If It Looks Like "x" and Smells Like "x"...

Ok, so first the funny part. Some images of Donald Rumsfeld are just screaming to be made into Emperor Palpatine. Part of the credit goes to dh. I'm not so good with lightning...


Now, the not-so-funny part.

A few days ago I became aware of the following quote [7/25]:

Q: Is the country closer to a civil war?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is - there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a - it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.

Hearing echoes from Tony Snow... [7/24]:

Q: Obviously, in the last couple of weeks, there's been a U.N. report of a hundred people dying a day in Iraq, 6,000 in the last two months, the number of major attacks in Baghdad up 40 percent on a weekly basis. Does the administration think that Iraq is now in a civil war?

MR. SNOW: No. I don't want to get -- you're talking about in and around Baghdad. I know the Prime Minister has a piece today where he talks about turning Muthana province over, and there are several other provinces that are going to be under Iraqi control they think relatively soon. You have -- I think there's an attempt, and it's very alluring to politicians here to try to make the situation sound like civil war everywhere. No, there are parts of Iraq where life is proceeding with a fair degree of normalcy, where people are enjoying greater economic opportunity and they're enjoying the fruits of democracy. You've got a problem in Baghdad, and that is -- it's absolutely critical to address that.

Q: Yes, but it's not the politicians here who are calling it a civil war, it's politicians in Iraq. Iraqi politicians are saying --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to get into the labeling game. I think the most important -- because I don't know where you go with that, except you get a headline: "Administration says civil war." And it deflects from the real purpose here, which is to figure out how to create civil peace, and that is really the prime objective of everybody in the United States, every American who is working in and on the issue of Iraq.

Now, let's go back in time, shall we?

[1/19/93] [G. H. W. Bush] Asst. Secretary of State Patricia Diaz Dennis: In Bosnia, our report describes widespread systematic atrocities, including the rapes and killings of civilian victims to the extent that it probably borders on genocide. We haven't yet decided whether or not it's a legal matter. The conduct in Bosnia is genocide, but clearly the abuses that have occurred there over the last year are such that they, as I said, border on that particular legal term.

[4/1/93] [Clinton] Rep. Frank McCloskey: Previously to the Congress in response to a question as to whether or not genocide has taken place in Bosnia, the reply from State was that acts tantamount to genocide have taken place. I think that's not a clear answer to a very important and policy-driving question. Would you order a clear, explicit determination, yes or no, if the outrageous Serb systematic barbarism amounts to genocide?

Secretary Warren Christopher: With respect to the definition of the circumstances in Bosnia, we certainly will reply to that. That is a legal question that you've posed. I've said several times that the conduct there is an atrocity. The killing, the raping, the ethnic cleansing is definitely an atrocious set of acts. Whether it meets the technical legal definition of genocide is a matter that we'll look into and get back to you.

[6/10/1994] Reuters correspondent Alan Elsner: How would you describe the events taking place in Rwanda?

State Dept. Spokesman Christine Shelly: Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occured in Rwanda.

Elsner: What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide?"

Shelly: Well, I think the-- as you know, there's a legal definition of this... Clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label... But as to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.

Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make a genocide?

Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer.

[at the time of the interview 200,000-500,000 Rwandans had been murdered.]

[6/30/04] [G. W. Bush] National Public Radio: The U.S., however, is very careful not to use the word, "genocide." Why is the Administration reluctant to call [the events in Sudan] genocide?

Colin Powell: Well, why would we call it a genocide when the genocide definition has to meet certain legal tests? It is a legal determination. And based on what we have seen, there were some indicators but there was certainly no full accounting of all indicators that lead to a legal definition of genocide, in accordance with the terms of the genocidal treaties. That's the advice of my lawyers.

NPR: For some, the reluctance to label this a homicide hearkens back to Rwanda.

Powell: It isn't a reluctance. It isn't a reluctance that, based on the evidence that is available, it doesn't meet the tests of the definition of genocide. It isn't reluctance. I can assure you that if all of the indicators lined up and said this meets what the treaty test of genocide is, I would have no reluctance to call it that. And the fact that we have not called it that is not based on reluctance. This is not Rwanda ten years ago; it is Sudan now.

NPR: I don't want to belabor this, but in diplomacy words do count, and as your -- as State Department counsel looks at this issue and determines whether this -- whether this should be labeled a genocide, does that carry a different weight and responsibility for the State Department and the U.S. if they make that determination?

Powell: The State Department has to weigh all of these matters carefully and what we try to do is to use labels with precision. There are some who, based on what they have heard about the situation in Darfur and their concern about the needs of these people, want to immediately call it a genocide, whether it fits the definition of a genocide or not. I'm more interested in taking care of the people.

Now, if it was a genocide and it met all the tests and we declared it that, we would certainly increase international pressure. But whether we would be doing more than we are now doing is a question that I can't answer. It doesn't open any real new authorities to me or give me any additional powers or responsibilities that I'm not now executing.

------------------
In the case of "genocide," after the U.S. finally ratified the Genocide Convention in 1988 it was required to actually do something if genocide was found to occur somewhere in the world. Thus the dodging and waffling you see above, even though it would have been nearly impossible for intelligence to not have known about the events taking place, especially in Rwanda. Rwanda was the most obvious example of genocide since the Holocaust.

In the case of Iraq, why would there be such reluctance to say a civil war is occurring? My guess is that it's an attempt by the Bush Administration to save some face at a time when support for the war is waning... It will be difficult extoll the virtues of "spreading democracy" and "winning hearts and minds" in the midst of a brutal civil war which probably would not have started had we not invaded Iraq. "By your fruits you shall know them." I am worried that what is now being labeled a civil war might actually be better defined as "ethnic cleansing" - just one short hop away from genocide. Of course I'll have to consult with my lawyers before giving you a more specific opinion...