63 YEARS ON: THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONVENTION TO PREVENT GENOCIDE TODAY
(In observance of the 63rd Anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
In 1932-33 there was a famine in the USSR. Twenty years later Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-American-Jewish lawyer, one of the draftsman of the Convention, offered the following remarks on the twentieth anniversary of that famine in a paper which he entitled “Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine”:
“What I want to speak about is perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide… the destruction of the Ukrainian nation…The third prong of the Soviet plan was aimed at the farmers, the large mass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folklore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit, of Ukraine. The weapon used against this body is perhaps the most terrible of all – starvation. Between 1932 and 1933, 5,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death…”
In order to better understand the enormity of this Genocide, consider that in the 1926 Soviet census there were 31 million Ukrainians in the USSR. The 1937 census only recently revealed, shows only 26 million. Thus a 5 million decrease over 11 years. The other populations in the USSR grew by 17% over that period of time. Were Ukrainians permitted to grow as much there should have been 36 million in 1937, a discrepancy of 10 million which includes unborn children of the victims, thus 7-10 million is a reasonable estimate. Russians in that period increased by 23%. To better understand the heinousness of this Soviet crime, consider that the number of victims included some 3 million children.
The Convention on Genocide followed the Armenian Genocide of 1915 during World War I, the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33 and the Jewish Holocaust during the Second World War. Interestingly from the Convention’s perspective, of those three major Genocides only the Ukrainian one took place in time of peace.
It is true that more genocides followed: in Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Darfur, and even the Kurds in Iraq. The pure efficacy of the Convention may be questioned particularly in the area of punishment. After all the International Criminal Court was created only some fifty years later, and arguably, is not very effective still today. Nevertheless, the significance of the Convention is that it codified the word “Genocide”, extended the definition of Genocide to “time of peace” as well as time of war and dealt with prevention more than punishment, being devoid of a serious enforcement mechanism. The Convention became the moral standard with only the most arrogant defying its terms.
It is precisely because of this standard that the Convention remains relevant. The world we live in is much more transparent. Today cyberspace is largely the forum of choice for organizing and publicizing revolutions. Similarly, that cyberspace is the defensive mechanism or deterrent preventing large scale Genocide. But only because the world recognizes Genocide as the most heinous crime imaginable since it is murder on many counts with a clearly identified reprehensible motive. The Convention is largely responsible for this.
During the lengthy discussions surrounding the Convention’s drafting and adoption in the 1940’s at least one form of Genocide, a cultural one, was considered and then dismissed. Perhaps today would be a good time to begin a reconsideration process.
A case on point: the Ukrainian ethnic community in the Russian Federation.
Russia's disregard for human rights and minority rights within its borders is notorious. During a recent visit to Russia, the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights reported, “Russia currently has the highest number of cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights”. This was attributed in part to endemic problems within Russia's own legal system. Still this sentiment communicated a level of opprobrium with little or no consequences. Russia's law on religion recognizes only religions which had been active under Josef Stalin with Russian Orthodoxy the preeminent force. Ukrainian Orthodoxy or Ukrainian Catholicism are outlawed officially, although permitted to function without legal registration or property ownership. Minorities function but receive no state assistance. In fact Russia does not have a ministry dealing with minorities. In the case of the Ukrainian minority which is the largest in Russia, most recently, Russia has undertaken serious steps to limit further its activities. Dissolution of the two major Ukrainian NGOs is currently before the courts in Russia and Strasbourg. Foreign minister Lavrov has acknowledged the political nature of the dissolution process. This represents a cultural Genocide, not within the Convention’s definition, but nonetheless, one that ought to be prevented.
The Convention on Genocide and its younger brother the Declaration on Human Rights nevertheless remain the standards by which the international community and subsequent international organizations govern. Recognizing this major achievement, the UN community of nations should move forward to expand this moral standard in an ever changing world.
New York, December 8, 2011
Askold S. Lozynskyj
Ukrainian World Congress
These remarks were made at a United Nations Department of Public Information briefing for UN NGO’s in New York City on December 8, 2011.
