The Paradox and Consequence of Declaring 'Genocide'
Facing a congressional deadline and escalating criticism that the U.S. government hasn’t done enough to combat the rise of ISIS -- or Daesh, the preferred identifier of the Obama Administration -- Secretary of State John Kerry walked to the podium on March 17th and declared that recent atrocities committed under ISIS constitute genocide.
“[Daesh] kills Christians because they are Christians, Yazidis because they are Yazidis, Shia because they are Shia,” he said.
It’s just the second time the U.S. government has used the word 'genocide' in response to an ongoing conflict, and Kerry said it came after a lengthy and careful deliberation. But now what? There is no legal consequence to the government’s declaration; they are not now required to respond any differently to the growing threat of ISIS. So, what is its significance?
Rebecca Hamilton, former Sudan and South Sudan correspondent for the Washington Post and author of Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide, calls this conundrum the "g-word paradox." While a genocide declaration may prompt little immediate impact, Rebecca says its ‘correctness’ makes an inimitable historical difference. Bob talks with Rebecca about the word's fraught history, and about what it means to believe that the word 'genocide' matters.
