Reflections on Genocide as the Ultimate Crime

Reflections on Genocide as the Ultimate Crime

Genocide is a well-defined term in international law – in the 1948 Genocide Convention and Article 6 of the Rome Statute.The most respected international tribunals have separately agreed that proof of the crime of genocide depends on an extremely convincing presentation of factual evidence, including documentation of an intent to destroy in whole or in part national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Court of Justice – all have endeavoured to provide authoritative tests of “intent,” treating intent as the essential element in the crime of genocide. This jurisprudence is what should be guiding our politicians in reaching prudent conclusions as to whether there exist credible grounds to put forward accusations of genocide, given its inflammatory effects. We should be asking whether the factual situation is clouded, calling for an independent international investigation followed by further action if deemed appropriate, and in nuclear-armed world, we should be extremely careful before making such an accusation.

Related:

Xinjiang

MEK Israel Derailing Failed – Democrats Try New Tactic

MEK Israel Derailing Failed – Democrats Try New Tactic

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has alleged that negotiators don’t yet know if Tehran is serious about making a deal in Vienna. The US negotiators are talking with Iran’s negotiators on the sidelines of the meetings of the remaining JCPOA signatories. But perhaps the opposite is true. In spite of severe provocation, Iran did not abandon the talks and has kept its baseline proposition – if the US wants to re-join the JCPOA it must credibly lift sanctions and Iran will scale back its nuclear enrichment to agreed levels. Maybe, by focusing heavily on Iran’s compliance without offering a clear commitment to lifting the sanctions, it is the US that is not serious about the talks.

Australia is playing in the international greyzone: it is time to get out of our unthinking alliance with the US

The current animosity between the United States-led western world and strategic partners Russia and China is all about power. It is not about human rights, democracy, trade, intellectual property, the ‘rules-based international order’ or any of the other canards used by politicians, commentators and the media to describe current events.

The United States had for a historically brief period, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a unipolar moment where it could largely do as it pleased in international affairs. That period of global hegemony is now history but the myth of US exceptionalism within the minds of its elites, and their acolytes, persists.

China and Russia on the other hand, both having learned the folly of empire, have rather more limited goals. But in a case of projection, Western powers assume Russia and China seek global domination. This is based on the fallacious logic, as argued by former US ambassador and Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman, that because the United States had the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny these countries must too.

At this point, it is highly unlikely that the United States along with any grouping of its allies can militarily defeat China and Russia in any plausible scenario. Thus, the conflict between these two poles is primarily informational and to a lesser extent economic (e.g. sanctions). In other words, this is a grey-zone conflict, otherwise known as political warfare.

Australia is playing in the international greyzone: it is time to get out of our unthinking alliance with the US