions by some member states to previous proposals for a UN preventive capacity, the idea was discussed and refined. It gathered support from high ranking UN officials like Danilo Turk and Edward Mortimer, who recommended it to Secretary General Kofi Annan. The result was a proposal made at the Stockholm Forum on the Prevention of Genocide in 2004 by Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch (Stanton, 2004a), which recommended appointment of a Special Adviser to the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide and creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center. The Secretary General announced his support for the proposal at the Stockholm Forum, and in July 2004, he created the new post and named Juan Mendez as his first Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Establishment of a Genocide Prevention Center Realizing that the United Nations has limited resources, the ICEG also recommended creation of an independent Genocide Prevention Center to support the work of the Special Adviser. The Center would be located in New York and staffed with full-time early warning, political and operational planning specialists who have direct access to an international network of government officials, country experts, human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the Special Adviser's office. It would be funded by governments, foundations, corporations, and private donors. It would work closely with the UN Special Adviser's Office, but would not be subject to funding by the UN itself. (Stanton, 2004a) The Brahimi Report of the Panel on U.N. Peace Operations (U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809: 2000) suggested such an office (the Information and Strategic Analysis Secretariat) at the U.N., but its recommendations were blocked by states (mostly from the G-77 developing nations plus India and China) that considered such a function to be "intelligence-gathering." That is precisely why a Genocide Prevention Center must be independent of the U.N., but on the U.N.'s periphery, and considered by the Special Adviser to be a trusted source of reliable information. If the Center is not independent, it will be unable to issue opinions that displease member states, particularly states at risk or that are committing genocide. Yet it must have the confidence of the Special Adviser and develop a close informal relationship with him. Several human rights groups, notably Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group (an ICEG member), currently have such relationships with the Secretary General. The Genocide Prevention Center would become a clearing house and validator for reports from human rights groups and open sources around the world. It would operationalize those reports into options and plans for preventive action, and the Special Adviser and the Secretary General would use them to formulate recommendations to the U.N. Security Council. One problem such a Center would face immediately is the closed nature of both government and U.N. information systems. Reports from UN field officials and government intelligence agencies are classified "confidential" or secret. Access to the country desk officers and top officials of the U.N. system would thus probably be indirect, through the Special Adviser. Access to government intelligence reports remains unlikely. However, the open secret of the new information age is that policy-makers would get better information if they ran a daily algorithm of world news media for early warning signs, and regularly read leading newspapers, magazines, and human rights groups' reports, than if they counted on their embassies' classified cables. Several such open source, unclassified reporting services (IRIN, Reliefweb) provide daily collections of articles to the U.N. and others interested in reading them. However, none currently focus on potential genocide. Even before a Genocide Prevention Center is established, coalitions of NGOs and genocide studies programs should establish independent early warning networks that can provide daily reports and regular policy options papers to the U.N.'s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, to the Security Council and to individual governments. Even after a Genocide Prevention Center is established, NGOs should continue to provide reports independently to the Special Adviser, UN agencies, and member governments. The Center is not intended to be a unique source. Regular briefings should be given to the Security Council by the Special Adviser. The first attempt by the Special Adviser to give such a briefing on Darfur was blocked by objections from the U.S., China, Russia and Algeria (Reuters, 10 Oct. 2005.) But the Secretary General, himself, could exercise his prerogative under Article 99 of the UN Charter to mandate direct reports by the Special Adviser to the Security Council and the General Assembly. Early Warning Models Early warning models matter. They must be comprehensible to policy makers, and provide specific guidance. The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency have each had contracts with social scientists who use multi-variate, statistical models to predict the likelihood of genocide and other forms of violence. The models assign country scores to a large number of abstract risk factors ("level of democracy, trade openness, history of armed conflict, ethnic diversity") and then assess the risk of genocide from their sum (Harff, 2003; Krain, 1997). These statistical models are useful to the extent that they demonstrate the benefit of promotion of democracy and other general policies. But statistical models do not describe the intentional process by which political leaders push a society toward genocide. They therefore are not sufficient to formulate specific counter-measures at each stage of the genocidal process. To provide immediate early warning signs, Harff (1998) has identified accelerators and triggers that may lead to genocide. They include refugee and internally displaced persons flows, compulsory visible identification of targeted groups, arming of ethnic militias, hate speech, killing of opposition leaders, and other political factors. But they are not continuous, event driven models that can predict when a genocide will happen. They fail to predict how close a genocide may be and do not suggest specific tactics to prevent it. Genocide Watch uses a process model of genocide, that breaks down the genocidal process into predictable stages that all genocides follow. It is not a linear model because the stages often occur simultaneously or out of order. It exposes the logic of the genocidal process so that policy-makers can recognize early warning signs and plan specific counter-measures at each stage to stop the process. The Ten Stages of Genocide 1. Classification : Underlying most social scientists' theories of genocide is an image of "ethno-centric man." Because all people grow up and live in particular cultures, speaking particular languages, they identify some people as "us" and others as "them." This fundamental first stage in the process does not necessarily lead to genocide. Genocide only becomes possible with another common human tendency -- considering only "our group" as human, and "de-humanizing" certain others. Thus, we not only develop cultural centers, we also create cultural boundaries that shut other groups out -- and the latter may become the boundaries where solidarity ends and hatred begins. "Us versus them" can be converted by political elites desiring to gain or retain power into ideologies of purity, exclusion, and destruction. Regimes bent on genocide take great pains to classify their populations. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. 2. Symbolization : Names or other symbols are assigned to the classifications. People are named "Jews" or "Gypsies", or distinguished by colors or dress. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: e.g. yellow stars for Jews. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. If widely supported, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, when many Jews refused to wear the yellow star and were not turned in by their Christian neighbors, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews. 3. Discrimination : Laws are passed or cultural practices exclude targeted groups from their civil rights. Group members may be excluded or fired from jobs. They may be prohibited from marrying members of the dominant group. They may be forced to live in ghettos or prohibited from entering areas controlled by the dominant group, except with passes to perform domestic labor. They may be prohibited from voting or holding public office. They may be excluded from leadership positions in government, the civil service or companies. They may be stripped of their national citizenship. They may be denied access to courts and rights of citizens. They may be denied the right to speak their own language in public, to meet in groups, and to bear arms for self-defense. The best defense against discrimination is passage and enforcement of laws prohibiting it. Religious and minority leaders may organize demonstrations against laws and practices that discriminate against targeted groups. Public media may be used to make racism and discrimination culturally unacceptable. 4. Dehumanization : One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating dehumanization, incitement to commit genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Incitement to commit genocide should be outlawed and prosecuted. Hate groups should be infiltrated, arrested, and broken up. 5. Organization : Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in such militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be arrested and denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and international commissions should investigate crimes against humanity. 6. Polarization : Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d'état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions. 7. Preparation : Leaders of the perpetrator group plan the genocide. Military forces are armed and incited to kill the targeted group. Ethnic militias are recruited, armed, and organized. Officials often claim killings are being committed by these militias, not by the army, in an effort to deny official culpability. The population is propagandized to believe that the targeted group is a threat that must be eliminated. In what genocide scholars call "mirroring," the targeted group is accused of planning a genocide against perpetrator group. Genocide is then justified as self-defense. When national and international leaders learn of plans to commit genocide, they should warn potential genocidists that they will be arrested and put on trial for their crimes. Nations should impose global Magnitsky sanctions on leaders who violate international laws for human rights. Their visas to travel should be revoked. Their finances held abroad should be seized. Opposition leaders and parties should be financed and protected. 8. Persecution : Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. They are often segregated into ghettos, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency should be declared. If the political will of the the U.N. Security Council or NATO can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance given to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees. 9. Extermination : Extermination quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide, as in Burundi. At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or A multilateral force authorized by the U.N., led by NATO or a regional military power, should intervene. Militarily powerful nations should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for the intervention. 10. Denial : is the stage that always starts when a genocide begins and continues long after a genocide ends. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The best responses to denial are public hearings by national truth commissions, and punishment by international tribunals or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. (Stanton, 2005.) Rapid Response Forces Early warning is not enough. What if the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to implement a peace agreement, and sent in peace-keepers, but then genocide began? That is what happened in Rwanda. There were plenty of early warnings. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) commander, General Roméo Dallaire learned of the plans for the genocide three months before it began, had conclusive evidence of massive shipments of half a million machetes to arm the killers, and knew of the training camps for the Interahamwe killers. Yet, when he cabled the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations requesting authorization to confiscate the machete caches, Undersecretary for UNAMIR's mandate. When the genocide actually began in April 1994, Dallaire desperately asked for a mandate and reinforcements to protect the thousands of Tutsis who had taken refuge in churches and stadiums. Led by the U.S. and U.K., the Security Council instead voted to pull out all 2500 UNAMIR troops. General Dallaire has since said that even those troops could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, had they remained (Stanton, 2004c). Among the problems with U.N. peacekeeping forces is that they are composed of national troop contingents voluntarily contributed by risk-averse national governments, and may even take their orders from those governments rather than their U.N. commanders. Such forces take months to organize and are seldom composed of the world's best-trained and equipped soldiers.[3] One regional military alliance lacks these drawbacks -- NATO. It has a coordinated command structure, extremely well-trained troops, and major resources. It proved to be quite effective once it was mobilized in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. But it has only begun to contribute to peace-keeping operations outside of Europe. The Standing High Readiness Brigade organized by Denmark, Austria, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden in 1996 (since expanded to include Finland, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain) was organized to provide a rapid response force of 5,000 heavy infantry and support personnel to the U.N. Security Council on thirty days' notice. It assisted Chapter VI (peacekeeping with the consent of the host country) monitoring missions in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Liberia, and Sudan. The European Union (EU) is organizing thirteen 1,500 person battle groups ready to respond within ten days to decisions by the EU. However, the EU is likely to be hamstrung by the requirement for unanimity in its foreign policy decision making. The United Nations needs a standing, volunteer, professional rapid response force that does not depend on member governments' contributions of brigades from their own armies. A standing U.N. force would need the support of some of the major military powers. It must be large enough to effectively intervene in situations like Rwanda. It should be composed of volunteers from around the world, the best of the best, who train together specifically for U.N. peace-keeping. Its capabilities and training would need to include many non-military functions, including policing, administration of justice, and conflict transformation. Although the U.S. and other Permanent 5 members of the Security Council do not currently support creation of such a standing U.N. force, it is an idea whose time will come. Non-violent Intervention We must build institutions to intervene non-violently before genocide begins. Every church, synagogue, mosque, and temple should teach peace-making, and inter-religious leaders' councils should be formed wherever there is religious division. In ethnically divided societies, radio and television and educational systems should be used to advocate tolerance and to humanize the other groups in the society, to show that they are like "us." The 2005 report of the U.N. High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005)) recommended creation of a U.N. Peacebuilding Commission to be tasked with prevention of conflict and state failure. The problem with the recommendation is that most genocide does not arise out of state failure or conflict. It is the result of unchecked state power. The Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997) is the best known example of the common assumption that conflict prevention will also prevent genocide. Conflict prevention is often a laudable goal, and sometimes it will contribute to genocide prevention. But it often will not. Jews had no conflict with Germans, nor did Armenians with Turks. In Rwanda, Kuperman (2001) argues that the Arusha Accords actually increased the likelihood of genocide when the Hutu Power elite realized they would lose their grip on power if the Accords were implemented. Faced with the negotiated reduction in their power, they instead decided to kill every Tutsi in Rwanda. Diplomats believe in conflict prevention, so it is the default position of most foreign ministries. But in cases of genocide, forceful intervention to overthrow a dictator or stop mass killing may be much more effective than a peace agreement. Negotiations with genocidists may result in appeasement that encourages their will to power, as it did with Hitler, Stalin, and Habyarimana -- and, currently, with al-Bashir in Sudan. The International Criminal Court The world needs and finally has an International Criminal Court (ICC). Impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity must end. The ICC must be backed by the will of nations to arrest those it indicts. The ICC may not deter every genocidist, but it will warn every future tyrant who believes he or she can get away with mass murder. Despite the opposition of the U.S. government, which is still advocating impunity for U.S. officials (a position that would have immunized every tyrant of the last century), the ICC is now a reality and will be able to try perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Through referral by the U.N. Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor has undertaken investigations and prosecutions of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Building a Mass Movement Against Genocide These institutional changes will not be enough to end genocide in the twenty-first century. Eventually we must return to the problem of political will. It was not for want of U.N. peace-keepers in Rwanda that 800,000 people were murdered. They perished because of the complete lack of political will by the world's leaders to save them. Indeed, it was their political will to actually withdraw the U.N. peace-keepers and leave them to their murderers. Neither the U.S. nor any other member of the U.N. Security Council had the political will to risk one of their citizens to rescue 800,000 Tutsis from genocide. There is something profoundly wrong about that. The wrong stems from the problem of ethno-centrism. The US, UK, France, Russia, China and the UN drew a circle, that shut Rwandans out of our common humanity. In October 2000, the second debate of the candidates for President of the United States demonstrated that neither candidate had learned the lessons of Rwanda. Then Governor George W. Bush said the U.S. was right not to send in U.S. troops because Rwanda is not in the sphere of America's national interests. Then U.S. Vice President Al Gore tried to excuse the Clinton administration's policy failure by saying the U.S. had no allies to go in with, as it did in Bosnia; ignoring the fact that 2500 U.N. peace-keepers were already on the ground in Rwanda. Evidently, he dismissed the use of the U.N. as a multi-lateral peace-keeper. We must create a world-wide movement to end genocide, like the movement to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century. National leaders must learn that if they do not stop genocides, they will be voted out of office.The Alliance Against Genocide was organized at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999 to mobilize the international political will to halt genocide once and for all.The Alliance envisions a world-wide network of organizations working together and separately toward that common goal. The first job in preventing and stopping genocide is getting the facts in clear, indisputable form to policy makers. Some of that job is done by the news media. But conveying the information is not enough. It must be interpreted so that policy makers understand that genocidal massacres are systematic; that the portents of genocide are as compelling as warnings of a hurricane. Then options for action must be suggested to those who make policy, and they must be lobbied to take action. Policy makers act when they feel public pressure to act. If the international campaign is to be effective, it must build an international mass movement that will exert the political and cultural pressure on world leaders necessary to create political will. Only fifty years ago, segregation was still the law in the southern United States and less than twenty years ago apartheid still ruled South Africa. But in both the U.S. and South Africa, mass movements created the political will to change the laws and gradually the cultures of racism are changing as well. Non-violent resistance finally broke up the Soviet communist empire, once thought to be frozen forever in tyranny. Mass movements must mobilize the religious leaders, the celebrities and stars, the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. We must make indifference to genocide culturally unacceptable and politically impossible. We must educate and advocate, demonstrate and legislate. Just as the nineteenth century was the century of the movement to abolish slavery, let us make the twenty- first the century when we abolish genocide. Genocide, like slavery, is caused by human will. Human will -- including our will -- can end it. References Carnegie Commission Report on Preventing Deadly Conflict (2001), Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Harff, Barbara (2003). Assessing Risks of Genocide and American Political Science Review (February) 97(1): 57-73. Harff, Barbara (1998).In Preventive Measures: Building Risk Assessment and Crisis Early Warning Systems, ed. L. Davies and T.R. Gurr. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Krain, Matthew (1997). -Sponsored Mass Murder: The Onset and Severity of Genocides and Crimes Against Humanity. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 331-360. Alan J. Kuperman (2001). The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention. Genocide in Rwanda, The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Rummel, Rudy (1994). Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Stanton, Gregory (1998) Stanton, Gregory (1998) The Ten Stages of Genocide. Yale Genocide Studies Series, GS01, February, 1998. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages Stanton, Gregory (2004a) The UN Needs a Genocide Prevention Center, Stockholm International Forum on Genocide Prevention, Proceedings, January 2004. Stanton, Gregory (2004c) Could The Rwandan Genocide Have Been Prevented? Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2004, 211- 228. updated at https://www.genocidewatch.com/_files/ugd/df1038_f7be8c52217e42a98836121318b7d146.pdf Stanton, Gregory (2005). in Apsel, ed., Darfur: Genocide Before Our Eyes, Institute for the Study of Genocide, 43 - 47. U.N. Doc. A/55/305 S/2000/809 (2000). The Brahimi Report of the Panel onU.N. Peace Opereations. New York: United Nations. U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (2005). A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. New York: United Nations. Endnotes [1] Forthcoming in Totten, ed. Genocide: An Annotated Bibliographic Review. Routledge, 2006. [2] Rummel has recently revised his estimate of the death toll from twentieth century genocide, politicide and other mass murder to 262 million. (personal communication) [3] It is worth noting that The Military Staff Committee envisioned by Article 47 of the U.N. Charter has never been formed. It was meant to be a permanent military command that would assist the Security Council in planning application of armed force under Chapter VII (peacemaking without host country consent.)

What is Genocide? By Dr. Gregory H. Stanton President, Genocide Watch The crime of genocide is defined in international law in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951. By 2020, 152 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention and over 80 nations have provisions for the punishment of genocide in domestic criminal law. The text of Article II of the Genocide Convention was included as a crime in Article 6 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. “Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” The crime of genocide has three elements: 1 . acts of genocide, committed with 2. intent to destroy, in whole or in part, 3. a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group, in whole or in part: a. Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death. b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation. c. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, bombing of hospitals, bombing of civilian housing, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts. d. Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation. e. Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force, removal of children to schools where their language or culture is prohibited, or through fear of violence, duress, detention, human trafficking, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 14 years. Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Genocide does not require killing. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting unlivable conditions, prevention of births, and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence. It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before destruction starts, and to aid or abet genocide. The crime includes conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide, through provision of arms to perpetrators, and blocking of aid to victims. Civil or international war is often accompanied by genocide. War, including defensive war or counter-insurgency against terrorism, is not an excuse for genocide. Euphemisms such as "ethnic cleansing" or "atrocities" are terms often used for genocide denial. Neither is outlawed by treaty in international law. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term introduced by Slobodan Milosevic during the Bosnian and Kosovo genocides. It is also a euphemism for "deportation or forcible transfer of population," which is a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. "Atrocities" is an umbrella term to cover genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, without specifying which crimes have been committed. It was intended to avoid legal debates and to motivate preventive action, but it has failed to do so. Instead it has become a term used by politicians, diplomats and human rights organizations to avoid legal precision. Element 1: Acts of GEnocide Element 1 “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a pattern of coordinated acts. Intent is inferred from the consequences of those acts. Intent is different from motive. Whatever the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial defense), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide. The phrase “in whole or in part” is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. A common error of genocide deniers is denial that genocide has occurred because only part of a group, rather than the whole group, is targeted for destruction. Some national laws require intent to destroy a substantial number of a group’s members. But in international law and the International Criminal Court, an individual may be guilty of genocide even if he commits an act of genocide against only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy a protected group. Element 2: Intent to Destroy (Dolus Specialis ) Element 2 The law protects four groups – national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin. An ethnic group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage. A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics. A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals. Element 3: Protected Group Element 3 Raphael Lemkin's Definition of Genocide Raphael Lemkin in his masterpiece “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” (1943) invented the term “genocide,”by combining “genos” (race, people) and “cide” (to kill). Lemkin defined genocide as follows: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.” When Lemkin proposed a treaty against genocide to the United Nations in 1945, he defined it as follows: “The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: “Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.” Raphael Lemkin would have included protection for political, economic, social, and cultural groups in the Genocide Convention. But nations that in the past or present had committed crimes against humanity in their territories or their colonial empires, including the Soviet Union, the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Egypt, Belgium, and Uruguay voted to exclude those groups from the Genocide Convention. Copyright 2020 Genocide Watch, Inc. Genocide Watch proposed Optional Protocol to the Genocide Convention Read it in English or French along with a Fact Sheet/Explication about the proposed Protocol. Optional Protocol to the Genocide Convention (English ) (French ) Questions about the Optional Protocol to the Genocide Convention (English ) (French ) Resources The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) UN Factsheets on the Genocide Convention: ( English )( French )( Spanish ) Map of State Parties to the Genocide Convention

Colombia Country Overview CIA World Factbook Targeted Groups Perpetrators Alert Status Genocide Stage(s) Indigenous and rural communities Human rights activists Non-state armed groups Warning Stage 5: Organization, Stage 8: Persecution Details Armed groups are carrying out massacres and targeted killings of civilians, indigenous communities, and human rights leaders. The Colombian government is seriously lacking in protecting these communities. Read Report Page last updated: 05/06/2026 Resources Videos Show the Violent, and Deadly, Ways Colombian Police Quell Protests Left Undefended: Killings of Rights Defenders in Colombia’s Remote Communities Informe de Masacres en Colombia Durante el 2020 y 2021 (Report of Massacres in Colombia during 2020 and 2021)

Latest News Reshaping Europe Through Parliament By: Alexander Smith Far-right Patriots for Europe group meets in Madrid, February 8-9, 2025. (X/Viktor Orban). The far right has resurged across Europe. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom left the European Union (EU) after a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment; the National Front in France took more than 100 seats in the French parliament; Germany's right-wing became the second largest party in its parliament; dissatisfaction with mainstream governments surged across the c Genocide Watch 5 minutes ago 1 min read West Africa Monthly Report: July 2026 West Africa in July 2026 saw worsening political repression, conflict, human-rights abuses and drug-related crises, alongside severe flooding and health challenges, while some countries made progress in healthcare and vaccination. Genocide Watch 18 hours ago 5 min read Nigeria and the Sahel: A growing security divide A widening diplomatic rift is complicating efforts to confront a shared cross-border security threat. Al Jazeera 22 hours ago 4 min read TTPS on alert after 11 bomb threats in 40 minutes By Anna-Lisa Paul, Senior Reporter, anna-lisa.paul@guardian.co.tt August 20, 2026 Valpark Plaza, Valpark (Source: Trinidad & Tobago Guardian) Chaguanas Magistrates' Court (Source: Trinidad & Tobago Guardian) Security agencies across Trinidad and Tobago, including the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) and the Trinidad and Tobago Fire Service (TTFS), were placed on high alert yesterday, after a series of 11 bomb threats targeted several courts, a shopping plaza and a go Trinidad & Tobago Guardian 3 days ago 3 min read Ecuador intelligence chief & 5 Americans killed in crash By Basillioh Rukanga, Thomas Mukhwana, Reporting fromin Nairobi, Henry Moore and Vanessa Buschschluter Published August 19, 2026 Rescue officials at the crash site in a remote area of Samburu County by Mount Ololokwe (Source: Kenya Red Cross/Handout via Reuters) Ecuador's intelligence chief and his wife have been killed in a helicopter that crashed at Mount Ololokwe in central Kenya. Michele Sensi-Contugi, 44, and his wife, fashion designer Stephany Hollihan, 42, were among t BBC News 3 days ago 3 min read Death and torture of a man spark protests in Syria Picture showing White Helmets volunteer unconscious and with bruises on his body went viral By William Christou Mourners carry the coffin of Mohammad Ghamira for burial in the village of al-Haffah, in Latakia province, Syria on Monday. Photograph: AP Syrians have protested over the death of a man who was arrested and allegedly beaten by security forces, sparking widespread anger at a practice thought to have ended with the fall of Bashar al-Assad. A crowd gathered in the city The Guardian 3 days ago 3 min read Israel strikes Idlib airbase; US, Türkiye condemn escalation By Al Jazeera Staff, AP and Reuters August 18, 2026 Eight air strikes hit an airbase in northwestern Syria's Idlib governorate, state TV reports [Al Jazeera] Turkiye rejects Israeli allegations that it posed a threat by preparing to send troops to airbase in Syria’s Idlib. Israel has bombed an airbase in Syria’s Idlib, according to Syrian media, with Turkiye denouncing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “expansionist” policies and the United States criticising what i Al Jazeera 3 days ago 3 min read Explosion in Kabul school injures at least 42 children By Mohammad Yunus Yawar August 18, 2026 Members of the Hazara community pray outside a mosque on the outskirts of Kabul, Afghanistan in October 2021 (AAMIR QURESHI / AFP - Getty Images) KABUL, Aug 18 (Reuters) - An explosion at an education centre in Kabul injured at least 42 children on Monday, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said on Tuesday, calling for an "investigation to establish the circumstances of this incident." The blast occurred on Monday ev AFP, AP and Reuters 4 days ago 2 min read Brazil Demarcates Land for Isolated Amazon Indigenous Group Brazil marks borders for isolated Indigenous group in the Amazon after decades. Shanna Hanbury August 19, 2026 The first sign demarcating the Rio Pardo Kawahiva Indigenous Territory. Image courtesy of FUNAI. Agents of Brazil’s Indigenous agency, FUNAI, spent 60 days in June and July 2026 physically marking the borders of the Rio Pardo Kawahiva Indigenous Territory. The 411,000-hectare (1 million-acre) area in the Amazon biome of Mato Grosso state is home to the Kawahiva, an i Mongabay 4 days ago 2 min read How Pakistan Crushed Protests in Kashmir By Aqil Shah August 17, 2026 Protestors burn tyres along a road after clashes with police in Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on July 31, 2026. (Sajjad Qayyum-AFP via Getty Images) Irish poets and American presidents have long spoken of Kashmir: its beauty and its dangers. The question of Kashmir has shaped the trajectories of India and Pakistan since the end of British rule and their birth as nation-states in August 1947. Both countries claim Kashmir in its enti TIME 5 days ago 7 min read Country Report: Belarus August 2026 By Sophia Khan Belarus opposition supporters lay flowers near the Pushkinskaya metro station where Alexander Taraikovsky, a 34-year-old protester, died on Aug. 10, 2020, during a protest in Minsk. (Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images) Although Belarus was a founding republic of the Soviet Union, the 1988 discovery of mass grave sites from Stalin-era targeting prompted calls for independence. Belarus declared independence on August 25, 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet U Genocide Watch 6 days ago 2 min read The Illegal Abduction of Ukrainian Children Special Report, August 2026 By Sophia Khan, Beth Paul, Alexander Smith, and Emily Mullin Ukrainian children fleeing Russian aggression (Mirek Pruchnicki from Przemyśl, Sanok, Polska, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly has publicly presented its 2026 report by the Special Envoy on Russian Abductions and Deportations of Ukrainian Children. The report stresses that the situation on the return o Genocide Watch 6 days ago 8 min read Trump Extends His Military Reach into Latin America August 13, 2026 By Luis Doncel and Carlos S. Maldonado (EL PAÍS) Hegseth announces that he has not ruled out a military option in Havana and proposes operations on Colombian soil. Trump’s strategy to control the region is met with resistance from Mexico and submission from Central America. Pete Hegseth attends the exercises that are part of PANAMAX 2026 in Panama City on August 13. Photo: Aris Martínez / Reuters The Trump administration can be accused of many things, but not El País 7 days ago 6 min read First Nations call to outlaw residential school denial Assembly of First Nations calls for criminalization of residential school denialism Jackie McKay July 15, 2026 'It is a shame to live in a country that will not protect our people from hate crimes,' says MKO grand chief Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Grand Chief Garrison Settee speaks at a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday. (Pierre-Paul Couture/Radio-Canada) The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has passed an emergency resolution that calls on Canada to criminalize reside CBC News Aug 13 3 min read Protests Clash over Private Property Bill in Buenos Aires Protesters clash with police in Buenos Aires over Private Property Bil August 07, 2026 Thousands rally against Milei-backed legislation as unrest leaves at least three injured and 10 arrested. A demonstrator holds a national flag amid tear gas during protest outside the National Congress in Buenos Aires on August 6, 2026, as senators debate a bill on the inviolability of private property. | Luis ROBAYO / AFP Thousands of people marched in Buenos Aires on Thursday to protest a Buenos Aires Times Aug 13 3 min read Trinidad & Tobago signs US deals paving way for data centers By Anselm Gibbs Updated 10:10 PM BST, July 11, 2026 Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar stands at the State Department in Washington, Sept. 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File) PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad (AP) — Trinidad and Tobago has signed agreements paving the way for U.S. companies to begin groundwork for installing large data centers in the Caribbean nation, sparking concerns about potential energy consumption and environmental impacts. The mem AP News Aug 13 2 min read Mexico & Peru restore diplomatic relations after asylum row By Rorey Bosotti August 07, 2026 Former Peruvian PM Betssy Chávez was granted asylum by Mexico in November 2025 (Source: Reuters) Mexico and Peru have agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations following a row over the granting of asylum to a former Peruvian prime minister who was charged for a 2022 coup attempt. In a joint statement released on 7 August, Lima and Mexico City said "historic ties of brotherhood, friendship and cooperation" prompted the reconciliation. The two BBC News Aug 13 2 min read Ecuador charges ex-minister over candidate’s murder By Aleks Phillips August 09, 2026 Fernando Villavicencio was shot dead at a campaign event in the capital, Quito, days before the election in 2023 (Source: Getty Images) Prosecutors in Ecuador have charged a former interior minister and six others on suspicion of being involved in the assassination of a presidential candidate in 2023. José Serrano and the head of cartel Los Lobos, Wilmer "Pipo" Chavarria, were implicated in the murder of Fernando Villavicencio at a campaign e BBC News Aug 13 2 min read Country report: Russia August 2026 By Alexander Smith A firefighter works at a site in a residential area damaged during a Russian missile strike amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine. September 21, 2023. Image: Reuters/Valentyn Ogirenko. Russia has a long history of documented persecution of ethnic minorities and societal dissidents. Imperial Russia organized anti-Jewish pogroms. According to the Holodomor Research and Education Consortium, the Soviet Union committed a genocide against Ukrainians dur Genocide Watch Aug 11 3 min read Houthi Missile and Drone Attacks Kill Seven in Yemen By Al Jazeera Staff, AFP, Reuters and the Associated Press August 10, 2026 The latest Houthi attacks come less than 24 hours after an earlier barrage struck al-Makha (Mocha) and its commercial port. Smoke rises during Houthi missile and drone attacks on the Red Sea port city of al-Makha, Yemen, on August 9, 2026. Credit: Reuters in Al Jazeera Yemen’s Houthis have launched a new wave of missile and drone attacks on the Red Sea port city of al-Makha (Mocha), extending an assaul Al Jazeera Aug 11 3 min read Pakistan-administered Kashmir Votes Amid Civil Unrest By Abid Hussain August 10, 2026 Voting postponed in seven of 11 Poonch division constituencies as boycott calls and violence mar the region’s legislative elections. A man casts his ballot at a polling station during the second phase of elections for the regional Legislative Assembly in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on August 2, 2026. Credit: Amiruddin Mughal & EPA in Al Jazeera Islamabad, Pakistan – Voting is under way in the third and final phase of Pakistan-a Al Jazeera Aug 11 2 min read Ousted Sheikh Hasina Announces Return Following Exile By Sheikh Saaliq and Julhas Alam August 5, 2026 Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina arrives to attend The Queen’s Dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Buckingham Palace in London on April 19, 2018. Credit: Daniel Leal-Olivas and Pool Photo in AP News NEW DELHI (AP) — Ousted former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said Wednesday that she plans to return to her country from exile in India in December despite facing a death sentence i AP News Aug 11 2 min read India uses Tear Gas and Batons Against Youth Protests By Reuters August 11, 2026 Students and unemployed youth in Jharkhand, one of India’s poorer states, launched the protests late last month over the alleged wrongdoing including recruitment test paper leaks. Police used water cannon to disperse demonstrators during a protest in Ranchi, India, on Monday. Credit: Rajesh Kumar and AFP via Getty Images in NBC BHUBANESWAR, India — Police in eastern India used tear gas, batons and water cannon to disperse thousands of youth proteste NBC News Aug 11 2 min read Country Report: Costa Rica July 2026 By Juliana Girotto Migrants at the Paso Canoas refugee camp in Puntarenas, Costa Rica, on August 9.Ezequiel Becerra/AFP/Getty Images/FILE Costa Rica is historically regarded as one of Latin America's strongest countries in terms of defending human rights and political stability. Over the past few years, however, several trends have drawn concern from United Nations (UN) agencies and regional human rights groups, such as strain on migrants and refugees, a rollback of protectio Genocide Watch Aug 10 3 min read Country Report: Japan July 2026 By Genocide Watch Image by Bloomberg via Getty Images Japan has long practiced historical revisionism regarding their Empire-era atrocities. From the late 1800s to 1945, the Japanese Empire committed numerous war crimes against multiple peoples across the Asia-Pacific region. Often referred to as the Asian Holocaust, these atrocities included genocide and other mass atrocities during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Its actions included, starvation, forced assim Genocide Watch Aug 10 3 min read 1 2 3 4 5

< Back Nigeria Team Report: July 29th, 2025 Photo credit: A uniformed civilian guard volunteer bravely leads his team protecting a civilian gathering in Bokkos on September 21. Credit: Masara Kim. On the night of July 15, 2025 , armed men, suspected Fulani militants, attacked Bindi, a Christian farming village in Plateau State. Over 100 assailants descended on the community from multiple directions, killing at least 27 civilians, including women and children. Despite being stationed just two miles away, soldiers from Operation Safe Haven reportedly failed to respond to urgent calls for help. This attack mirrors a broader and escalating pattern of violence across Nigeria’s Middle Belt, where well-armed Fulani militia groups repeatedly target Christian-majority communities in Benue, Plateau, and Kaduna States. Just weeks earlier, in Yelwata (Benue), more than 200 civilians were killed in coordinated night raids. In many cases, churches are burned, homes razed, and survivors displaced. Despite the scale of violence, Nigeria’s federal government has not designated these groups as terrorists, nor launched a coordinated national response. Officials often refer to the attacks as “farmer-herder clashes,” a term that minimizes their organized, religiously targeted nature of the attacks. Between 2019 and 2023, Fulani militants were responsible for more civilian deaths than Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) combined, according to the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa. This brings us back to the persistent denial of what is, in reality, a targeted campaign of violence, too often dismissed under the cover of climate change narratives. As Genocide Watch has documented through interviews with Nigerian journalists on the ground, this is not about environmental conflict. These are deliberate, organized attacks. Communities are being terrorized, abandoned by those meant to protect them, and left to live in fear while the international community looks the other way. Survivors and community leaders accuse the military of repeated inaction. In multiple attacks, including Bindi, military units in proximity either arrived late or not at all. Some villagers resort to defending themselves with homemade weapons, risking arrest for doing so. The violence has displaced tens of thousands and destabilized agricultural output. Experts warn that climate pressure, land scarcity, and impunity are intensifying the crisis. Calls for stronger military accountability, counter-terrorism designations, and civilian protection mechanisms have so far gone unanswered. As the death toll rises, Nigeria’s Christian communities are left increasingly exposed, and unheard. Previous Next