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?
