Genocide prevention
[1] Scholars in the field of genocide studies have identified a set of widely agreed upon risk factors that make a country or social group more at risk of carrying out a genocide, which include a wide range of political and cultural factors that create a context in which genocide is more likely, such as political upheaval or regime change, as well as psychological phenomena that can be manipulated and taken advantage of in large groups of people, like conformity and cognitive dissonance.
However, the United Nations has been heavily criticized for its failure to prevent genocide, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Instead, genocidal killing demonstrates the potential of ordinary psychological and social processes to be manipulated until they escalate into violence, under certain 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 to turn violent.
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.
[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.
In addition to individual-level cognitive "moves", there are also many social psychological factors that influence an "ordinary" group's transformation into killers.
[6] Other tendencies of human social relationships can similarly push people towards violence, such as prejudice, altruism, and aggression.
The scapegoat theory (or practice of scapegoating) helps to explain the relationship, as it posits that people have a tendency to lash out on out-groups when they are frustrated, for example in times of political or economic crisis.
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.
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][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.
[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] 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.
[9] Stanton's ten stages include: classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination, and denial.
These early warning signs are common in nearly every genocide, but their identification is only useful in prevention efforts when actual actions are taken to combat them.
[12] According to Stanton, the facts about the massacres were heavily resisted; the US and UK refused to invoke the term "genocide" in order to avoid their duty to act, instead naming it a civil war; "group-think" concluded that stopping the genocide would endanger the lives of UNAMIR peacekeeping troops and exceed their mandate [the UNAMIR commander requested reinforcements, but was rebuffed] ; although thousands of US marines were on ships off the coast of East Africa, US policy makers feared intervention into a "quagmire" like Somalia; and black Rwandan lives did not matter compared to the risk of the lives of Americans, Europeans, and troops from other UN member states.
This norm has provided justification for the U.N., regional organizations, and other transnational institutions to intervene even against the will of national governments for the prevention of genocide.
However, some critics of the responsibility to protect claim that the doctrine will be abused as an excuse to invade or bring about regime changes.
Her model uses factors such as political upheaval, prior genocides, authoritarian government, exclusionary ideologies, closure of borders, and systematic violations of human rights, among others.
[19][20] Scholars tend to prefer upstream prevention because it saves lives and does not require costly intervention.
Justice for the victims plays a major role in repairing communities to prevent a future genocide from occurring.
[18] 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.
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.
[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.
[24] The organizations include: 21 Wilberforce Initiative, Act for Sudan, Aegis Trust, Antiquities Coalition, Armenian National Committee, Brandeis Center, Burma Human Rights Network, Darfur Women Action Group, Cardozo Law Institute, CALDH, Cambodian Genocide Project, Center for Political Beauty, Combat Genocide Association, Christian Solidarity International, Documentation Center of Cambodia, EMMA, Fortify Rights, Free Rohingya Coalition, Genocide Watch, Hammurabi, Hudo, Human Security Centre, In Defense of Christians, INTERSOCIETY, International Alert, International Committee on Nigeria, International Crisis Group, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Institute for the Study of Genocide, Jewish World Watch, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center, Jubilee Campaign, Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights, Mediators Beyond Borders, Knights of Columbus, Minority Rights Group International, Montreal Institute for Human Rights Studies, Never Again Association, North Korea Freedom Coalition, Operation Broken Silence, PROOF, Protection Approaches, Sentinel Project, Shlomo, STAND, Stimson Center, Survival International, TRIAL, Waging Peace, WARM, World Outside My Shoes, and World Without Genocide.
It has developed a Framework for Analysis that identifies some of the main risk factors for genocide and other atrocity crimes.
The Early Warning Project aids US policy makers by determining which states are the most likely to experience a genocide.
