The mass extermination of civilian populations is unfortunately a common and perennial phenomenon in international politics. Let us remember in ancient times the total extermination of the population of Miletus by the Persians, of Milos by the Athenians and of Carthage by the Romans. More recent examples are those of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Gaza. The humanitarian dimension of this problem has not been widely understood: in the twentieth century, more people were killed by programs of mass extermination of civilian populations than were killed during armed conflicts.
History has shown that there were three major strategic motivations for mass extermination of populations:
1. The political, economic and social transformation of societies with the extermination of supposed class enemies. This explains the behavior of leaders like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who committed mass murders in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia in the name of communist “utopia”.
2. The supposed search for “security” through ethnic cleansing to eliminate a potential “threat”. Here the rationale was racist (genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany), nationalist (genocide in Rwanda) or religious (genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire). As a rule, the preferred “solution” was that of ethnic cleansing (i.e. the mass expulsion of populations from their homes), but whenever this was not possible, the “final solution” of genocide was sought. The logic of the “final solution”, for its originators, meant that one need not deal with “the problem” again.
3. It is the prevalence in asymmetric wars such as guerilla warfare. Insurgents derive their strength from the symbiotic relationship they have with the civilian population. There they find food, shelter, supplies, medical care and information. Without the cooperation of the civilian population the insurgents are, as Mao put it, like “fish out of water.” But this makes the civilian population a privileged target. In order to sever the relationship of the population with the fighting insurgents, measures of extreme brutality are used against the civilian population (eg in the Algerian war by the French, Vietnam by the Americans, Afghanistan by the Soviets). This explains Israel’s strategic behavior these days in its attempt to deal with Hamas fighters who mingle with the civilian population in Gaza.
There is no solution to this problem from the international community. International humanitarian interventions are minimal and when they are attempted they usually have strategic motives covered behind a humanitarian cloak (see Kosovo, Libya). On the rare occasions that operations are truly humanitarian, they are aborted once there is a cost to the “good Samaritans” as happened in Somalia in 1993, where the Americans hastily withdrew after 18 of their soldiers were killed in an operation in Mogadishu.
In the anarchic international system there is no other way of protection than the principle of self-help. Every country, every political entity, is obliged to take care of its security. Whoever seeks his salvation in international law or invoking the principles of justice or in the charity of his neighbors pays dearly. As the Romans remind us inter arma silent leges (in time of war the laws are silent). The same is true of moral calculations. As the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes points out in his monumental work Leviathan “where there is no order there is neither law nor morality”.
In the international system there is no order, that is, it is anarchic. Unlike inside states where there is an organized government, clearly defined powers and mandated state organs, in the international arena there is no international government. States are sovereign, meaning they do not recognize any authority over them – unlike individuals within states, who are subject to state authority. So no one can coerce a Great Power like Russia or a powerful state like Israel if they violate the laws of war or commit crimes against humanity.
It is understood that an approach to such issues from the point of view of international law in general and humanitarian law in particular has limited utility. If you do not have the required power, or if there are insufficient interests to mobilize the required power, then international law remains a dead letter. As Thrasymachus put it: justice is “the rightful interest”, that is, the interest of the stronger.
This is especially true in international politics. When an international issue arises, states do not generally and abstractly consider “what international law provides”, but who is involved and what interests are at stake in the issue in question. This explains why there are “double standards” applied to the same problem, as International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan recently observed.
