Powered by Cabanova
Death By Government DEFRAUD AGENTS! By R.J. Rummel http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.H TM Definition of Democide Democide : The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Genocide: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language). Politicide: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes. Mass Murder : the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government. Genocide is horrible, an abomination of our species, totally unacceptable. It is an obscenity, the evil of our time that all good people must work to eradicate. And at the core there is no doubt as to what this evil is--all recognize that the Nazi program to kill all Jews was genocide. Nor is there any doubt that the current Bosnian Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems is genocide. But was genocide also the massacre of helpless villagers i n the Sudan by government forces fighting a rebellion, the Indonesian army purge of communists, the assassination of political opponents by the Nationalist government on Formosa, the "land-reform" executions of landlords in the Soviet Union, or the rapid death of inmates in Vietnamese re-education camps? What about non-killing which has been called genocide, such as the absorption of one culture by another, the disease spread to natives by contact with colonists, the forced deportation of a people, or African slavery? I n international conventions and the professional literature, genocide was initially defined as the intentional destruction of people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other permanent group membership. The origin of the concept is the 1944 work by Raphael Lemkin on Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words a tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against the individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.1 This was written at the height of the Jewish Holocaust, a clear case of a regime trying to exterminate a whole group, its intellectual contributions, its culture, and the very lives of all its people. There was an immediate need for some way of conceptualizing this horror and "genocide" did it. During the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals and in the post-war discussion and debate over how to prevent such killing in the future, "genocide" became commonly used. And in incredible little time, it passed from Lemkin's pages into international law. In 1946 the United Nations General Assembly recognized that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principles and accomplices are punishable." Then two years later the General Assembly made this concrete. It passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This international treaty, eventually signed by well over a majority of states, affirms that genocide is a punishable crime under international law, and stipulates the meaning of genocide to be: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ( a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Note that the Convention is consistent with Lemkin's definition and elaboration. Relevantly here, the gravity of both is that genocide is the intent to destroy in whole or part a group. One way of doing this is to kill members of the group, b ut also genocide includes the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part by other means, such as by preventing births in the group or causing serious mental harm. That is, by both definitions, genocide does not necessarily include killing. This has been the source of much confusion. In the early years of its use "genocide" was applied almost entirely to the Jewish Holocaust and then, especially through the work of Armenian scholars, to the mass murder of Armenians by the Young Turk regime during World War I (as described in chapter 10 of Death By Government). However, scholars increasingly have come to realize that restricting the killing aspect of the concept to those murdered by virtue of their indelible group membership does not even account for the millions of those wiped out by the Nazis. How then do we conceptualize the purposive government killing of protesters or dissidents, the reprisal shooting of innocent villagers, the beating to death of peasants for hiding rice, or the indiscriminate bombing of civilians? How do we conceptualize torturing people to death in prison, working them to death in concentration camps, or letting them starve to death, when such killing is done out of revenge, for an ideology, or for reasons of state having nothing to do with the social groups to which these people belong? Because of such questions scholars have generalized the meaning of "genocide." In some cases it has been extended to include the intentionally killing of people because of their politics or for political reasons 2, even though this has been explicitly excluded from the Genocide Convention. Some scholars also have extended the definition of genocide to cover any mass murder by government whatsoever 3; some have even stretched the concept much further, such as to characterize the unintentional spread of disease to indigenous populations during European colonization, including that in the American West.4 To all these scholars the critical aspect of "genocide" is intentional government killing. All this is confusing. Both the non-killing aspect of "genocide" and the need to have a concept covering other kinds of government murder, all the following have been called genocide: the denial of ethnic Hawaiian culture by the American run public school system in Hawaii; government policies letting one race adopt the children of another race; African slavery by Whites; South African Apartheid; the murder of women by men; death squad murders in Guatemala; deaths in the Soviet gulag; and, of course, the Jewish Holocaust. The linking of all such diverse acts or deaths together under one label has created an acute conceptual problem that begs for the invention of new concepts to cover and be limited to intentional government murder. Thus, both Barbara Harff 5 and I have independently developed the concept of politicide for a government's premeditated killing of people because of their politics or for political reasons. But this new concept is still not sufficient, since many mass murders by government cannot be so labeled either, such as the working of POWs to death by the Japanese army in World War II or the killing of Black Africans that resisted enslavement. Already in general use we have the concept of "mass murder" or "massacre." Although usage varies, both usually mean the intentional and indiscriminate murder of a large number of people by government agents, such as the shooting down of unarmed demonstrators by police, or soldiers lobbing grenades into prison cells before retreating under pressure from enemy troops. They can also include the random executions of civilians, as in the German reprisals against partisan sabotage in Yugoslavia; working prisoners to death, as in the Soviet Kolyma mining camps; the blanket fire bombing of cities, as in the British-American bombing of Hamburg in 1943; the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; or atrocities committed by soldiers, as in the 1937-1938 Japanese rape and pillage of Nanking during which they probably killed some 200,000 people. We also hav e the concept of "terror" applied to government killing, whose meaning is usually that of the extrajudicial execution, slaying, assassination, abduction or disappearance forever, of targeted individuals. That is, the killing is discriminating. This may be to exterminate actual or potential opponents or for social prophylaxis, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn characterized Stalin's country-wide elimination of undesirables. 6 Such killing also may be for the purpose of promoting fear among a people and thus ensuring their obedience and subservience. But then there is killing that does not easily fit under any of these labels. There is, for example, murder by quota carried out by the Soviets, Chinese communists, and North Vietnamese. For the Soviet and Vietnamese communists, government (or party) agencies would order subordinate units to kill a certain number of "enemies of the people," "rightists," or "tyrants," and the precise application of the order was left to the units involved. Moreover, millions of people wasted away in labor or concentration camps not because of their social identity, their political beliefs, or who they were, but simply because they got in the way, violated some Draconian rule , did not express sufficient exuberance over the regime, innocently insulted the Leader (as by setting on a newspaper with the picture of Stalin showing), or simply was a body that was needed for labor (as the Nazis would grab women innocently walking along a road in Ukraine and deport them to Germany for forced labor). And there are the hundreds of thousands of peasants that slowly died of disease, malnutrition, overwork, and hunger in Cambodia as the Khmer Rouge forced them under penalty of death to labor in the collectivized fields, expropriating virtually their whole harvest and refusing them adequate medical care. Moreover, even when applicable the concepts of "genocide," "politicide," "mass murder" or "massacre," and "terror" overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably. Clearly, a concept is needed that includes all intentional government killing in cold blood and that is comparable to the concept of murder for private killing. The killing of one person by another is murder whether done because the victim was Black or White, refused to repay a loan, or hurled an insult. It is murder if the killing was a premeditated act or the person died because of a reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Nor does it matter whether the killing is done for high moral ends, for altruistic reasons, or for any other purpose, it is murder under Western and most other legal codes (unless officially authorized by government, as for judicial executions or military combat). And as a crime murder is limited by definition to taking the life of another in some way. Although we use murder metaphorically, as in someone "murdering" the language, it is not the crime of murder to hurt someone psychological, to steal their child, or to rob them of their culture. As an analogous concept for public murder, that by government agents acting authoritatively, I offer the concept of democide. Its one root is the Greek dTmos, or people; the other is the same as for genocide, which is from the Latin caedere, to kill. Democide's necessary and sufficient meaning is that of the intentional government killing of an unarmed person or people. Unlike the concept of genocide, it is restricted to intentional killing, and does not extend to attempts to eliminate cultures, races, or a people by means other than killing people. Moreover, democide is not limited to the killing component of genocide, nor to politicide, mass murder or massacre, or terror. It includes them all and also what they exclude, as long as such killing is a purposive act, policy, process, or institution of government. In detail, democide is any actions by government: (1) designed to kill or cause the death of people (1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people; (1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system; (1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement; (1.4) by massacre; (1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions; (1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict. (2) that cause death by virtue of an intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life (which constitutes practical intentionality), as in (2.1) deadly prison, concentration camp, forced labor, prisoner of war, or recruit camp conditions; (2.2) killing medical or scientific experiments on humans; (2.3) torture or beatings; (2.4) encouraged or condoned murder, or rape, looting, and pillage during which people are killed; (2.5) a famine or epidemic during which government authorities withhold aid, or knowingly act in a way to make it more deadly; (2.6) forced deportations and expulsions causing deaths. (3) with the following qualifications and clarifications: (a) "government" includes de facto governance, as by the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China; or by a rebel or warlord army over a region and population it has conquered, as by the brief rule of Moslem Turks (East Turkistan Republic) over part of Sinkiang Province (1944-1946); (b) " actions by governments" comprise official or authoritative actions by government officials, including the police, military, or secret service; or such non-governmental actions (e.g., by brigands, press-gangs, or secret societies ) receiving government approval, aid, or acceptance; (c) clause 1.1 includes, for example, directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict out of hatred or revenge, or to depopulate an enemy region or terrorize or force the population into urging surrender; this would involve, among other actions, indiscriminate urban bombing or shelling, or blockades that cause mass starvation; (d) "relationship to such people" (clause 1.1) includes their relatives, colleagues, co-workers, teachers, or students; (e) "massacre" (clause 1.4) includes the mass killing of prisoners of war or of captured rebels; (f) "quota" system (clause 1.3) includes randomly selecting people for execution in order to meet a quota; or arresting people according to a quota, some of whom are then executed; (g) "requisition" system (clause 1.3) includes taking from peasants or farmers all their food and produce, leaving them to starve to death; (h) and excluding from the definition: (h.1) execution for what are internationally considered capital crimes, such as murder, rape, spying, treason, and the like, so long as evidence does not exist that such allegations were invented by the government in order to execute the accused; (h.2) actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or a riot (e.g., killing people with weapons in their hands is not democide); (h.3) the death of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military (e.g., during bombing enemy logistics). Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality ( premeditation ) is critical. This a lso includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. S imilarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide. Moreover, when conceptually there is not a clear domestic analog to murder, as in the indiscriminate bombing of urban areas, I have tried to follow the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.7 Killing helpless people in time of war or military action in breach of these international agreements is a violation of the international law they codify a crime and is is facto democide. T herefore the forced detention of prisoners of war under conditions that cause their death is democide, as is death caused by medical experimentation on them. Bombing, shelling, or bombarding civilians indiscriminately is also democide, as is the forced removal of all food stuff in occupied areas, thus causing the death of the inhabitants from starvation. Similarly, food blockades that cause the indiscriminate death of civilians is democide, as was the largely British blockade of the Central Powers during and after World War I. As Article 14 to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions affirms: "Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited."8 I have to again be absolutely clear on this since so much takes place in time of war. War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. That killing explicitly permitted is not democide. Thus, the death of civilians during the bombing of munitions plants in World War II is not democide. Nor is the death of civilians when through navigation or bombing errors, or the malfunction of equipment, bombs land on a school or hospital, unless it is clear that the bombing was carried out recklessly in spite of a high risk to such civilian buildings. Nor is the death of civilians in a bombed village beneath which has been built enemy bunkers. Nor is the death of civilians caught in a cross fire between enemy soldiers, or those civilians killed while willingly helping troops haul supplies or weapons. Seldom is it easy to make these distinctions, but the aim here must be clear. I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle or battle related disease and famine. The former are those victims (which may include the military, as when POWs are massacred) of internationally prohibited war-time killing, what may be called war-crimes or crimes against humanity. What then about the American fire-bombing of Tokyo or atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II? I recently received a letter from a colleague who was distressed that I would count deaths from such raids as American democide. I discuss this to some extent in Statistics of Democide, but here I might note that this was indiscriminate civilian bombing and would thus be by Article 48 to Protocol I of the Geneva conventions unlawful. The Article reads: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.9 Article 51 makes the meaning of this more specific: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.10 And still more specifically, Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. . . .11 Pulling all this together, throughout this book a death constitutes democide if it is the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command (as in the Nazi gassing of the Jews). I t is also democide if these deaths were the result of such authoritative government actions carried out with reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of those affected (as putting people in concentration camps in which the forced labor and starvation rations were such as to cause the death of inmates). It is democide if government promoted or turned a blind eye to these deaths even though they were murders carried out "unofficially" or by private groups (as by death squads in Guatemala or El Salvador). And these deaths also may be democide if high government officials purposely allowed conditions to continue that were causing mass deaths and issued no public warning (as in the Ethiopian famines of the 1970s). All extra-judicial or summary executions comprise democide. Even judicial executions may be democide, as in the Soviet show trials of the late 1930s. J udicial executions for "crimes" internationally considered trivial or non-capital, as of peasants picking up grain at the edge of a collective's fields, of a worker for telling an anti-government joke, or of an engineer for a miscalculation, are also democide. I have found that in the vast majority of events and episodes democide is unambiguous. When under the command of higher authorities soldiers force villagers into a field and then machine gun them, there should be no question about definition. When a group armed by the government for this purpose turn the teachers and students out of their school, line up those of a particular tribe and shoot them, it is surely democide. When all food stuffs are systematically removed from a region by government authorities and a food blockade is put in place, the resulting deaths must be democide. Sad to say, most cases of government killing in this century is that clear. The number of deaths will be hazy for many of these cases; the perpetrators and intent will not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES * From the pre-publisher edited manuscript of Chapter 2 in R.J. Rummel, Death By Government, 1994. For full reference this book, the list of its contents, figures, and tables, and the text of its preface, click book. 1. Lemkin (1944, p. 79). 2. See, for example, Fein (1984); Kuper (1981) and Porter (1982). 3. See, for example, Chalk and Jonassohn (1988); Charny (1991). 4. See Stannard (1992). 5. See Harff and Gurr (1988). 6. Solzhenitsyn (1973). 7. On these I have found the commentaries in Bothe and Partisch (1982) particularly useful. 8. Bothe and Partisch (1982, p. 679). 9. Bothe and Partisch (1982, p. 280-281). 10. Ibid., p. 297. 11. Ibid. ________________________________________________________________ D EMOCIDE IN TOTALITARIAN STATES: MORTACRACIES AND MEGAMURDERER http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHARNY.CHAP.HTM __________________________________________________________________ AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY By R.J. Rummel Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government. Mortacracy : A type of political system that habitually and systematically murders large numbers of its own citizens. Megamurderer: A government that has murdered 1,000,000 people or more. __________________________________________________________________ THE NEW CONCEPT OF DEMOCIDE The concept of genocide hardly covers the ruthless murder carried out by totalitarian states. It does not even account for most of those wiped out by the Nazis. A new concept is needed that covers the extent and variety of megamurders by these mortacracies. In international conventions and the general literature, genocide has been defined as intentional killing by government of people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other indelible group membership. While killing people because of their politics or for political reasons has been explicitly excluded from the international Genocide Convention, some scholars nonetheless have included such killing in their study of genocide (Fein, 1984; Kuper, 1981; Porter, 1982). Some have extended the definition of genocide to cover any mass murder by government (Chalk and Jonassohn, 1988; Charny, 1991); some have even stretched it much further to characterize the unintentional spread of disease to indigenous populations during European colonization, including that of the American West (Stannard, 1992). The problem is becoming conceptually acute. The early generic meaning of genocide was clear, although by its exclusion of political killing, controversial. The present extension of genocide's meaning, however, creates conceptual confusion and lumps together types of killing that theoretically should be kept distinct. If for example, genocide comes to mean all deaths due to government actions, whether lining up people and machine-gunning them, executing prisoners of war, gassing Jews, creating a famine due to bad agricultural policies, the death of children because of ignorant welfare policies, or the accidental creation of fatal disease among subject natives, then we would have to invent a concept to cover the intentional murder of people by virtue of their group identity. Since we already have the concept of genocide for that purpose, we really should create allied concepts to define other types of deaths due to government. One concept, already suggested in the literature (Harff and Gurr, 1988; Rummel, 1900) is politicide. This defines that killing done intentionally by government for political-ideological purposes, including those killed because of their politics or political views. This is not purely exclusive of genocide, since there are cases, as in the Soviet deportation and murder of ethnic Germans during World War II, that are both genocide and politicide. Generally, however, I have found that this overlap will be but a smaller part of the politicide carried out by mortacracies, even for Nazi Germany. It usually would include, for example, executing purged communist party members, or murdering anti-communists, counter revolutionaries, social democrats, dissidents, or critics. Another concept is mass murder, or government's intentional and indiscriminate murder of a large number of people. Obviously, in meaning this can overlap with genocide and politicide, but it can also include random executions of civilians, as in the German reprisals against partisan sabotage in Yugoslavia; working prisoners to death, as in the Soviet Kolyma mining camps; the blanket fire bombing of cities, as in the American bombing of Tokyo-Yokohama in 1945 or atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; or atrocities committed by soldiers, as in the 1937 Japanese rape and pillage of Nanking (which probably killed some 200,000 people). But then there is killing that does not easily fit into any or these categories. There is, for example, murder by quota carried out by the Soviets, Chinese communists, and North Vietnamese. Government (or party) agencies would order subordinate units to kill a certain number of "enemies of the people," "rightists," or "tyrants," and the precise application of the order was left to the units involved. Moreover, millions of people died in labor or concentration camps not because of their social identity or political beliefs, but simply because they got in the way, violated some Draconian rule, did not express sufficient exuberance over the regime, innocently sat on a newspaper with the picture of Stalin showing, or simply was a body that was needed for labor (as the Nazis would grab women innocently walking along a road in Ukraine and deport them to Germany for forced labor). And there are the hundreds of thousands of peasants that slowly died of disease, malnutrition, overwork, and hunger in Cambodia as the Khmer Rouge forced them under penalty of death to labor in the collectivized fields, expropriating virtually their whole harvest and refusing them adequate medical care. I have covered all this murder as well as genocide and politicide by the concept of democide. Democide is meant to define the killing by states as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work fourteen hours a day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder . Similarly, for example, the Soviet system for forcibly transporting prisoners to labor camps was lethal. In transit hundreds of thousands of political prisoners died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, or inadequate food or water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still murder. They were democide. __________________________________________________________________ THE CONCEPT OF A TOTALITARIAN STATE ______________________ There is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature, including the denial that such systems even exist. I define a totalitarian state as one with a system of government that is unlimited constitutionally or by countervailing powers in society (such as by a church, rural gentry, labor unions, or regional powers); is not held responsible to the public by periodic secret and competitive elections; and employs its unlimited power to control all aspects of society, including the family, religion, education, business, private property, and social relationships. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union was thus totalitarian, as was Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, and U Ne Win's Burma. Totalitarianism is then a political ideology for which a totalitarian government is the agency for realizing its ends. Thus, totalitarianism characterizes such ideologies as state socialism (as in Burma), Marxism-Leninism as in former East Germany, and Nazism. Even revolutionary Moslem Iran since the overthrow of the Shaw in 1978-79 has been totalitarian--here totalitarianism was married to Moslem fundamentalism. In short, totalitarianism is the ideology of absolute power . State socialism, communism, Nazism, fascism, and Moslem fundamentalism have been some of its recent raiments. Totalitarian governments have been its agency. The state, with its international legal sovereignty and independence, has been its base. As will be pointed out, mortacracy is the result. Totalitarian governments are the contemporary embodiment of absolute Power [1], as classically understood. And Power is a continuum, with limited and responsible power at one end, and absolute Power--totalitarian governments--at the other end. In the middle are authoritarian governments , that is monarchies or dictatorships that leave social, economic, and cultural affairs and institutions largely free, but squash political opponents or critics (for example, in South Korean and Taiwan until recently, or Thailand and Greece under various military dictatorships). This then gives us a simple summary of relevant findings in the literature. The more unlimited the power of a government, the more likely it will kill. This can be put as a principle: ______________________ Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. This Power Principle is the message emerging from research on the causes of war and current, comparative study of democide in this century. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. At the extremes of Power, totalitarian governments have slaughtered their people by the tens of millions, while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers. _____________________________________ ______________________ So Power kills and absolute Power kills absolutely. What then can be said of those alleged causes or factors in war, genocide, and mass murder favored by students of genocide? What about cultural-ethnic differences, outgroup conflict, misperception, frustration-aggression, relative deprivation, ideological imperatives, dehumanization, resource competition, overpopulation, and so on ? At one time or another, for one state of another, one or more of these factors play an important role in democide. Some are essential for understanding some genocides, as of the Jews or Armenians; some politicide, as of "enemies of the people," bourgeoisie, and clergy; some massacres, as of competing religious-ethnic groups; or some atrocities, as of those committed against poor and helpless villagers by victorious soldiers. But then neighbors in the service of Power have killed neighbor, fathers have killed their sons, faceless and unknown people have been killed by quota. One is hard put to find a race, religion, culture, or distinct ethnic group that has not murdered its own or others. These specific causes or factors accelerate the likelihood of war or democide once some trigger event occurs and absolute or near absolute Power is present. That is, Power is a necessary cause for war or democide. When the elite have absolute power, war or democide is part of the following process . In any society, including the international one, relations between individuals and groups is structured by social contracts determined by previous conflicts, accommodations, and adjustments among them. These social contracts define a structure of expectations that guide and regulate the social order, including Power. And this structure is based on a particular balance of powers (understood as an equation of interests, capabilities, and wills) among individuals and groups. That is, previous conflict and possibly violence determine a balance of power between competing individuals and groups and a congruent structure of expectations (as for example, war or revolution ends in a new balance of powers between nations or groups and an associated peace treaty or constitution). This structure of expectations often consists of new laws and norms defining a social order more consistent with the underlying distribution of relative power. However, relative power never remains constant. It shifts as the interests, capabilities, and will of the parties change. The death of a charismatic leader, the outrage of significant groups, the loss of foreign support by out groups, the entry into war and the resulting freedom of the elite to use force under the guise of war-time necessity, and so on, can significantly alter the balance of power between groups. Where such a shift in power is in favor of the governing elite, Power can now achieve its potential. Where also the elite have built up frustrations regarding those who have lost power or nonetheless feel threatened by them, where they see them as outside the moral universe, where they have dehumanized them, where the outgroup is culturally or ethnically distinct and the elite perceive them as inferior, or where any other such factors are present, Power will achieve its murderous potential. It simply waits for an excuse, an event of some sort, an assassination, a massacre in a neighboring country, an attempted coup, a famine, or a natural disaster that will justify beginning the murder en masse. The result of such violence will be a new balance of power and attendant social contract. In some cases this may end the democide, as by the elimination of the "inferior" group (as of the Armenians by the Turks). In many cases this will subdue and cower the survivors (as the Ukrainians who lived through Stalin's collectivization campaign and intentional famine). In some cases, this establishes a new balance of power so skewed toward the elite that they may throughout their reign continue to murder at will. Murder as public policy becomes part of the new structure of expectations of the new social order. Consider the social orders of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and their henchmen. As should be clear from all this, I believe that war and democide can be understood within a common framework. It is part of a social process, a balancing of powers, where Power is supreme. It is not clear from this, however, why among states where Power is limited and accountable, war and significant democide do not take place. Two concepts explain this: cross pressures and the associated political culture. Where Power is diffused, checked, accountable, society is riven by myriad independent groups, disparate institutions, and multiple interests. These overlap and contend; they section loyalties and divide desires and wants. Churches, unions, corporations, government bureaucracies, political parties, the media, special interest groups, and such, fight for and protect their interests. Individuals and the elite are pushed and pulled by their membership in several such groups and institutions. And it is difficult for any one driving interest to form. They are divided, weak, ambivalent; they are cross-pressured. And for the elite to sufficiently coalesce to commit itself to murdering its own citizens, there must be a near fanatical, driving interest. But even were such present among a few, the diversity of interests across the political elite and associated bureaucracies, the freedom of the media to dig out what is being planned or done, and the ever present potential leaks and fear of such leaks of disaffected elite to the media, brake such tendencies. As to the possibility of war between democracies, diversity and resulting cross-pressures operate as well. Not only is it very difficult for the elite to unify public interests and opinion sufficiently to make war, but there are usually diverse, economic, social, and political bonds between democracies that tie them together and oppose violence. But there is more to these restraints on Power in a democracy. Cross-pressures is a social force that operates wherever individual and group freedom predominates. It is natural to a spontaneous social field. But human behavior is not only a matter of social forces, it also depends on the meanings and values that things have and on individual norms. That is, democratic culture is also essential. When Power is checked and accountable, when cross-pressures limit the operation of Power, a particular democratic culture develops. This culture involves debate, demonstrations, protests, but also negotiation, compromise, and tolerance. It involves the arts of conflict resolution and the acceptance of democratic procedures at all levels of society. The ballot replaces the bullet, and particularly, people and groups come to accept a loss on this or that interest as only an unfortunate outcome of the way the legitimate game is played ("Lose today, win tomorrow"). That democratic political elite would kill opponents or commit genocide for some public policy is unthinkable (although such does occur in the isolated and secret corners of government where Power can still lurk). Even in modern democracies, publicly defining and dehumanizing outgroups has become a social and political evil. Witness the current potency of such allegations as "racism" or "sexism." Of course, the culture of democracy operates between democracies as well. Diplomacy, negotiating a middle-way, seeking common interests, is part of the operating medium among democracies. A detailed political history of the growth of the European Community would well display this. Since each democracy takes the legitimacy of the other and their interests for granted, conflict then is only a process of nonviolent learning and adjustment between them. Conferences, not war, is the instrumentality for settling disputes. ______________________ THE STATUS OF THE LITERATURE ON DEMOCIDE ______________________ This picture of Power and its human costs is new. Few are aware of the sheer democide that has been inflicted on our fellow human beings. That Hitler murdered millions of Jews is common knowledge. That he probably murdered overall some 20,946,000 Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, Frenchmen, Balts, Czechs, and others, is far less known. Similarly, that Stalin murdered tens of millions is becoming generally appreciated; but that Stalin, Lenin, and their successors murdered some 61,911,000 Soviet citizens and foreigners is little comprehended outside of the Soviet Union (where similar figures are now being widely published). Then there is Mao Tse-tung's China, militarist's Japan, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and other mortacracies listed in Table 4 , who have murdered in the millions. Even those students of genocide who have tried to tabulate such killing around the world have grossly underestimated the toll. For example, a recent such accounting came up with a high of 16,000,000 killed in genocide and politicide since World War II (Harff and Gurr, 1988), an estimate that does not even cover half of the likely 35,236,000 murdered by just the Communist Party of China from 1949 to 1987 (Table 4 ). Moreover, even the toll of war itself is not well understood. Many estimate that World War II, for example, killed 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 people. But the problem with such figures is that they include tens of millions killed in democide. Many war-time governments massacred civilians and foreigners, committed atrocities or genocide against them, and subjected them to reprisals. Aside from battle or military engagements, during the war the Nazis murdered some 20,946,000 civilians and prisoners of war; the Japanese, 5,890,000; the Chinese Nationalists, 5,907,000; the Chinese communists, 250,000; the Nazi satellite Croatians, 655,000; the Tito partisans, 600,000; and Stalin, 13,053,000 (above the 20,000,000 war-dead and democide by the Nazis of Soviet Jews and Slavs). I also should mention the civilian targeted bombing by the Allies that killed hundreds of thousands. Most of these deaths are usually included among the war-dead. But those killed in battle versus in democide form distinct conceptual and theoretical categories and should not be confused. That these separate categories have been consistently and sometimes intentionally combined helps raise the toll during World War II, for example, to some 60,000,000 people, way above the estimated 15,000,000 killed in battle and military action (Small and Singer, 1982). Even the almost universally accepted count of genocide during this war of "6,000,000" Jews has been generally included in the total dead for the war, which has further muddled our research and thought.[8] Even more, our appreciation of the incredible scale of this century's democide has been stultified by lack of concepts and data. Democide is committed by absolute Power, its agency is government. The discipline for studying and analyzing power and government and associated genocide and mass murder is political science. But except for a few specific cases, such as the Holocaust and Armenian genocide, and a precious few more general works, one is hard put to find political science research specifically on this. One university course I teach is "Introduction to Political Science." Each semester I review several possible introductory texts (the best measure of the discipline) for the course. At this stage of my research on democide, with the results shown in Table 4, I often just shake my head at what I find. The concepts and views promoted in standard political science texts appear grossly unrealistic; they do not fit or explain, and are even contradictory to the existence of a Hell-State like Pol Pot's Cambodia, a Gulag-State like Stalin's Soviet Union, or a Genocide-State like Hitler's Germany. For instance, one textbook I recently read spends a chapter on describing the functions of government. Among these were law and order, individual security, cultural maintenance, and social welfare. Political scientists are still writing this eventhough we now have numerous examples of governments that kill millions of their own citizens, enslave the rest, and abolish traditional culture (it took only about a year for the Khmer Rouge to completely uproot and extinguish Buddhism, which had been the heart and soul of Cambodian culture). A systems approach to politics still dominates the field. Through this lens, politics is a matter of inputs and outputs, of citizen inputs, aggregation by political parties, government determining policy, and bureaucracies implementing it. There is especially the common and fundamental justification of government that it exists to protect citizens against the anarchic jungle that would otherwise threaten their lives and property. Such archaic or sterile views show no appreciation of democide's existence and all its related horrors and suffering. They are inconsistent with a regime that stands astride society like a gang of thugs over hikers they have captured in the woods, robbing all, raping some, torturing others for fun, murdering those they don't like, and terrorizing the rest into servile obedience. This is an exact characterization of many past and present governments, e.g., Idi Amin's Uganda, and it hardly squares with conventional political science. Consider also that many books have been written on the possible nature and consequences of nuclear war and how it might be avoided. Yet, in the toll from democide, possibly even more than 350,000,000 people killed at the high end or the range, we have experienced in this century the equivalent of nuclear war. Yet to my knowledge, there is only one book dealing with the human cost of this "nuclear war"-- Gil Elliot's Twentieth Century Book of the Dead, and to my knowledge he is not a political scientist. What is needed is a reconceptualization of government and politics consistent with what we now know about democide and related misery. New concepts have to be invented, old ones realigned to correct our perception of Power. We need to invent concepts for governments that turn their states into a border-to-border concentration camp, that purposely starve to death millions of their citizens, that set up quotas of those that should be killed from one village or town to another (although murder by quota was carried out by the Soviets, Chinese communists, and Vietnamese, I could not find in any introductory or general political science texts even a recognition that governments can be so incredibly inhumane). We have no concept for murder as an aim of public policy, determined by discussion among the governing elite in the highest councils, and imposed through government bureaucracy. Indeed, in virtually no index to any general book on politics and government will one find a reference to genocide, mass murder, killed, dead, executed, or massacre. Such is not even usually indexed in books on the Soviet Union or China. Most even omit index references to concentration or labor camps or gulag, even though they may have a paragraph or so on them. The preeminent fact about government is that some murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute Power reigns. The second fact is that some, usually the same governments, murder tens of thousands more through foreign aggression and intervention. Absolute Power again. T hese two facts alone must be the basis of our reconceptualization and taxonomies; not, as it is today, only whether states are developed or not, third world or not, powerful or not, large or not. But also and what is more important, whether Power is absolute and has engaged in genocide, politicide, and mass murder--whether they are mortacracies or not. ______________________ NOTES * Published as Rummel, R.J. "Democide in Totalitarian States: Mortacracies and Megamurderers." In Israel Charny (Ed.), The Widening Circle of Genocide: Genocide: A critical Bibliographic Review Vol. 3, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994. 1. Power capitalized stands for power and its holders (such as Stalin), agencies (such as government departments and bureaucracies), and instruments (such as armies, concentration camps, and propaganda). 2. An exception would appear to be barely democratic Finland, which joined Nazi Germany in its war on the Soviet Union during World War II and thus was technically at war with the Democratic Allies. No military action took place between Finland and the Allies, however. 3. See Freedom House's Freedom Review, 22 (January-February 1992), 6. 4. I am still in the process of collecting statistics and counting the democide for states and groups in this century. The final figures will be [have been] published in Rummel ( 1997). Moreover, the totals for all states except the USSR, PRC, and Nazi Germany are preliminary totals. 5. The reason these figures are not rounded to millions or tens of millions is that they result from the summation and calculation of hundreds of sub-estimates, and therefore if rounded would differ from the correct sum, often by hundreds of thousands. 6. Deliberately targeting civilians with explosive and incendiary bombs simply because they happen to be under the command and control of an enemy Power is no better than lining them up and machine-gunning them, a clear atrocity. In 1972, the International Red Cross held a conference of experts out of which came a protocol defining the limits of air warfare. This has become widely accepted (although not ratified) and probably expresses customary international law. It outlaws any direct air attacks on civilians, including the type of terror and anti-morale attacks Great Britain and the United States carried out on German and Japanese cities. 7. Until I did a comparative study of democide, I had accepted the argument that this slaughter of civilians shortened the war and avoided perhaps more than a million being killed in the Allied invasion of Japan. However, this strategic reason for killing innocent civilians in wartime has been used throughout history. The Japanese terror bombing of Chinese cities during the Sino-Japanese War was justified as a method to shorten the war. The killing of all inhabitants of a city by the Mongols once its defense were breached was justified by the terror it caused among inhabitants of other cities, who would then surrender at once rather than suffer the same fate. Even the Nazi reprisal murders of tens of thousands of civilians in occupied countries was justified by them as a way of terrorizing civilians into compliance and served to protect German lives. 8. During the war the Soviets committed genocide against at least nine of their distinct ethnic-linguistic sub-nations, including ethnic Germans, ethnic Greeks, Crimean Tatars, and Balkars. Genocides by others include those of the Germans against Slavs, Gypsies, and homosexuals; Croatians against the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies; the Serbs against Croatians and Moslems; the Hungarians against their Jews; the Serbs, Poles, and Czechs against their ethnic Germans. 9. The Turkish 1915-1918 genocide against the Armenians in 1915-1918 in which perhaps 1,000,000 or more were murdered is not included here. At the time the government of the Young Turks was largely authoritarian, not totalitarian. Separate communities in Turkey had a great deal of autonomy, the economy was largely a free market, and the dictatorial government mainly restricted itself, as had the Ottoman Empire, to maintaining and assuring its power and repressing any political competition or opposition. __________________________________________________________________ Death By Government http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM Chapter 2 Definition of Democide By R.J. Rummel Democide : The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Genocide : among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language). Politicide: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes. Mass Murder : the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government. Genocide is horrible, an abomination of our species, totally unacceptable. It is an obscenity, the evil of our time that all good people must work to eradicate. And at the core there is no doubt as to what this evil is--all recognize that the Nazi program to kill all Jews was genocide. Nor is there any doubt that the current Bosnian Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems is genocide. But was genocide also the massacre of helpless villagers in the Sudan by government forces fighting a rebellion, the Indonesian army purge of communists, the assassination of political opponents by the Nationalist government on Formosa, the "land-reform" executions of landlords in the Soviet Union, or the rapid death of inmates in Vietnamese re-education camps? What about non-killing which has been called genocide, such as the absorption of one culture by another, the disease spread to natives by contact with colonists, the forced deportation of a people, or African slavery? In international conventions and the professional literature, genocide was initially defined as the intentional destruction of people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other permanent group membership. The origin of the concept is the 1944 work by Raphael Lemkin on Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words a tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against the individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.1 This was written at the height of the Jewish Holocaust, a clear case of a regime trying to exterminate a whole group, its intellectual contributions, its culture, and the very lives of all its people. There was an immediate need for some way of conceptualizing this horror and "genocide" did it. During the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals and in the post-war discussion and debate over how to prevent such killing in the future, "genocide" became commonly used. And in incredible little time, it passed from Lemkin's pages into international law. In 1946 the United Nations General Assembly recognized that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principles and accomplices are punishable." Then two years later the General Assembly made this concrete. It passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide . This international treaty, eventually signed by well over a majority of states, affirms that genocide is a punishable crime under international law, and stipulates the meaning of genocide to be: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group ; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Note that the Convention is consistent with Lemkin's definition and elaboration. Relevantly here, the gravity of both is that genocide is the intent to destroy in whole or part a group. One way of doing this is to kill members of the group, but also genocide includes the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part by other means, such as by preventing births in the group or causing serious mental harm. That is, by both definitions, genocide does not necessarily include killing. This has been the source of much confusion. In the early years of its use "genocide" was applied almost entirely to the Jewish Holocaust and then, especially through the work of Armenian scholars, to the mass murder of Armenians by the Young Turk regime during World War I (as described in chapter 10 of Death By Government). However, scholars increasingly have come to realize that restricting the killing aspect of the concept to those murdered by virtue of their indelible group membership does not even account for the millions of those wiped out by the Nazis. How then do we conceptualize the purposive government killing of protesters or dissidents, the reprisal shooting of innocent villagers, the beating to death of peasants for hiding rice, or the indiscriminate bombing of civilians? How do we conceptualize torturing people to death in prison, working them to death in concentration camps, or letting them starve to death, when such killing is done out of revenge, for an ideology, or for reasons of state having nothing to do with the social groups to which these people belong? Because of such questions scholars have generalized the meaning of "genocide." In some cases it has been extended to include the intentionally killing of people because of their politics or for political reasons 2, even though this has been explicitly excluded from the Genocide Convention. Some scholars also have extended the definition of genocide to cover any mass murder by government whatsoever 3; some have even stretched the concept much further, such as to characterize the unintentional spread of disease to indigenous populations during European colonization, including that in the American West.4 To all these scholars the critical aspect of "genocide" is intentional government killing. All this is confusing. Both the non-killing aspect of "genocide" and the need to have a concept covering other kinds of government murder, all the following have been called genocide: the denial of ethnic Hawaiian culture by the American run public school system in Hawaii; government policies letting one race adopt the children of another race; African slavery by Whites; South African Apartheid; the murder of women by men; death squad murders in Guatemala; deaths in the Soviet gulag; and, of course, the Jewish Holocaust. The linking of all such diverse acts or deaths together under one label has created an acute conceptual problem that begs for the invention of new concepts to cover and be limited to intentional government murder. Thus, both Barbara Harff 5 and I have independently developed the concept of politicide for a government's premeditated killing of people because of their politics or for political reasons. But this new concept is still not sufficient, since many mass murders by government cannot be so labeled either, such as the working of POWs to death by the Japanese army in World War II or the killing of Black Africans that resisted enslavement. Already in general use we have the concept of "mass murder" or "massacre." Although usage varies, both usually mean the intentional and indiscriminate murder of a large number of people by government agents, such as the shooting down of unarmed demonstrators by police, or soldiers lobbing grenades into prison cells before retreating under pressure from enemy troops. They can also include the random executions of civilians, as in the German reprisals against partisan sabotage in Yugoslavia; working prisoners to death, as in the Soviet Kolyma mining camps; the blanket fire bombing of cities, as in the British-American bombing of Hamburg in 1943; the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; or atrocities committed by soldiers, as in the 1937-1938 Japanese rape and pillage of Nanking during which they probably killed some 200,000 people. We also have the concept of "terror" applied to government killing, whose meaning is usually that of the extrajudicial execution, slaying, assassination, abduction or disappearance forever, of targeted individuals. That is, the killing is discriminating. This may be to exterminate actual or potential opponents or for social prophylaxis, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn characterized Stalin's country-wide elimination of undesirables. 6 Such killing also may be for the purpose of promoting fear among a people and thus ensuring their obedience and subservience. But then there is killing that does not easily fit under any of these labels. There is, for example, murder by quota carried out by the Soviets, Chinese communists, and North Vietnamese. For the Soviet and Vietnamese communists, government (or party) agencies would order subordinate units to kill a certain number of "enemies of the people," "rightists," or "tyrants," and the precise application of the order was left to the units involved. Moreover, millions of people wasted away in labor or concentration camps not because of their social identity, their political beliefs, or who they were, but simply because they got in the way, violated some Draconian rule, did not express sufficient exuberance over the regime, innocently insulted the Leader (as by setting on a newspaper with the picture of Stalin showing), or simply was a body that was needed for labor (as the Nazis would grab women innocently walking along a road in Ukraine and deport them to Germany for forced labor). And there are the hundreds of thousands of peasants that slowly died of disease, malnutrition, overwork, and hunger in Cambodia as the Khmer Rouge forced them under penalty of death to labor in the collectivized fields, expropriating virtually their whole harvest and refusing them adequate medical care. Moreover, even when applicable the concepts of "genocide," "politicide," "mass murder" or "massacre," and "terror" overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably. Clearly, a concept is needed that includes all intentional government killing in cold blood and that is comparable to the concept of murder for private killing. T he killing of one person by another is murder whether done because the victim was Black or White, refused to repay a loan, or hurled an insult. It is murder if the killing was a premeditated act or the person died because of a reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Nor does it matter whether the killing is done for high moral ends, for altruistic reasons, or for any other purpose, it is murder under Western and most other legal codes (unless officially authorized by government, as for judicial executions or military combat). And as a crime murder is limited by definition to taking the life of another in some way. Although we use murder metaphorically, as in someone "murdering" the language, it is not the crime of murder to hurt someone psychological, to steal their child, or to rob them of their culture. As an analogous concept for public murder, that by government agents acting authoritatively, I offer the concept of democide. Its one root is the Greek dTmos, or people; the other is the same as for genocide, which is from the Latin caedere, to kill. Democide's necessary and sufficient meaning is that of the intentional government killing of an unarmed person or people. Unlike the concept of genocide, it is restricted to intentional killing, and does not extend to attempts to eliminate cultures, races, or a people by means other than killing people. Moreover, democide is not limited to the killing component of genocide, nor to politicide, mass murder or massacre, or terror. It includes them all and also what they exclude, as long as such killing is a purposive act, policy, process, or institution of government. In detail, democide is any actions by government: (1) designed to kill or cause the death of people (1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people; (1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system; (1.3) i n furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement; (1.4) by massacre; (1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions; (1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict. (2) t hat cause death by virtue of an intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life (which constitutes practical intentionality), as in (2.1) deadly prison, concentration camp, forced labor, prisoner of war, or recruit camp conditions; (2.2) killing medical or scientific experiments on humans; (2.3) torture or beatings; (2.4) encouraged or condoned murder, or rape, looting, and pillage during which people are killed; (2.5) a famine or epidemic during which government authorities withhold aid, or knowingly act in a way to make it more deadly; (2.6) forced deportations and expulsions causing deaths. (3) with the following qualifications and clarifications: (a) "government" includes de facto governance, as by the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China; or by a rebel or warlord army over a region and population it has conquered, as by the brief rule of Moslem Turks (East Turkistan Republic) over part of Sinkiang Province (1944-1946); (b) "actions by governments" comprise official or authoritative actions by government officials, including the police, military, or secret service; or such non-governmental actions (e.g., by brigands, press-gangs, or secret societies) receiving government approval, aid, or acceptance; (c) clause 1.1 includes, for example, directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict out of hatred or revenge, or to depopulate an enemy region or terrorize or force the population into urging surrender; this would involve, among other actions, indiscriminate urban bombing or shelling, or blockades that cause mass starvation; (d) "relationship to such people" (clause 1.1) includes their relatives, colleagues, co-workers, teachers, or students; (e) "massacre" (clause 1.4) includes the mass killing of prisoners of war or of captured rebels; (f) "quota" system (clause 1.3) includes randomly selecting people for execution in order to meet a quota; or arresting people according to a quota, some of whom are then executed; (g) "requisition" system (clause 1.3) includes taking from peasants or farmers all their food and produce, leaving them to starve to death; (h) and excluding from the definition: (h.1) execution for what are internationally considered capital crimes, such as murder, rape, spying, treason, and the like, so long as evidence does not exist that such allegations were invented by the government in order to execute the accused; (h.2) actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or a riot (e.g., killing people with weapons in their hands is not democide); (h.3) the death of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military (e.g., during bombing enemy logistics). Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide. Moreover, when conceptually there is not a clear domestic analog to murder, as in the indiscriminate bombing of urban areas, I have tried to follow the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.7 Killing helpless people in time of war or military action in breach of these international agreements is a violation of the international law they codify a crime and is is facto democide. Therefore the forced detention of prisoners of war under conditions that cause their death is democide, as is death caused by medical experimentation on them. Bombing, shelling, or bombarding civilians indiscriminately is also democide, as is the forced removal of all food stuff in occupied areas, thus causing the death of the inhabitants from starvation. Similarly, food blockades that cause the indiscriminate death of civilians is democide, as was the largely British blockade of the Central Powers during and after World War I. As Article 14 to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions affirms: "Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited."8 I have to again be absolutely clear on this since so much takes place in time of war. War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. That killing explicitly permitted is not democide. Thus, the death of civilians during the bombing of munitions plants in World War II is not democide. Nor is the death of civilians when through navigation or bombing errors, or the malfunction of equipment, bombs land on a school or hospital, unless it is clear that the bombing was carried out recklessly in spite of a high risk to such civilian buildings. Nor is the death of civilians in a bombed village beneath which has been built enemy bunkers. Nor is the death of civilians caught in a cross fire between enemy soldiers, or those civilians killed while willingly helping troops haul supplies or weapons. Seldom is it easy to make these distinctions, but the aim here must be clear. I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle or battle related disease and famine. The former are those victims (which may include the military, as when POWs are massacred) of internationally prohibited war-time killing, what may be called war-crimes or crimes against humanity. What then about the American fire-bombing of Tokyo or atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II? I recently received a letter from a colleague who was distressed that I would count deaths from such raids as American democide. I discuss this to some extent in Statistics of Democide, but here I might note that this was indiscriminate civilian bombing and would thus be by Article 48 to Protocol I of the Geneva conventions unlawful. The Article reads: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.9 Article 51 makes the meaning of this more specific: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.10 And still more specifically, Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. . . .11 Pulling all this together, throughout this book a death constitutes democide if it is the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command (as in the Nazi gassing of the Jews). It is also democide if these deaths were the result of such authoritative government actions carried out with reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of those affected (as putting people in concentration camps in which the forced labor and starvation rations were such as to cause the death of inmates). It is democide if government promoted or turned a blind eye to these deaths even though they were murders carried out "unofficially" or by private groups (as by death squads in Guatemala or El Salvador). And these deaths also may be democide if high government officials purposely allowed conditions to continue that were causing mass deaths and issued no public warning (as in the Ethiopian famines of the 1970s). All extra-judicial or summary executions comprise democide. Even judicial executions may be democide, as in the Soviet show trials of the late 1930s. J udicial executions for "crimes" internationally considered trivial or non-capital, as of peasants picking up grain at the edge of a collective's fields, of a worker for telling an anti-government joke, or of an engineer for a miscalculation, are also democide. I have found that in the vast majority of events and episodes democide is unambiguous. When under the command of higher authorities soldiers force villagers into a field and then machine gun them, there should be no question about definition. When a group armed by the government for this purpose turn the teachers and students out of their school, line up those of a particular tribe and shoot them, it is surely democide. When all food stuffs are systematically removed from a region by government authorities and a food blockade is put in place, the resulting deaths must be democide. Sad to say, most cases of government killing in this century is that clear. The number of deaths will be hazy for many of these cases; the perpetrators and intent will not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES * From the pre-publisher edited manuscript of Chapter 2 in R.J. Rummel, Death By Government, 1994. For full reference this book, the list of its contents, figures, and tables, and the text of its preface, click book. 1. Lemkin (1944, p. 79). 2. See, for example, Fein (1984); Kuper (1981) and Porter (1982). 3. See, for example, Chalk and Jonassohn (1988); Charny (1991). 4. See Stannard (1992). 5. See Harff and Gurr (1988). 6. Solzhenitsyn (1973). 7. On these I have found the commentaries in Bothe and Partisch (1982) particularly useful. 8. Bothe and Partisch (1982, p. 679). 9. Bothe and Partisch (1982, p. 280-281). 10. Ibid., p. 297. 11. Ibid. __________________________________________________________________ What Should Be Done About Democide, Violence, and War? http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLICY.HTM D emocratic freedom is a method of nonviolence and engine of wealth and prosperity. The most practical and effective way to improve human security, promote nonviolence, and eliminate war, therefore, is to promote freedom and associated human rights . http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLICY.HTM CONTENTS •Chapters: the prior question about the nature of peace and social justice [14] Chapter: why should you be free? [15] •Chapter: The Grand Master Principle: promote freedom [14] Chapter: The Positive Peace Principle: minimize the power of government •Chapter: What is freedom and how do we get it? Article: the indicator of freedom: a free press •Chapter: What is democratic freedom? [15] Article: democratization •Chapter: types of societies and political regimes [6] Figure: the political triangle [6] •Chapter: freedom solves the problem of war [15] Joint Freedom Proposition: Violence will occur between states only if at least one is nonlibertarian. [13] •Chapter: freedom minimizes political violence [15] Freedom Proposition: The more libertarian a state, the less it tends to be involved in violence [13] •Chapter: freedom virtually eliminates genocide and mass murder [15] •Chapter: freedom produces wealth and prosperity [15] •Chapter: freedom promotes social justice [15] •Chapter: an enlightened foreign policy [7] Speech: the (rule of law): towards eliminating war and democide Article: denuclearization and social justice through democracy Convocation speech: foster freedom •Chapters: incrementalism and principles of conflict resolution [14] •Paper: Eliminating democide and war through an alliance of democracies __________________________________________________________________ Contract killing From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Hitman” redirects here. For other uses, see Hitman (disambiguation). A contract killing (also contract murder or murder-for-hire) is a murder in which a killer is hired by another person to murder for material reward, usually money. A person who carries out a contract killing is sometimes known as a contract killer, hit man (sometimes hitman), or assassin. In most countries with judicial systems, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law (in the sense that the customer cannot sue for specific performance and the contract killer cannot sue for his pay). Both the actual killer or hitman and his customer can be found guilty of homicide. In some jurisdictions with capital punishment, a contract killing may be a special circumstance that allows for a murder to be tried as a capital crime. Contract killing appeals to some criminals partially because it can be used to establish an "airtight" alibi for the person who takes out the contract--at the time of the killing, this person can plan to be far away and in a place where many people will see him. At the same time, the person who actually commits the murder may have little or no direct connection to the victim, making it much more difficult for investigators to establish what has happened. By contracting out a murder, a criminal can also avoid personally committing murder, which some may be unwilling or incapable of doing, especially if they had a close relationship with the victim. Contract killings are often, though not always, associated with organized crime, primarily because career criminals are likely to know contract killers, and believe contracting a murder will lessen the likelihood of being caught. Depending on the region and era, contract killers have frequently been used to silence witnesses testifying against criminals or to eliminate rival criminals or politicians who refuse to take a bribe (plata o plomo - a Spanish phrase meaning literally "silver or lead" which usually translates into "money or bullet" "accept a bribe or face assassination"). Others contract a murder in an attempt to reap some kind of financial windfall--usually as a beneficiary of the victim's insurance policies, or as heir to their estate. However, the most common motive usually involves simply ending an intimate relationship, albeit for an array of reasons.[1] Contract killers may make their crime an obvious murder, but may also try to make the death appear to be a suicide or even an accident, or may hide or destroy the body so that it is not clear to authorities that the victim is dead, only that they have disappeared. Payment for the actual killing (usually referred to as a "hit"), is usually divided by paying part of the total price to the contract killer beforehand, and the remainder after the successful completion of the hit. This is usually done like a security bond or deposit, ensuring for the hit man, that they will receive some portion of the pay should the client refuse to pay him or other issues arise and client cannot pay the full amount after the killing has been completed, and also to establish a binding relationship between the client and the hit man. The actual amount for a particular hit will obviously vary considerably based on things such as: the hit man in particular and his standards and usual fee, the difficulty and danger in accomplishing the actual "hit" based upon who the person to be killed is, where they are and any likely police, security and media attention, and also specifically if the client wants the target to be killed in a specific manner (to appear as an accident for example). Though figures reported in the media and in criminological studies suggest the usual fee is in the tens of thousands of dollars, this amount is obviously difficult to verify. In some countries law enforcement agents will sometimes pose as contract killers to arrest the people trying to hire them.[2]
- Homepage
- 2017 CRIMINAL REPORTS
- PRAYER WARRIORS NEEDED!
- GOOD HEALTH
- MYRA SNYDER SCOTT KILED
- JOB MOBBING/KILL
- BOYDEN GRAY
- J. LIPPMAN
- A. URBANSKI
- CONGRESS
- LEGAL MINDS
- DEBT COLLECTION
- VIDEOS
- CONTERACT SLANDER
- NEWS/CRIMES
- VACCINE EXEMPTIONLETTER
- TI JOB NETWORK
- END ORGANIZED TALK
- SAVE CHILDREN
- 2013 LINKS 4 INVESTIGATION
- LAW
- REPLACED LINKS
- ATTEMPTED MURDERR
- DEMOCIDE
- EDUCATION
- STALKING
- PRESS RELEASES $ LEGAL
- GALLERIA
- VISION
- BOYDEN NYS CRIMES
- BOYDEN JUDGE KILLINGS
- NYS CRIME VICTIM
- EUGENICS
- STORE
- CRIMINAL RPT LINKS
- WILLIE
- PRAYER
- INDUCED SEIZURES
- MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
- THE CURSE
- BOYDEN KILL PROJECTS
- POLICE REPORT 08
- BOYDEN DUPE
- EVIDENCE
- 18 USC 241
- LEGISLATION
- DIARY
- RESUME
- FLYER
- MONEY TRAIL
- BOYDEN II
- BOYDENIII
- BOYDEN IV
- UPDATE
- BLACKLISTINGS
- BOYDEN WTO
- AUG. 2007
- DONATE
- ECONOMIC CRIMES
- OLD POLICE RPTS
- LIABILITY