issues of intent and prevention, a response to: The Wall of Baia Mare: Racism or Public Service?

I think Sam’s post and the Baia Mare example highlight a lot of issues surrounding genocide intent and prevention; issues that are very relevant to both the Yugoslav Wars as well as larger frameworks for comprehending prevention to take away from this course.

While reading the (conveniently) linked articles as well as the questions Sam posed, I found it extremely difficult to decipher exactly how culpable Mayor Catalain Chereches is. Reading accusations of discrimination I felt persuaded by Roma groups and NGOS. Angry for the too often marginalized Roma peoples again being isolated and relocated, forced to live in squalor in Baia Mare. I perceived hatred and prejudice on the higher levels; the desire to push these perceived “garbage throwing people” out of sight. However, reading the counter arguments of the political party and the court I felt that the government could be attempting to improve the lies of the Roma living in unacceptable conditions; more confident in the mayor’s good intentions and communication with the Roma. As Sam mentions the situation highlights issues and confusion in determining intent. Furthermore, what is interesting to me about this issue is how it can emphasize the difficulty in comprehending intent in not only in a historical context, as we have been studying, but also, in current news.

This difficulty in comprehending intent stresses complications in prevention. Last year I had the opportunity to study abroad, and while away, got to do a little traveling. One highlight of my experience was a chance to spend a few days in Sarajevo. A conversation that really stuck with me with an acquaintance in the city, who was about 30, and fought on the Muslim Bosnian side of the war was a description of the confusion he felt about fighting against people who he once lived with side by side. In his eyes, these people he had considered brothers, best friends, and family turned so quickly and completely into enemies. This story of confusion and shock about almost unforeseeable reversed interpersonal relationships is brought up in Oberschall’s The Manipulation of Identity, and that is what reminded me of that conversation. For me these stories make so clear the recurring theme in all of our case studies of the confusion before a conflict (genocidal or not) occurs, how quickly violence can escalate, the potential for polarization and marginalization, and most importantly, how little sense the violence makes at the time for civilians experiencing the increasing horror.

This issues of prevention reminded me of articles I mentioned previously on the blog concerning Obama’s Atrocities Prevention Board; committees “empowered to develop new tools and contingency plans to detect and address threats of genocide and mass atrocities. Agencies were also ordered to come up with better tools to foresee and prevent future Rwandas and Srebrenicas, situations in which the U.S. and international bureaucracies dithered until it was too late to stop the slaughter.” Elisa Von Joeden-Forgey’s Gender And Genocide highlights the significance of genocide studies to produce new frameworks with which to consider genocide that have potential to foster abilities to identify warning signs and prevention. In When Soldiers Rape, Cynthia Enloe details the “whistle-blowing” feminists in Serbia, Croatia, Philippines, Japan, Chile to make “visible and explicit the casual connections between militarism and all forms of violence against women” (149). While this symbolic whistle blowing serves a more nuanced purpose in the article, it can also emphasize the importance of calling public attention to issues, and potentially dangerous connections. In relation to the NGOs and Roma groups in Baia Mare, it can help one to question, is it better to blow a whistle prematurely or to miss the opportunity? Sam’s post highlights the potential of NGOs to gaining public attention. It calls attention to the fact that there are many organizations that want to bring public scrutiny to potential problems of minorities, the potential for groups to be marginalized, as well as the dangers once we start heading down that road. The example of Baia Mare underscores the difficulty in determining legitimate threat and potential from neutral or even positive situations by looking through the lens of intent. Thus, this example depicts potential problems with prevention in a world of discrimination, potential violence, and increasing numbers of NGOs organizations, how do we distinguish potential paths to genocide?