On March 24, the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found Radovan Karadzic guilty of acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Karadzic was a key player in the war which devastated Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. He has been directly linked to the Srebrenica massacre which saw the murder of approximately 8,000 Bosnian individuals and was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Muslim and Croatian villages claimed by Serb forces. The brutality and the horror of these acts have been well documented.

For these atrocious crimes, the 70-year-old former politician, psychiatrist, alternative medicine practitioner and fugitive, was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. The reactions to this verdict were mixed.

Zeid bin Ra’ad, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, hailed the verdict as “a forceful manifestation of the international community’s implacable commitment to accountability”. On the other hand, the victims’ relatives were incensed by the verdict claiming it was too lenient. Critics point to the fact that he has already served eight out of the 40-year sentence and that previous convicts typically served two-thirds of their sentence. This gives him a slight chance of release.

Some observers pointed to the historic nature of this verdict; Karadzic is the most senior figure to be indicted by the court since other senior figures either died before being convicted or were acquitted due to confusing and conflicting evidence.

All sides bring valid insights to the discussion on genocide. Firstly, the conviction shows some commitment by the international community to bring to justice those guilty of genocide. Secondly, it demonstrates that the process of closure and healing goes beyond judicial conviction and that certain measures of transitional justice must be implemented in order to redress certain human rights abuses. Thirdly, the entire process and the harrowing experiences of victims and their families emphasises the need for timely intervention to prevent genocide. On all three points, there seem to be failures which need to be addressed.

The failure to prove genocidal intent seems to favour the perpetrators of genocide. Moreover, the term genocide is, unfortunately, weakened by political considerations and cultural attitudes.

Political considerations often mean that some acts of genocide are unrecognised or even ignored. The Armenian genocide in Asia Minor is a source of much controversy and political intimidation by the Republic of Turkey while the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1933 and the massacre of Poles in Volhynia and eastern Galicia in the mid-1940s are rarely commemorated worldwide. This situation seems to echo Josef Stalin’s cynical observation that “the death of one man is a tragedy while the death of millions is a statistic”.

According to Raphael Lemkin, the philosophy of the Genocide Convention is based on the formula of “the human cosmos” which consists of four basic groups: “national, racial, religious and ethnic”. He argued that such “groups are protected not only by reason of human compassion but also to prevent draining the spiritual resources of mankind.”

A political culture hostile to the aforementioned principles seems to be developing. Many would question the validity of the concept of “a spiritual resource of mankind”.

The notion of race and ethnicity are now politically loaded concepts which many choose to stay clear of. The idea of nationhood has been weakened while religious practice is increasingly being viewed as something which poisons, rather than enriches, society.

For the past two years or so, Isis has been engaging in behaviour which would make Radovan Karadzic blush. Entire communities of Christians and Yazidis have been displaced or decimated. Many have been taken into slavery or are being tortured. Other victims have been tortured or killed before the world’s eyes in an attempt to psychologically intimidate an already-terrified global audience.

There have been some significant steps in recognising the unfolding horror. The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, declared that Isis is “genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions, in what it says, in what believes and in what it does”. He added that it is responsible “for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds and other minorities”.

His declaration follows similar declarations by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.

Others have not been so responsive. Despite being urged by several MPs, the British government has been reluctant to recognise the mass massacres as genocide. It claims that it is up to the international judicial system to declare whether genocide took place or not.

Lord Alton of Liverpool has aptly responded to this cowardly and morally indefensible position: “If beheadings, crucifixions, enslavement, rape, the seizure of homes and property, and mass graves, does not constitute genocide it is hard to imagine what does.”

The recognition of genocide gives an added responsibility to the international community. It now has the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Rather than act retroactively, the international community now has an opportunity and a duty to discuss ways of preventing further bloodshed. The lack of any credible political will further dent its credibility to respond effectively to ongoing acts of genocide.

andre.deb@gmail.com

André DeBattista holds degrees in public policy and international relations. He is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.