When recognising genocide becomes a matter of political convenience

More than five decades on, the genocide during the Liberation War in 1971 remains unrecognised, and by the look of it, the genocide in Gaza may also face the same fate. Photos: UNB and Reuters

Israel has so far killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, with more than two-thirds of the dead being women and children. It has also deliberately created a crisis of basic necessities like water, food, fuel and medical supplies, with a view to using starvation as a weapon of war. 

In essence, the action by the Israeli forces is clear textbook case of genocide, fulfilling three out of five genocidal acts listed by the UN Genocide Convention, including killing, causing serious bodily harm, and measures calculated to bring about the destruction of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. 

Also, during a press conference on 13 October 2023, Israeli President Isaac Herzog expressed direct statements of intent by holding Gaza civilians accountable for the consequences they have been facing. "It's an entire nation that is out there that's responsible. It's not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true."

So, when South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the United Nations' top court – accusing them of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, more than 50 countries, including Bangladesh, rightly voiced their support for the action.

Nevertheless, some big names from the Western world, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany, have strongly rejected South Africa's allegation that Israel is violating the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

Additionally, other influential nations such as Russia, China, and India have chosen to remain silent on the matter.

According to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, South Africa's allegations are "meritless" and the case "distracts the world" from efforts to find a lasting solution to the conflict. The UK Foreign Minister David Cameron said they "don't agree with" what the South Africans are doing. 

Meanwhile, Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau showed "wholehearted support of the ICJ and its processes" but clarified that they do not "support the premise of the case," while German government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said "Israel has been defending itself." 

Interestingly, things aren't much different in the International Criminal Court (ICC) either, as its Prosecutor Karim Khan, a British lawyer specialising in international criminal law and international human rights law, has also been applying double standards when it comes to war crimes committed by Israel.

While it took the Prosecutor only one year to identify concrete cases in the situation in Ukraine, he has not requested any warrants of arrest or summons in relation to Palestine and Israel in the two years and half since he was sworn in on 16 June 2021, inheriting an opened investigation into the situation in Palestine from his predecessor.

This way, the ongoing row over whether a genocide is taking place in Gaza is turning out to be yet another instance of the West cherrypicking which atrocity to recognise as a genocide or war crime, and which to turn a deaf ear to.

Hence, only eight genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, Darfur, Xinjiang, areas under the control of ISIS, Myanmar and Armenia have generally been recognised by the US and most other Western countries since the Holocaust, while some other genocides in Guatemala, Western Sahara and East Timor continue to be overlooked.

And of course, who knows it better than us!

During the Liberation War in 1971, the then East Pakistan not only lost over three million people, mostly civilians, to the West Pakistan Army and their collaborators, but also more than two lakh women were raped and tortured; thousands of houses were set ablaze and mass lootings were conducted by the Pakistani occupying forces till December 1971.

However, the UN, despite being the global organisation that aims to promote international cooperation, maintain international peace and security, and uphold human rights, is yet to officially acknowledge the mass killings in 1971 as an act of genocide.

While the lack of information or substantial evidence is definitely one of the reasons behind it, the bigger problem is that the UN's recognition of a genocide is more often than not subject to political considerations. 

It's a well-established fact that during 1971, many powerful nations including China and the US, were pro-Pakistan, and played a pivotal role in enabling Pakistan to conduct its atrocities. Hence, it is only natural that these countries would not want to take responsibility of a genocide by recognising it in the UN. 

Drawing from this example, it could be said that the same thing is happening once again now, particularly in the US's case. The US is not providing Israel merely "moral support," as its biggest ally, but also extending a helping hand in the act of genocide in its truest sense. 

Since the beginning of the current Israel-Hamas war in October last year, the US began to send warships and military aircraft into the Eastern Mediterranean and supply Israel with ammunition and military equipment.

The US also stated that Israel would receive "whatever it needs" to support a counteroffensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and promised more military aid to Israel. On 20 October 2023, the US President Joe Biden announced that he had asked Congress for $14 billion in additional aid.

Meanwhile, the Western nations, through their media and foreign policy, also tend to often downplay or overlook genocides in regions where their respective governments maintain strategic alliances or economic interests. 

For instance, the Armenian Genocide, despite widespread acknowledgment and condemnation internationally, faced varying levels of recognition in Western media, and it took the US a solid 100 years to formally recognise it.  

The reasoning is as simple as it gets: the US had long been divided over whether it should use the term "genocide" to describe the Ottoman Empire's actions toward the Armenians, or should it heed the warnings of its ally, Turkey?

Notably, the latter had always opposed using the term and threatened to recall its ambassador or even deny the US access to its military bases, if the word was applied in this way.  

For the most part of history, the US had also preferred the notion that "the history is complicated" and it was better not to be on bad terms with Turkey, a loyal strategic partner.


But then what happened that the US also changed its stance? 

It is believed that the US's recognition of the Armenian genocide in 2021 had less to do with a sudden awakening of the nation's collective consciousness and more to do with the Erdogan government's close ties with Russia. 

Furthermore, the Biden administration might have also felt it was a safe bet now, with countries like Germany and Russia having also recognised the Armenian genocide.

Examples like this reinforce the perception that the Western world exhibits its humanitarian concerns only when doing so comes in its favour.