Genocide

[she_is_my_addiction]

Article: Genocide

The Izbrisani (Erased residents) Issue in Slovenia: An introduction by Jim Fussell (Feb. 26, 2004), followed by news articles.

On February 26, 1992, the newly independent state of Slovenia deleted the names of some 30,000 residents from the nation's civil registries. The targeted population, which came to be known as izbrisani (erased residents) were not of Slovenian ancestry, but were so-called 'new minorities" including ethnic Serbs, ethnic Croats and ethnic Bosnian Muslims, ethnic Albanian Kosovars and ethnic Roma which the government sought to force out of the country. (In contrast 'old minorities' include ethnic Italians and ethnic Hungarians, specifically mentioned in the December 1991 Constitution.)

Twelve years later the Slovenian Government has still not yet acted to fully redress this massive violation of human rights. Critics of this radical action by the Slovenian government have sometimes characterized the mass erasure as 'soft genocide' or 'administrative genocide." A more appropriate term is probably 'administrative ethnic cleansing' or 'civil death.' By whatever description, redress for the mass 'erasure' is still badly needed. In other historical contexts this kind of radical action which in and of itself is a massive violation of human rights, has been a step toward more extreme actions including mass expulsion and even genocide. In the case of Slovenia, the izbrisani were targeted for elimination solely on account of the non-Slovene groups into which they were born. Furthermore, this 'administrative ethnic cleansing' on February 26, 1992 in Slovenia can be viewed as a contributing factor to the radicalization in former Yugoslavia which only a few months later saw violent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The policy of "mass erasure", which could also be called mass denationalization, must especially be condemned because it was a partially successful policy, causing over one-third (12,000 out of 30,000) of the targeted population to leave Slovenia. When officials asked an izbrisani for his old Yugoslav passport the top right corner would be cut off, making the document useless and marking the bearer for further discrimination. The izbrisani (erased residents) were not forced out at gunpoint and their homes were not burned down as in Bosnia, nevertheless they lost their jobs, medical benefits and sometimes were deported for minor offenses. The multiple possible translations of the term "izbrisati" (erase, red pencil, rub out, score out, scratch out, delete, expunge, obliterate) shows the impact the policy might have on a person. In Slovenia, seven izbrisani committed suicide. Ultranationalist politicians characterized the izbrisani as war criminals, swindlers and undesirables.

The radical 'mass erasure' of February 26, 1992 took place eight months after Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991. The erasure occurred just days after Slovenian Athletes participated for the first time in Olympic competition at the XVI Winter Olympic in Albertville, France. Acceptance into the United Nations was still three months away (May 22, 1992). Notably, Slovenia was not at war at the time the 'mass erasure'. The previous summer war with Yugoslavia had lasted only a few weeks ending a with European Union sponsored agreement calling for withdrawal of Yugoslav Federal troops from Slovenia and the demobilization of Slovenian troops. Furthermore the 'mass erasure' came after the completion of a new Constitution is which Slovenia committed itself to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 5, and Articles 61 to 63).

For the past 12 years the status of the 18,000 izbrisani who remained in Slovenia in limbo status, has been unresolved. This year, after much delay and pressure from Human Rights groups, the European Union, and judges within Slovenia, the government may soon act to reverse the policy and compensate the victims of erasure.

Presently Slovenia is scheduled to join the European Union on May 1, 2004 and will also soon join NATO. The European Union and Council of Europe are providing important guidance toward a positive resolution of this issue. If this should occur the case of Slovenian izbrisani may become an important precedent for other countries which have pursued policies of mass denationalization. Other countries which have pursued such policies include Cambodia (ethnic Vietnamese 1993), Myanmar (Rohingya Arakanese 1992) and Syria (Kurds 1962). Another set of countries conducted mass denationalization followed by mass expulsion, including Ethiopia (Persons with Eritrean affiliation 1998), Bhutan (Lhotshampas - ethnic Nepalis 1991), Vietnam (Hoa - ethnic Chinese 'boat people', 1978-1979), France (ethnic Germans in Alsace-Lorraine 1918-1920). Seen together, these cases along with that of Slovenia, demonstrate that policies of this type can create large-scale international refugee problems.

Mass Erasure (or mass denationalization) can not be viewed solely as a matter of domestic policy, but must be viewed as a matter of international concern. Civil Society organizations within a country and outside it, along with regional intergovernmental organizations (such as the European Union) must hold countries which engage in policies accountable for their actions. This case of a massive human rights violation is quite different from other cases of atrocities, massacres, crimes against humanity and genocide. Still if global civil society is to truly prevent genocide instead of only halting it or afterward assisting the victims, we must also look at cases such as this one. Some governments will not stop with mere 'civil death', but will seize opportunities to take still more radical measures such as internment, expulsion or physical elimination of targeted population groups.


...and this is still going on in my home country...

 

[cantdog]

I had read of this sort of thing. What shits people can be to one another.

cantdog

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I had read of this sort of thing. What shits people can be to one another.

cantdog

The worst part is that my family gets stuck in the middle of it.

 

[cantdog]

What can anyone do? Is there an office to write, or some advocacy group who is doing good work on it?

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

What can anyone do? Is there an office to write, or some advocacy group who is doing good work on it?

I doubt there's an office to write to. Advocacy group I'm not sure about either. I only just learned about this....and I'm raging pissed. There has to be something illegal about it...you can't just pretend people don't exist, can you????

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I sat through a lecture about this sort of things, once. Why its a policy, what its justifications are, the short-term and long-term effects, whether it was a violation of human rights, etc.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I sat through a lecture about this sort of things, once. Why its a policy, what its justifications are, the short-term and long-term effects, whether it was a violation of human rights, etc.

Well? It would be cool if you could add some of that here.

Thanks

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by she_is_my_addiction
Well? It would be cool if you could add some of that here.

Thanks

I'm not into getting into a debate about it. I can say that the practice was, ultimately, hard to establish as either a political necessity or a true genocide. It was a good lecture.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I'm not into getting into a debate about it. I can say that the practice was, ultimately, hard to establish as either a political necessity or a true genocide. It was a good lecture.

No, I don't want to debate. Believe me. I'm all debated out. I just wanted to know if you had more information on the topic.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by she_is_my_addiction
No, I don't want to debate. Believe me. I'm all debated out. I just wanted to know if you had more information on the topic.

Well, sure... tons.

Its a complicated thing, to be sure. We're essentially talking about some very large questions: (1) What rights does a nation-state have with regards to the selection of its subscribers (citizens, peoples, etc.)? (2) Is sovereignty an issue with that selection? (3) Are primary human rights in violation? Amongst a few others.

On the first question, obviously, either a nation state has the right or doesn't and the grounds for that right come from its rule. A democracy, the question of whether or not the state has the right ought be coming from the people. A dictatorship, not so much. Assuming the political structure supports it, we run into a Crito-esque problem... can we judge the state, externally or internally, in error because of something that was a part of the system. That is to say, if we supported or abided the system, do we choose to withdraw that support because the system does something we don't like?

Its sort of cold, to think of it that way, but a government with emotion is a dangerous thing. An emotionless system is preferable to one that has whims of like, dislike, love, hate, etc. People ought, governments ought not. So, in the end, if the system supported the possibility, are we in a position to just their enaction?

That takes us to "sovereignty". Do we believe in the sovereignty of nation-states? Some states do more than others. China, as an example, believes strongly, strongly in the concept of a nation-state's sovereignty. The US, not so much. Other nations are scattered in opinion. If we believe that sovereignty is not an absolute thing, we can judge the actions of the nation that enacts any policy we don't agree with to effect--instead of just in words. That is to say, if we don't agree HERE in the mass-revoking of citizenship based on a racism (as an example), we can say with certainty that they ought not either and call them "wrong" with meaning. If we believe in sovereignty, we can't, with any real meaning, judge their practice.

"Everyone's beliefs about right and wrong are their own and nobody can judge them and people's beliefs are theirs and everyone's right in their own way" and all that. Subjectivity of politics.

Then, the question is whether its even a violation of what we have agreed to call human rights. In some respects it is, the displacement is an issue for sure... but is it a lack of equality? Mmmmmmaybe. That's one of the stronger gray areas. On the one hand, its a lack of equality in that not everyone gets to be a subscriber, but in that the comparision is between--in the end--subscribers and not subscribers, maybe its just a matter of defining illegal alien... which everyone does.

All in all, what's left is a sense that its a bad thing, but on what fundamental grounds is it a violation is much, much harder.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Thanks Joe...always good to hear thoughts. Makes it a bit easier to understand what's going on as well.