Genocide prevention

Genocide is not something that only trained, sadistic killers take part in, but rather it is something that ordinary people can do with the proper “training” via cognitive restructuring and social conditioning.[3][4] The act of killing for genocidal purposes is not a distinct category of human behavior, but instead demonstrates the potential of ordinary psychological and social psychological processes to be manipulated and escalated into violence in certain environments and conditions.[4] One of the major puzzles in studying both the occurrence of and prevention of genocide, therefore, is understanding what makes those "normal" cognitive processes, both on the individual and collective levels, vulnerable to manipulation by outsiders, and which social and political conditions provide a breeding ground for that manipulation into violence.

On the individual level, the psychological concept of Cognitive dissonance plays a large role in a person's transformation from peaceful citizen to violent genocidal killer.[4] Even more specifically, Alexander Hinton, in his 1996 study on the psycho-social factors that contributed to the Cambodian genocide, coined the term "psychosocial dissonance" to add to this well-known psychological concept other anthropological concepts like cultural models and notions of the self.[3] These forms of dissonance, both cognitive and psychosocial, arise when a person is confronted with behavioral expectations that conflict with their own identity or concept of self, and subsequently work subconsciously to resolve those inconsistencies.[3] Hinton claims that there are a number of cognitive "moves" that must occur in order for a person to reduce psychosocial dissonance felt at the onset of genocide, and these moves slowly transform people into their "genocidal selves."[3] These cognitive moves include the dehumanization of victims, the employment of euphemisms to mask violent deeds, the undergoing of moral restructuring, becoming acclimated to the act of killing, and/or denying responsibility for violent actions.[3] The first move, dehumanization, is one of the biggest "steps," as it has been central to every genocide. In The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide, as particularly notable examples, victims were labeled as vermin, cockroaches, rats, or snakes, to separate them entirely from the category of human in this process of dehumanization.[4] When the label of "person" is taken away from entire groups of individuals, acting violently towards them, including murdering them, becomes much easier for the average person.

There are a variety of political and cultural factors that make states more at risk for movement down a path of mass violence, and an understanding and recognition of the existence of those factors can be crucial in genocide prevention efforts. While studies in this area find varying degrees of risk for each particular factor, there is widespread consensus on which kinds of environments present the greatest risk for the occurrence of genocide. First, certain situational factors like destabilizing crises and political upheaval make countries more vulnerable to genocide.[5][7] Forms of political upheaval include civil wars, assassinations, revolutions, coups, defeat in international war, anticolonial rebellions, or any sort of upheaval that results in unconventional regime change or in elites with extremist ideologies coming to power.[7][8] Almost all genocides of the past half-century have occurred either during or in the immediate aftermath of one of these types of political upheaval.[5][8] Additionally, the potential for genocidal violence increases when multiple forms of crisis, upheaval, or destabilization occur simultaneously, or when the effects of past crises remain unresolved.[5]

Political upheaval is particularly dangerous when a repressive leader is able to come to power. Authoritarian leaders can propel entire societies into "monolithic cultures" at risk for genocide by incentivizing a strong obedience to the state, a lack of tolerance for diversity, and creating an environment that facilitates Groupthink and conformity.[5] The most dangerous authoritarian leaders often have extremist views about a new society "purified" of unwanted or threatening groups of people,[8] and they promote these ideologies as moral and for the "greater good" of the nation, as they classify certain threatening groups as barriers to national success.[5][7] Many such leaders in past genocides, like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milošević, have also shared similar personal characteristics, as charismatic, self-confident, intelligent individuals with a fierce desire for power.[5]

Adolf Hitler is saluted by German troops in an enthusiastic demonstration.

In addition to situational political factors like upheaval, authoritarian leaders, and unstable government structures, certain cultural factors also contribute to the likelihood that a state will commit genocide. Cultures that promote the use of aggression as a normative problem-solving skill, and cultures that glorify violence through things like military parades, for example, have a greater risk of perpetrating mass violence.[5] Similarly, societies with a strong history of supremacy ideologies, including the long-term normalization of biases towards outsiders, a lack of acceptance of cultural diversity, and the exclusion of certain groups from society, are also at greater risk.[5][7] Specifically, Barbara Harff's 2003 model on the antecedents to genocide found that countries with an elite ideology, in which the ruling elite hold an exclusionary vision for the society, are two and half times more likely to commit genocide in the aftermath of a state failure, and genocide is also more than two times as likely in states where the political elite constitutes an ethnic minority.[8] Many versions of these types of extreme ideologies are present in historical examples of genocide, including the "purification" efforts of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Nazi Germany's pursuit of an exclusively Aryan race in their nation.[7]

Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, formulated a well-known list of ten (originally eight) stages of genocide in 1996. These stages do not necessarily occur linearly or exclusively one at a time, but they provide a guiding model to analyze the processes leading to genocide that can be recognized as warning signs and acted upon, as each stage presents an opportunity for certain prevention measures.[9] Stanton's ten stages include: classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination, and denial.[10] The first few of these stages happen early in the process of inciting genocide, and thus offer the most opportunity for preventative measures before genocide is already in full force. During the classification stage, where people begin distinguishing within a culture between "us and them" designated by race, ethnicity, or nationality, the most important prevention measure is to promote tolerance and understanding, and to promote the widespread use of classifications and common ground that transcend these harmful divisions.[10] In the symbolization stage, in which "other" groups are given names or physical symbols to demonstrate their classification, hate symbols, hate speech, and group marking should be outlawed as a critical prevention measure.[10] Once a society progresses to the discrimination stage, where the dominant group, acting on an exclusionary ideology, uses law and political power to deny the rights of the targeted group, the most crucial preventative measure is to ensure full rights and political empowerment for all groups in a society.[10] And the final "early" step, before a society actually begins to organize to carry out the genocide, is dehumanization, in which one group denies the humanity of the other group. Stanton argues that prevention at this stage should be aimed at ensuring that the incitement to genocide is not confused with protected speech, that hate propaganda is banned, and that any sort of hate crimes or atrocities are promptly punished.[10]

While dehumanization is widely recognized by Stanton and other scholars as a key stage in the process, Rhiannon Neilsen, in a 2015 article in the Genocide Studies and Prevention journal, argues that "toxification" serves as a more precise early warning sign of genocide than dehumanization.[11] According to Neilsen, dehumanization is understood as "the denial of an individual's essential humanness and identity," which situates those individuals "outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply."[11] In the consensus of genocide literature, this step is considered to be an alarming early warning sign because it overcomes the universal human intolerance of murder for the perpetrating group, and according to Stanton, is the "phase where the death spiral of genocide begins."[11] However, Nielsen's view is that while dehumanization signals that killing members of a particular group is persmissible, a better early warning sign is one that alerts when extermination of a group is considered necessary. She defines toxification as "the cognitive perception of victims as malignant and carcinogenic pests that must be purged for the survival of the perpetrator, and/or the perpetrators' ideal society," so that victims are not only perceived as inhuman targets whose murder is acceptable, but also as a toxic presence that must be destroyed for the good of the nation or society.[11]

These early warning signs are common across genocidal societies, but their identification is only useful in prevention efforts when actual actions are taken to combat them. One salient example of a failure to act on early warning signs is the Rwandan genocide. Despite numerous warnings, both indirect and explicit, there was widespread failure on the part of individual nations like the United States and international organizations like the United Nations to take the necessary preventative steps before the genocide was already well underway.[12] According to Stanton, the facts of the situation were heavily resisted, and governments refused to invoke the term "genocide" in order to avoid their duty to act, instead naming it a civil war.[12] The US Secretary of State did not call the mass killings a genocide until June 10, 1994, after most of the killing was already over, and the press and human rights groups also failed to name the crime for what it was until two weeks into the genocide.[12]

While the prevention of genocide is typically approached from a political or national defense angle, the field of public health can also make significant contributions to this effort. Genocide, along with other forms of mass atrocity, is inherently an issue of public health, as it has a significant and detrimental impact on population health, both immediately after the violence occurs and also in the long term health of a post-genocidal population.[22][23] With regards to the mortality numbers alone, genocide has killed more people than war-related deaths in every historical period.[22] And it also far surpasses the mortality rates of some of the most pressing epidemiological threats. In 1994, the year that the Rwandan genocide occurred, the mortality rate from the genocide itself was 20 times higher than the rate of HIV/AIDS deaths and more than 70 times higher than the rate of malaria-related deaths, despite the fact that Rwanda was geographically sandwiched by these two pandemics.[22] And in the long run, the public health impact of genocide goes beyond the number of people killed. During genocide, healthcare facilities are often destroyed, doctors and nurses are killed in the violence, and the usual disease prevention efforts of the nation are disrupted, for example, immunization programs, which normally save thousands of lives.[23] The destruction of these facilities and healthcare programs has longterm effects.[23] Additionally, post-genocidal societies have an increased rate of chronic and acute disease, low birth rates, increased perinatal mortality, and increased malnutrition.[22] The individual-level health of genocide survivors also suffers in the long-term, given that significant trauma has both long-lasting psychological and physical effects.[22]

The American Medical Association (AMA) recognizes this critical link between health and human rights in the area of genocide and its prevention, and urges physicians to approach genocide using public health strategies.[23] Such strategies include documentation of genocide and pre-genocidal conditions through case reports and surveillance, epidemiological studies to assess the impact of genocide on public health, education and spreading awareness about the understanding of genocide and its psychological precursors to the public, to other health professionals, and to policymakers, and advocacy for policies and programs aimed at the prevention of genocide.[23]

• United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect official website
• Genocide Awareness and Prevention month Toolkit, Enough Project, April 2014