Deterrence as the Only Prevention for Genocide

In his new book, the US historian Daniel J. Goldhagen writes about genocide. In an interview with Michael Hesse, he talks about genocide as a specific problem of the modern world, and about political Islam as a new, totalitarian ideology – and openly calls for the killing of mass murderers

Mr Goldhagen, what is worse than war?

Daniel J. Goldhagen: More than 100 million people have been killed by elimination measures since the beginning of the 20th century – many more than in wars. Mass murder and genocide are the main problems of lethal violence, and in this sense worse than war. The time has come to view them as such.

Are genocides a specific problem of the modern world?

Goldhagen: Yes. A look at the 20th and 21st century shows that mass murders or genocides are regular events – wherever they might occur. Most people are simply not aware of this. They think that this is a series of terrible isolated events occurring in Sudan, Bosnia or Ruanda. But that is wrong. In actual fact, genocide is facilitated by an indulgent international system.

How has that been possible after the Holocaust?

Goldhagen: The problem is mass murderers are successful and have nothing to fear. Genocide is, just like war, a continuation of politics by other means. So the point is when political leaders decide to commit genocide, that decision has to be made very expensive.

You are now calling for those politically responsible for genocide to be killed. Does international law not represent a moral problem for you here?

Goldhagen: International law is, viewed as a part of the process of avoiding genocide, bankrupt. It is simply ineffectual in this case. I would be happy if it were subjected to reform. There is a higher moral law, and that is to prevent the murder of innocent children. In 1995 there was a stable coalition that stopped the genocide in Bosnia by bombing raids.

Many people said back then that this campaign was unlawful. And if the coalition had heeded this law, everyone would have been slaughtered. It should be made clear to all leaders involved in genocide that when they launch such an act, they are declared enemies of humanity.

The International Court of Justice was set up in 2002 to judge cases such as these. Is it not difficult to differentiate between those who instigate genocide and those who carry it out?

Goldhagen: The Court of Justice, which I support, is an institution that works extremely slowly. It requires far too much time to come to any decision. It was established to enforce the law. But it's not just lacking in assertiveness, some countries don't even recognize it as a court.

So anyone should be allowed to kill those responsible for genocide?

Goldhagen: Yes. Any country that can prevent another from committing mass murder should have the right to intervene in the killing. And anyone who has the chance to kill those who commit mass murder should do just that.

Wouldn't that be better left to UN troops?

Goldhagen: Unfortunately they take much too long – and generally don't arrive.

You warn against political Islam. Does Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" form the backdrop to your opinion?

Goldhagen: No. I don't view political Islam as a separate civilization. It incorporates neither fundamentalist Islam, nor radical Islam, nor Islam per se. Political Islam is a movement that is based on a specific understanding of Islam. Political Islam lifts the division between religion and politics. It has nothing to do with a clash of civilizations.

Many Iranians recently came out in support of democracy in their country, without condemning Islam as a political form. Are they also an element of political Islam?

Goldhagen: Political Islam is a totalitarian movement that wants to manipulate politics and society in accordance with the concepts of fundamentalist Islam. It has nothing to do with democracy and nothing to do with the aims of those who demonstrate in favour of a democratic Iran.

And Ahmadinejad...

Goldhagen: Is the figurehead of political Islam in Iran. He uses every opportunity to put across a more aggressive take on Islam. And it's not just aimed at Israel, his target is practically the entire western world with the US as leading nation. Like others of his ilk, he openly says that the enemies of Islam must be killed. That's reminiscent of the Nazis.

In your book you write about the horrific nature of the perpetrators, who mock their victims as they torment them.

Goldhagen: Many people think my book is a theoretical analysis of genocide. But in actual fact, much of it is devoted to the perpetrators, and the question of why they do what they do, and what they feel as they do it. The perpetrators are convinced that their actions are good and necessary. They act in the belief that the victims must be killed because they are demonic, or sub-human. That's why they often laugh as they torture or hit their victims, eventually killing them.

What is the advantage of your new term 'eliminationism', which you use instead of genocide?

Goldhagen: That it mirrors exactly the intention of the perpetrators. Their aim is to eliminate a people viewed as undesirable or dangerous. This policy of eliminationism is practiced by many countries. To further their aims they use techniques such as transformation, enforced assimilation, preventing reproduction, repression or expulsion. There are mass deportations and concentration camps. And finally, destruction.

What distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocides?

Goldhagen: The Holocaust is the only case in which a government and a large number of supporters began a campaign to destroy the members of a group – not only in their own country, but across the whole of Europe. During the Nazi era, the Germans were determined to kill every Jew on earth. In addition, the Holocaust was conducted by an international genocide coalition.

Human beings are regarded as rational beings capable of moral reasoning – but they nevertheless participate in genocide. Are you optimistic that genocides can be prevented?

Goldhagen: Yes, I am. Many countries have already forsworn war as a way of asserting their own interests – that would have been unthinkable in the 19th century.

We have overcome imperialism, helped human rights to be recognized in many countries, and we're making progress in countries that have experienced comparable developments along the lines of genocide and eliminationism. Why should we not achieve the same results with political eliminationism?

The political leaders of Europe and the US should make up their minds to enforce a non-eliminative political system. If they wanted to, they could make it possible overnight.

Interview: Michael Hesse

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, born in 1959 in Boston as the son of a Romanian Holocaust survivor who was later to become a Harvard professor, studied history, sociology and political science. Today he is himself Associate Professor of Government and Social Studies at Harvard University and Associate at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He became known after the publication of a book based on his doctoral dissertation: "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust".

Translated from the German by Nina Coon

Qantara.de

Avraham Burg: "The Holocaust Is Over"
Caught in a National Trauma
The German translation of Avraham Burg's book "The Holocaust Is Over" has at last been published. In it, the Israeli politician and peace activist urges his compatriots to liberate themselves from the trauma of the Holocaust and place their trust in the country's political future. Ulrich von Schwerin met Burg in Berlin

The Holocaust in the Arab World
The Politicization of Human Genocide
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pronouncements against the Holocaust echoed in the Arab World in a mysterious way. Most reputable Arab intellectuals, however, distance themselves from the revisionist statements, writes Fakhri Saleh

The Armenian Genocide
The Search for Truth and the Historical Context
Questions about the young Turkish Republic and the Armenians are still causing waves ninety years later. Now historians who are trying to reconstruct the historical context are increasingly being paid heed. Jürgen Gottschlich reports