--- Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote: The problem with definition is not that it applies to everything, but rather that it applies to almost nothing, and provides no alternative option. So people feel compelled to claim genocide whenever they see a massacre if they want anyone to feel they have any duty to do anything. In well run world, we'd just have a law against large massacres, regardless of intent or percentages. But for that to entail a duty would require a complete reorganization of international law and its central institutions -- a third League of Nations/UN moment that was more successful than either of them were.
Michael ---
I suspect one factor is that traditional wars between nation-states are becoming increasingly rare. Instead, we see wars between a nation-state and a guerilla force, or conflicts between two or nore guerilla forces (I can never remember how to spell that damn word). Such conflicts produce war crimes like a dog sheds hair. That is, they produce massive civilian suffering, even if that is not their intent, and the temptation is to use "genocide" as an emotional synonym for "lots of civilian death." So the actions of the US in Vietnam become "genocide," those of Iraq and Turkey toward Kurds, Russia toward Chechens, India toward Kashmir, etc. etc. etc. although wiping out a people as a people was not in the minds of any of the above actors (as far as I know). (God knows that the 100,000 or so Chechen Akkins living unmolested in Dagestan would be surprised to hear that there was a campaign of genocide being unleashed against them.)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail