Combating Catastrophe: The American Response to Genocide in Cambodia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Without memory, there is no culture. Without memory, there would be no civilization,

no society, no future.

– Elie Wiesel

Elie Wiesel shares insight into the collective idea of what genocide is and the impact genocide has on the world. Wiesel gives testament that the genocide is devastating not only in mass killings, but also the through the outgrowth of genocide results in the loss of culture, histories, languages, memories and subsequent generations that would have existed had it not have been for the death of millions. Often when the term genocide is used, it is connected to the Holocaust; however, genocides have occurred throughout history and continue to occur today. In order to better understand how to grasp the power and extent of mass killings, the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide will be used as case studies to understand genocide, the international politics at play, and the lasting devastation.

The power in labeling a mass atrocity a genocide is the invoking of an international obligation to respond. The genocides in Cambodia committed by the Khmer Rouge and the systematic ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serb Forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were both defined by the international community as genocide, while simultaneously having very complicated and political international responses. Both the Cambodian Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide are complicated by United States ideology and politics, and, by comparing the two, it will be possible to provide a better understanding and insight into the two conflicts.

For comparative purposes, genocide will be defined as “gross and systematic and severe human rights violations involving extensive political killings, or in response to humanitarian crises such as famines or massive refugee flows”  Much of the discourse on genocide came from the aftermath of Nazi concentration camps post World War II and the Nuremberg Military Tribunal following the end of the war in 1995. In 1948, the United Nations adopted The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, directly before the Universal Declaration of Human Right or the International Human Rights Covenants. The Genocide Convention defined genocide as a crime and created standards and obligations for the international response or degree of intervention in addressing the genocide. The creation of the United Nations came in the aftermath of the Allied victory in World War II – making the Allied Powers: United States, Russia/Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China all permanent members of the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council holds significant power via controlling discourse as well as international humanitarian norms. States such as the United States, Russia, and China, who are all non-members of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are also prominent members and have a significant influence in international politics. Thus, the power of a country, such as the United States, labeling something a genocide, or not, holds significant leverage and sway over the response because of the influence of the United States. An example of this is the U.S. in Indonesia, and how the “mass killings” of people of Indonesia based on political identity are at best labeled a tragedy,  but are not labeled a genocide even though it meets the various criteria.

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group… calculated to bring about its destruction”. Major ideas coming out of the Genocide Convention include the idea that states have an obligation to prevent genocide and to punish the perpetrators, often in the form of international trials/court. Many wars and conflicts that were considered forms of genocide during the Cold War were from internal conflict rather than between two sovereign states: Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovina being both examples of genocides committed between the government and its people.

Cambodia (1975-1978)

The Khmer Rouge was the political party in power that committed the systematic extermination of Cambodians. Saloth Sar or famously known as Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge.  Pol Pot was raised in a farm community in Cambodia and then later received a Western education in Paris, France, where he first heard of the communist ideology that would later lead to genocide. While radical thought was, for most of Pol Pot’s peers, theoretical at best, Pol Pot was able to implement these political ideas into Cambodia when he returned home. With the help and influence of the Vietnamese Communist party and with the support of communist countries such as China and North Korea, support existed within the region that allowed for communism to grow in Cambodia. The party moved to foundational changes within Cambodian society, moving close to 2 million people from the cities, mostly the capital, Phnom Penh, to the countryside for re-education programs. Those who showed any defiance,  were unable to be re-educated, or had ties to capitalist ideology, were seen as threats to the society and the political party. Often times many women and children whose husband or father had been sent to confinement were later executed as well. This genocide only lasted about two years but killed an estimated two million people.

Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995)

The start of the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide was based on the aftermath of World War I. Yugoslavia was the conglomeration of Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Istria, Dalmatia, Croatia-Slavonia, Vojvodina, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. The dominant group within the conglomeration was Serbs, and while they discriminated against other groups, before World War II, the collective lived in toleration of each other. After World War II, Yugoslavia was reorganized into six designated republics and two autonomous regions united under a federal system. The rise of power of Jusip Broz Tito allowed for Yugoslavia to remain a state even though it had groups of people contending for power over the area. Over time, tension among the different groups in Yugoslavia grew and with the death of Tito, and the emergence of economic and political problems, chaos emerged. The use of nationalism by Slobodan Milosevic, that began during his rise to power in 1987, brought forth the very conditions, stereotypes and alienation tactics that fostered genocide. Milosevic depicted Muslims who lived in Serbia as the largest threat to the Serbian national society. A foundational aspect that played into the genocide was the use of religion and mythology in demonizing Muslims as “Christkillers” within Christian Serbian teachings and understandings. On April 5, 1992, Bosnia declared independence from Yugoslavia and conflict erupted, which lead to a civil war between the Bosniak majority was opposed by Bosnian Serbs. From 1992 to 1995,  the use of these teachings and ideologies turned into the “daily rituals of ethnoreligious purification” which was acted out through means of genocide.  The Bosnian Serbs sought to purify through mass killings of Bosnian Muslims. By the end of the war, 100,000 Bosniak and Croatian civilians were killed; it was considered the largest massacre since the end of World War II in Europe.

Extended Power - The Influence of the US both in Cambodia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina

The historical contexts in Cambodia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, are what laid the groundwork and conditions that allowed for genocide to occur. The Cold War politics at this time played a part in the continued violence in both Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, rather than a more immediate response to these conflicts. The Cold War politics throughout US foreign policy is essential in understanding how both these genocides were addressed, viewed and then acted upon by the United States. The United States was one of the most powerful countries emerging post World War II. The United States was also extremely influential in the creation of the United Nations. The UN Responsibility to Protect is a cornerstone in international humanitarian law and intervention. The United Nations defines mass killings as a genocide, and generally requires some sort of response. Thus, to use the label genocide is to then invoke UN peacekeeping forces and the establishment of courts if the conflict ends.

The international law that was, in essence, created post World War II in Nuremberg and Tokyo. In these trials it proved to have a fatal flaw of being unclear regarding the terms of how to go about international humanitarian intervention, through military action, in states where mass genocide was occurring, and where intervention was not considered legal. The point of Nuremberg and the UN Security Council sanctioned trials was to hold those individuals at high levels of power, as the most accountable for the atrocities and mass extermination that occurred. However, in the case of Cambodia and Bosnia, the intervention that millions needed came too late.

The intervention that did occur was highly geopolitical for countries involved. It was only through the framework of the United Nations Security Council that could deem, “that genocide represented a threat to international peace and security. In practice, though, it never exercised that authority. The standard pattern, right through the end of the Cold War, was for the international community to wring its hands in anguish as genocide played itself out”.  Within the Security Council, you had the US, UK, and France on one ideological side and Russia/Soviet Union and China on the other, causing tension and gridlock amongst the very people who could end the genocide.

A foundational difference between the two trials was who sponsored and supported what, and the different levels of intervention that the international community had in Cambodia versus Bosnia-Herzegovina. The international response was collective and enacted thorough UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia were sanctioned by the Security Council. At this time it is important to note the changes that occurred within the Cold War – most notably the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The ideological battle and gridlock within the international community and the United Nations was significantly diminished which in turn, allowed for action.

Whereas in the case of Cambodia, the timing of the genocide itself played a key role in the redress that was expected at the time. In Asia and Southeast Asia, you have the United States in two major wars, among various other military action. Most notably the Korean War began shortly after World War II beginning in 1950 and lasting till 1953, and then the Vietnam War started in 1955 and finally concluded in 1975, the same year the Cambodian Genocide began. The United States and China, two countries who were once allies found themselves on opposite sides of an ideological battle that was being played out in proxy wars from Korea to Cambodia, to other areas around the world. A devastating consequence of the Vietnam War was the millions of bombs that the United States dropped in Laos and Cambodia. In 1975, you have domestic turmoil in the U.S. surrounding the Vietnam War, that going back to Southeast Asia with any form of U.S. military to address the Cambodian Genocide was not a feasible option. The Khmer Rouge even held the Cambodian seat in the UN till 1982. Most of those remain unaccountable for their actions, most notably the leader Pol Pot. Pol Pot died in 1998 before any trials began.

Genocide is a difficult and horrific act to comprehend. How a society gets to that point of action is often muddled with politics, power, and self-interest. By using Cambodia and  Bosnia-Herzegovina as two key examples, one can better understand how the atrocities occurred through the historical circumstances, international politics and the very institutions and means of addressing mass violence.

An Exotic, Yet Surprisingly Appropriate Government: A Look at Consociationalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Imagine a government with three presidents who have veto power over each other, all of whom represent different minorities in the country. A government where all three presidents simultaneously serve a four-year term and switch off every eight months when it comes to who holds the ultimate power. A government where the highest constitutional court is not appointed entirely by people in the country itself, but rather partially by an international body. A government where there is a foreign leader chosen by an international body who has the power to remove any elected official in this country on their own accord. A government with a constitution that contains an amendment process, but an amendment process which could only modify certain parts of the constitution and not others.

This hypothetical government probably evokes a number of reactions in the reader: certainly it’s exotic, but also strange, unconventional, probably ineffective, and seemingly the conception of somebody dead-set on watching the world burn. However, this quirky governmental style is not hypothetical at all. It’s alive and kicking in the small Balkan country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has had this form of government since the mid-1990s. Contrary to what may have been the reader’s instinctual reaction, this actually makes a lot of sense for the country’s situation, and while rare, this type of government known as a consociational democracy has existed throughout history in many countriesall over the world such as Cyprus, Lebanon, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Macedonia.

The Solution to Insurmountable Divides 

According to the Encyclopedia of Governance, consociationalism is a “stable democratic system in deeply divided societies that is based on an elite cartel.” Upon reading the definition, one might underestimate the level of division in a society to warrant the need for a consociational government. One might think the United States is a “deeply divided society.” After all, Pew Research has found that partisanship is currently at its highest point in modern American history. However, “deeply divided” in the context of consociationalism means that the different groups in society were literally killing each other, which was exactly the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s (Democrats and Republicans are not killing each other… yet.) Or it can mean that the groups in question had differences and animosities that walked the line between solvable and insurmountable.

Consociationalism works because all of the groups who normally have trouble getting along get a say in the government through the elites that represent them and their interests. These elites get a say through constitutional provisions that mandate that institutions share power between the very diverse groups. This works in practice by having a constitution that says Group X must have Y number of members in Z Legislative Body or Council, regardless of the numbers of votes cast for each group in an election. Once again, this sounds foreign to Americans who are so used to the first-past-the-post plurality voting system in the United States, but even some institutions like the Federal Election Commission use a power sharing system derived from consociationalism as only three of the six commissioners are allowed to be from the same political party. While the FEC is not a particularly impactful body (at least as compared to the institutions that usually feature power sharing structures in the divided countries), it shows that even relatively integrated societies sometimes want to ensure that one group does not garner too much power.

Turmoil in Bosnia and Herzegovina comes to a Resolution

As alluded to earlier, the transformation of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian government to a consociational democracy came about after the country’s large-scale civil war. Prior to the 1990s, Bosnia and Herzegovina was a part of the former Yugoslavia that was made up of six distinct republics, and the entire country was united behind the Communist Party. However, the dissolution of Yugoslavia caused war in Bosnia and Herzegovina for many reasons. Among those reasons was the deep animosity and mutual distrust of the three largest ethnic groups in the country: the Bosnian Muslims, the Croats, and the Serbs. Over 100,000 people died in the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, but eventually the United States and other countries stepped in to help the parties come to a resolution and an eventual modus vivendi.

In 1995, the Dayton Peace Accords were agreed upon by the parties involved, which stopped the fighting and created a Bosnian and Herzegovinian Constitution. This constitution formed a central government for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but most of the power was left to the two statescontained in the country. On the one hand, there was the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (different than the Republic which is the overarching central government) which was territory controlled by the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats, and on the other, the Republic of Srpska controlled by the Serbs. The power that was allocated to the overarching central government was to be shared between the various ethnic groups, and interestingly also with foreign entities. Fred L. Morrison describes this power sharing in an article in the Constitutional Commentary Journal,

The central government is organized on a federalist scheme – but one driven to an extreme of states’ rights. Everything is apportioned in thirds – one part Serbian, one part Bosniac, and one part Croatian. The Presidency consists of three individuals, one from each group. The bicameral legislature consists of an upper house (House of Peoples) with five from each group, and a lower house (House of Representatives) with fourteen from each group. Each of these bodies is to have three presiding officers who rotate in office.

However, this gets even more complicated because one member of the presidency could say that a decision by the other two is “destructive of a vital interest of the Entity from the territory from which he was elected,” and then essentially veto it if two thirds of those in the legislature of the ethnic group representing the dissenting president agree. The upper legislative body also has what Morrison termed an “ethnic veto” because the individual ethnic groups have the ability to tank any legislation they do not like irrespective of the other ethnic groups.

Perhaps more interesting than the power sharing between domestic ethnic groups is the power sharing between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the world. Below is a bar graph showing the number of foreigners in the various government entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Source: The Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Fred L. Morrison

The constitutional court is made up of nine members: two from each of the three ethnic groups and “three foreign neutrals, appointed by the President of the European Court of Human Rights after consultation with the Presidency.” It must be odd living in a country where foreigners make up a significant portion of the highest court and therefore make decisions that govern your life. However, as stated before, the Bosnian and Herzegovinian government is decentralized with little power at the federal level as most of the power is reserved for the entities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska. Nonetheless, it may be surprising to learn that the individual with the most power is actually a foreigner who is appointed by the international community. The Office of the High Representative is occupied by a foreignerwho has the power to dismiss elected officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina, enact “substantial legislation,” annul decisions by the highest constitutional court, and amend any Bosnian legislation. This kind of ultimate power is yielded to foreigners to ensure that Bosnia and Herzegovina is developing the way that the international community would like it to.

The Future of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Countries tend to move away from consociationalism after they become more stable as we see in cases like Colombia, Malaysia, and South Africa. I suspect that Bosnia and Herzegovina is moving in this direction and soon could be rid of these rules and institutions that undermine their sovereignty. The Office of the High Representative will shut down, but only after the international community agrees that the country has met the necessary conditions including the “Fiscal Sustainability of the State” and the “Entrenchment of the Rule of Law.” The country is also working on joining the European Union with a membership application accepted by the bloc in September, although the process to fully join will be long as many reforms are necessary. The stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina is reason for optimism and, even though their consociational government may be exotic, it makes sense for their situation and hopefully they will grow out of it in the near future.