Leon Lemmer: Die oorsprong van ‘misdade teen die mensdom’ en ‘volksmoord’

Ek het die eerste keer van die Oekraïne se gespletenheid tussen die Ooste en die Weste kennis geneem toe ek Anna Reid se boek, Borderland: A journey through the history of Ukraine (London: Phoenix, 1998, 258p), gelees het. Die Dnieper-rivier loop van noord na suid deur die land, met die hoofstad Kiev aan die rivieroewer. Oos van die Dnieper word die bevolking toenemend Russies en Ortodoks-christelik. Wes van die Dnieper is die bevolking oorwegend Oekraïnies en Rooms-Katoliek. Hoofstuk 4 van Reid se boek handel oor Lviv, die hoofstad van Galisië, die westelikste provinsie. “Lviv was ruled by Austria from the first partition of Poland in 1773 until the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918, christening the city Lemberg … With the rebirth of Poland the city went back to its ancient Polish name of Lwów, and in 1945 it fell, for the first time in its history, to the Russians, who deported the Polish population and renamed it Lvov. It only became Lviv in 1991, with Ukrainian independence” (p 71). Lviv is een van die hoofonderwerpe in hierdie rubriek. Die naam beteken Stad van die Leeus. Ek gebruik deurgaans die stad se huidige naam.

Dit is moontlik om ooreenkomste tussen die Oekraïners/Oekraïens en Afrikaners/Afrikaans in te lees. “Ethnically and socially, nineteenth-century Galicia was an unbalanced, unhappy place. Poles owned the land; Jews the shops and inns. Ukrainians – 40 per cent of the province’s population … – laboured out of sight in cottages and fields” (72). “Galicia was a byword for rural poverty” (73). “Ukrainian itself had turned into a peasant tongue, the language in which one addressed the servants, if one spoke it at all. In the cities, it was hardly heard. For a long time even Ukrainophiles expected it to die out completely” (76). “The man who contributed more than any other single individual to the creation of a Ukrainian sense of national identity, was Taras Shevchenko [1814-1861] … he single-handedly turned Ukrainian into a literary language [and] remains Ukraine’s greatest hero” (77). “The Ukrainian language plays a starring role in the Ukrainian’s sense of national identity, making it a delicate political as well as cultural issue” (85).

Die huidige situasie in Lviv word beskryf in Tarik Cyril Amar se boek, The paradox of Ukrainian’s Lviv: A borderland city between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists (Cornell University Press, 2015, 369p; Amazon Kindle $19,39). Lviv is in groter mate Oekraïnies as enige ander stad en word beskou as ‘n simbool van die Oekraïners se nasionale identiteit en nasionalisme. In November 1918 was daar ‘n kortstondige “West Ukrainian People’s Republic” (Sands, bron hier onder, Kindle 1121, 2292, 2479). Die bevolking van Lviv is tans ‘n driekwart miljoen.

‘n Ander hoofonderwerp in hierdie rubriek is volksmoord (“genocide”). In hierdie verband is daar bv Maria Pritchard se boek, Genocide: A history from Carthage to Darfur (London: RW Press, 2013, 63p; Amazon Kindle $2,27). Wanneer deesdae van volksmoord gepraat word, word gewoonlik aan die Holocaust of Shoah* gedink, die uitwissing van miljoene Jode deur die Nazi’s, of aan Hernán Cortés (1485-1547) se uitroeiing van die Asteke, of die jag op die Australiese inboorlinge, asook op die Amerikaanse Indiane. Volksmoord word hiermee eksklusief aan blankes toegeskryf. Maar Pritchard skryf: “Although the image of European Imperialists massacring indigenous people is a familiar one, it is not the full picture. Europeans have massacred each other and non-Europeans have also committed genocide on their neighbours” (Kindle 78). In Suidelike Afrika in die 19de eeu was daar die Mfecane (in Nguni) of Difaqane (in Sotho), die grootskaalse uitwissing van swartes deur swartes. [* “Holocaust” is afgelei van twee Griekse woorde: “whole” + “burnt”. “Shoah” is die Hebreeuse woord vir katastrofe of warrelwind. Sands beskryf dit as “killing on an industrial scale” (4648).]

Een van die grusaamste voorbeelde van volksmoord is die Turke se uitroeiing van die Armeniërs. ‘n Gesaghebbende boek hieroor is Peter Balakian se The burning Tigris: The Armenian genocide and America’s response (New York: HarperCollins, 2007, 528p; Amazon Kindle $13,52). Die uitmoring het in vier stadia van 1877 tot 1922 plaasgevind. Daar word beweer dat die Turke met die Armeniese volksmoord aan die Nazi’s die bloudruk vir die Joodse volksmoord verskaf het” (Kindle 140). Meer as ‘n miljoen Armeniërs, tweederdes van hierdie etniese groep, het omgekom. Deesdae is Armenië ‘n klein landjie van minder as 30 000 vierkante kilometer en ‘n bevolking van skaars 3 miljoen, met 8 miljoen Armeniërs wat in ander lande woon. Maar sedert 1991 het die Armeniërs darem ten minste ‘n onafhanklike nasiestaat.

Die Amerikaanse ambassadeur in Turkye, Henry Morgenthau (1856-1946), skryf in sy boek oor die Armeense volksmoord, Ambassador Morgenthau’s story (2015, 478p; Amazon Kindle $2,27), van “the murder of a nation” en “the greatest crime of all ages” (Sands 2292). Toe Morganthau in 1919 oor die uitmoring van Jode in 1918 in Lviv verslag gedoen het, het hy verkies om die term “pogrom” te vermy (All in a life-time, 2015, 482p; Amazon Kindle $1,13). “Pogrom (Russian ‘destruction’) unprovoked violent attack on an ethnic group, particularly Jews, carried out with official sanction” (Collins World Encyclopedia, 2003, p 736).

Die Armeense volksmoord word deels aan religieuse verskille gewyt. Die Turke is Moslems en die Armeniërs is christene wat daarop roem dat hulle sedert 301 ‘n christelike staat gehad het; die eerste in die wêreld. ‘n Ander rede vir hierdie volksmoord is etnies. Daar was die slagspreuk: “Turkey belongs only to the Turks” (Balakian 3110). Dit herinner aan wat die PAC se Robert Sobukwe (1924-1978) gesê het: “We aim, politically, at government of the Africans by the Africans for the Africans” (Allister Sparks, The sword and the pen: Six decades on the political frontier, Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball, 2016, 626p, R300; Amazon Kindle $13,67, 2114).

Nog meer ontstellend is Irwin Staub, ‘n sosiale sielkundige, se mening: Gewelddadigheid wat as ‘n “continuum of destruction” progressief oor dekades en selfs eeue plaasgevind het, “creates a readiness in the culture” (Balakian 2136, 2831). “‘People learn,’ Staub explains, ‘by doing, by participation.’ People are changed by their participation in destructive and harmful behavior, and the victims are further devalued through this process” (2835). Die Armeense volksmoord was ‘n geval van “devaluing a subgroup, an ethnic minority in this case, in part in order to raise the sinking self-esteem of the majority group – the Turks” (2835).

Die vlaag gewelddadigheid wat Suid-Afrika sedert 1994 teister, bv die plaasmoorde en studente-oproer, kan as ‘n voortsetting van die voorafgaande polities gemotiveerde vandalisme en terrorisme van die ANC en PAC beskou word. Deur geweld polities suksesvol te pleeg, het veral die ANC deur voorbeeldstelling ‘n nuwe geslag geweldenaars geskep wat op ‘n soortgelyke manier sukses wil behaal. Wat in Suid-Afrika plaasvind, bv polities, het dikwels sy oorsprong in Amerika. John D Skrentny het die stryd om menseregte van veral vier etniese minderheidsgroepe (Asiate, Indiane, Hispaniste en swartes) deeglik nagevors (The minority rights revolution, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 2004, 496p; Amazon Kindle $32,49). Hy kom tot gevolgtrekkings soos: “African Americans … were the only minority group involved in the urban violence” (2195) en “only blacks had rioted” (2466). Amerikaanse swartes onderskei hulleself van ander minderheidsgroepe weens hulle gewelddadigheid (2168, 2560, 2660). Dit het daartoe gelei dat swartes in groter mate as enige ander Amerikaanse groep bevoordeel word;* ‘n geval van “the wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease” (1838; ook 4526). Die buitensporige toegeeflikheid jeens swartes se onsosiale gedrag kan enersyds toegeskryf word aan skuldgevoelens wat by blankes oor die destydse slawerny, rasse-segregasie en -diskriminasie gewek is. Andersyds dien ‘n paaibeleid as ‘n soort versekeringspolis teen verdere geweldpleging.

[* “The demand shifted from equal rights for individuals to special rights (affirmative action and similar measures) for blacks and other groups. Such claims run directly counter to the underlying principles that have been the basis of American political unity; they reject the idea of a ‘color-blind’ society of equal individuals and instead promote a ‘color-conscious’ society with government-sanctioned privileges for some groups. In a parallel movement, intellectuals and politicians began to push the ideology of ‘multiculturalism,’ and to insist on the rewriting of American political, social, and literary history from the viewpoint of non-European groups. At the extreme, this movement tends to elevate obscure leaders of minority groups to a level of importance equal to that of the Founding Fathers. Both the demands for special group rights and for multiculturalism encourages a clash of civilizations within the United States and encourage what Arthur M Schlesinger, Jr, terms ‘the disuniting of America'” (Samuel P Huntington, The clash of civilizations? The debate: 20th anniversary edition, edited by Gideon Rose, New York: Foreign Affairs Publishing, 2013, 93p; Amazon Kindle $8,57, 1120).]

“Rassis” en “apartheid” het standaardskelwoorde in sowel Suid-Afrika as Amerika geword. In hierdie woordestryd het Amerikaanse swartes ook “genocide” ingespan: “The charge was that American treatment of African Americans violated the convention – it was genocide” (508). Die “convention” waarna hier verwys word, is die Verenigde Nasies se Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. “In 1948 the UN General Assembly defined genocide as ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.’ The acts in question are listed as killing, or causing serious physical or mental injury to members of a group, deliberately exposing a group to conditions likely to cause death, preventing births within a group and forcibly removing the group’s children” (Pritchard 34).

Die Hispaniste voel sterk oor taalregte; dat Engels nie hulle moedertaal Spaans moet verswelg nie. In hierdie konteks word daar van “cultural genocide” gepraat (Skrentny 3121). Is dit nie wat sedert 1994 in Suid-Afrika met Afrikaners en Afrikaans gebeur nie? “A resolution by forty-nine Scandinavian professors in 1962 declared that ‘the extermination of a language, of a culture, and of a people are all one and the same thing'” (2800). Die Hispaniste het die reg op moedertaalonderrig verwerf.

Ek wil vandag hoofsaaklik oor ‘n nuwe boek skryf wat oor Lviv en die oorsprong van die woord “genocide” handel, asook oor die oorsprong van die frase “crimes against humanity.” Dit is Philippe Sands se East West Street: On the origins of genocide and crimes against humanity (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2016, 448p; Amazon Kindle $11,13). Sands (gebore in 1960) is ‘n professor in internasionale reg aan University College London. Die boektitel sinspeel op Lviv wat beskryf word as “the epicentre of the fault lines that divided east from west” (Kindle 152). In die vlaag van oordrewe reaksie teen blankes en apartheid word die woord “genocide” en die frase “crimes against humanity” dikwels gehoor. Die veldtog teen blankes en veral Afrikaners neem deesdae sulke afmetings aan dat daar soms die neiging is om hierdie woord en hierdie frase op veral Afrikaners en apartheid van toepassing te maak. Dit is egter moontlik dat die skoene van hierdie woord en frase eerder swart as wit voete pas.

Naas Lviv is daar vier hoofkarakters in Sands se boek. Hersch Lauterpacht (1897-1960), ‘n hoogleraar in internasionale reg, is in Zólkiew (later Zhovkva), 15 myle wes van Lviv, gebore en het van 1911 tot 1919 in Lviv gewoon en daar in die regte studeer. Rafael Lemkin (1900-1959) is in die huidige Belarus gebore en het in 1921 na Lviv verhuis en daar tot 1926 in die regte studeer. Hans Frank (1900-1946) was ‘n Duitse regsgeleerde en vyf jaar lank die Nazi-governeur-generaal van Duitsbesette Poland, wat Lviv en omstreke ingesluit het. Leon Buchholz (1904-1997), Philippe Sands se oupa aan moederskant, is in Lviv gebore. Die stad Lviv is ‘n gemeenskaplike element by hierdie vier karakters. Terselfdertyd het Sands ‘n familiebelang by hierdie onderwerp. Familiesake word in hierdie rubriek meesal uitgelaat en dus ook baie van die verdere inligting oor Buchholz.

Dit is merkwaardig dat sowel die frase “crimes against humanity” (Lauterpacht se skepping) as die woord “genocide” (Lemkin se skepping) hierdie verwantskap met Lviv het en dat hierdie twee begrippe of beginsels hulle weg in internasionale reg tydens die Nuremberg-verhoor (1945/6) van twee dosyn top-Nazi’s gevind het. Hans Frank is toe ter dood veroordeel. Familielede van sowel Lauterpacht as Lemkin (en ook van Buchholz) is tydens die Nazi-bewind vermoor. In daardie sin kan gesê word dat die regsbeginsels “misdade teen die mensdom” en “volksmoord” as ‘n soort vergelding of wraak in Joodse geledere ontstaan het. Die kernverskil tussen misdade teen die mensdom en volksmoord is dat eersgenoemde op die grootskaalse doodmaak van individue en laasgenoemde op die uitroeiing van groepe mense betrekking het (139). “How could the law help to prevent mass killing? Protect the individual, says Lauterpacht. Protect the group, says Lemkin” (4425). Die Nuremberg-verhoor is “the moment in which it was said our modern system of internasional justice came into being” (118). Lauterpacht word as “a father of the modern human rights movement” beskou (84). Volgens hom “the well-being of an individual is the ultimate object of all law” (1393; ook 998).

Reeds in sy jeug het Lauterpacht diskriminasie en die vervolging van Jode eerstehands ervaar. “International law offered few constraints on the majority’s treatment of minorities and no rights for individuals” (1146). “The modern law of human rights was born on the anvil of Lwów [Lviv] and its environs” (1175). Na die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, tydens die onderhandelings in 1919 in Versailles, het die Joodse afvaardiging op “greater autonomy, language and cultural rights and principles of self-government” aangedring (1189). Met bv die Iere in gedagte “Britain objected to any depletion of sovereignty – the right to treat others as it wished – or international oversight” (1189). Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), die Amerikaanse president (1913-1921), was egter sterk ten gunste van “‘rigid protection’ for minorities” (1197).

By Versailles is daar ingestem tot onafhanklikheid vir Pole op voorwaarde dat die regte van minderheidsgroepe beskerm word. Artikel 93 van die Versailles-verdrag “required Poland to sign a second treaty [the Little Treaty of Versailles (1203)], to protect ‘inhabitants’ who differed from the majority of the population in race, language, or religion.* The Allies would be entitled to ‘protect’ these minorities, a further humiliation in the eyes of Poland because lopsided obligations were imposed: rights were given to some groups, but not all, and the victorious powers would escape equivalent obligations for their own minorities” (1203). Byvoorbeeld, vrees vir regte vir swartes was in die agterkoppe van die Amerikaners. “The Polish Minorities Treaty went further: it made the rights of such minorities into ‘obligations of international concern’, to be protected at the League of Nations. Any disputes could go to the Permanent Court of International Justice, newly created in The Hague” (1210) in 1922 (1342). Na die magsoorname van Adolf Hitler in Duitsland in 1933 “Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Germany and cast aside the 1919 Minorities Treaty” (1379). [* Ook “birth, nationality” en “minorities could run their own schools” (1203).]

In 1919 het Lauterpacht in Wene verder in die regte studeer. Een van sy dosente was Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) wat gehelp het om die nuwe Oostenrykse grondwet te formuleer. Oostenryk was die eerste land wat ‘n grondwethof gekry het. Die gevolg: “individuals had inalienable constitutional rights, and they could go to a court to enforce those rights. This was a different model from that which protected minority rights, as in Poland. The two key distinctions – between groups and individuals, between national and international enforcement – influenced Lauterpacht’s thinking. In Austria, the individual was placed at the heart of the legal order” (1259). Anti-Semitisme in Wene het Lauterpacht oortuig van “the ‘vital necessity’ of rights for individuals” (1274).

In 1923 het Lauterpacht uitgewyk na Engeland en in 1938 hoogleraar in internasionale reg aan Cambridge University geword. Hy het oorweging geskenk aan “a ‘revolutionary’ possibility of developing the rules so as to place more limits on the supposedly ‘eternal and inalienable’ powers of the state” (1349). “Individuals should ‘possess international rights'” (1364). Later word dit deel van “the fundamental rights of man” (1672). Gedurende die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het Lauterpacht gedink dat “ending ‘international lawlessness'” noodsaaklik was (1615). Nege Europese regerings het in 1942 byeengekom “expressing a common desire to use the criminal law to punish those ‘guity’ of and ‘responsible’ for atrocities. Perpetrators would be ‘sought for, handed over to justice and judged’, an idea that became an official aim of the war. The nine governments established a commission on war crimes to collect information on atrocities and perpetrators, a body that would become the United Nations War Crimes Commission” (1622).

Intussen het Lauterpacht “a draft of his International Bill of Rights of Man” geformuleer (1746). In 1945 het hy ‘n boek daaroor gepubliseer (1796). Sy doel was “an end to the ‘omnipotence of the State'” (1796). “The gist of his thinking was captured in a single sentence: ‘The community of nations has in the past claimed and successfully asserted the right to intercede on behalf of the violated rights of man trampled upon by the State in a manner calculated to shock the moral sense of mankind'” (4404; ook 4432). Misdade teen die mensdom is “acts so egregious that others were entitled to act in a protective capacity” (4411). Die idee was “to limit the potent force of tribalism, not reinforce it” (4418). Sands noem dit “a rational, enlightened view, and also an idealistic one” (4418). Die verskyning van die boek het mettertyd gelei tot die aanvaarding van die Verenigde Nasies se Handves “by which governments agreed to introduce a new commitment to ‘fundamental human rights’, to respect the ‘dignity and worth of the human person'” (1789).

Die tweede hoofkarakter in Sands se boek, Rafael Lemkin, het reeds in 1933 ‘n pamflet gepubliseer “proposing new international rules to prohibit ‘barbarity’ and ‘vandalism’ … he imagined new rules to protect ‘the life of the peoples’; to prevent ‘barbarity’, the destruction of groups, and to prevent ‘vandalism’, attacks on culture and heritage” (2500). Hy het onder meer gebruik gemaak van die Romeen Vespasian V Pella (1897-1960) se idee van “universal jurisdiction” wat toepaslik sou wees op bv “piracy, slavery, trading in women and children, and drug trafficking” (2508).

Gedurende die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het Lemkin deurlopend amptelike Nazi-dokumente, soos staatskoerante, dekrete en ordinasies, versamel (2645, 2652), “looking for patterns of German behaviour” (2652). “Lemkin’s work identified the wholesale destruction of the nations over which the Germans took control as an overall aim” (2659). Hy het verskynsels soos “Germanized” (2659), “denationalization” en “dehumanization” waargeneem. Die doel daarvan was “to kill the nation ‘in a spiritual and cultural sense’: Lemkin identified decrees from early 1941 pointing to the ‘complete destruction’ of the Jews in gradual steps” (2666).

In 1944 is Lemkin se boek, Axis rule in occupied Europe, in Amerika gepubliseer, “with the aim of protecting groups, for which he invented a word for a new crime, ‘genocide’, the destruction of groups” (1760). “Attacks upon national, religious and ethnic groups should be made international crimes” (2221). Lemkin is onder meer deur die Armeense volksmoord beïnvloed (2292, 2738). Hy het geredeneer: Dit is ‘n misdaad, naamlik moord, as iemand een mens vermoor, “but not a crime for that man to have struck down one million men” (2372). In hoofstuk 9 kom hy met sy nuwe woord vorendag, “genocide”, ‘n kombinasie van die Griekse woord “genos” (stam of ras) en die Latynse woord “cide” (moor) (2888). Dit gaan oor “extermination”, “physical” en “cultural” (2888). “Genocide concerned acts ‘directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of national groups'” (2888). Volgens Lemkin “new conceptions require new terms” (2896). “A new word was accompanied by a new idea, a global treaty to protect against perpetrators before any court in the world. Countries would no longer be free to treat citizens as they wished” (2914). Voorheen het hy die Duitse woord “Völkermord” gebruik (2896). “The ‘extermination of nations and ethnic groups’ required the intelligentsia to be killed off, culture to be destroyed, wealth transferred” (2896). Nóg die woord “volksmoord” nóg die letterlike betekenis van “genocide” is omvattend genoeg om aan die dui dat bv religieuse groepe (en dus nie net stamme, volke of rasse nie) by hierdie soort misdaad ingesluit word.

Lauterpacht was nie entoesiasties oor Lemkin se idees nie. Hy noem “‘genocide’ a new term for the physical destruction of nations and ethnic groups” (1767). “Lauterpacht was concerned that the protection of groups would undermine the protection of individuals. It should not be the primary focus of the law” (1767). “He worried that emphasis on genocide would reinforce latent instincts of tribalism, perhaps enhancing the sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’, pitting one group against another” (4292).

Lemkin wou ‘n hiërargie daarstel wat volksmoord die ergste misdaad sou maak. Aan Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945, die Amerikaanse president 1933-1945) het hy in ‘n skrywe voorgestel “outlaw mass killing … make it a crime, the ‘crime of crimes'” (2839). “Not opposed to individual rights, he [Lemkin] nevertheless believed that an excessive focus on individuals was naive, that it ignored the reality of conflict and violence: individuals were targeted because they were members of a particular group, not because of their individual qualities. For Lemkin, the law must reflect true motive and real intent, the forces that explained why certain individuals – from certain targeted groups – were killed. For Lemkin, the focus on groups was the practical approach” (4418).

Die derde hoofkarakter in Sands se boek, Hans Frank, “expressed strong objections to universal jurisdiction” (3341). Hy het hom ten gunste van “non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign states” uitgespreek (3348). “There would be no individual rights in the new Germany, so he announced a total opposition to the ‘individualistic, liberalistic atomizing tendencies of the egoism of the individual.’ (‘Complete equality, absolute submission, absolute loss of individuality,’ the writer Friedrich Reck [1884-1945] recorded in his diary …)” (3355). “Community takes precedence over the individualistic … tendencies” (3251). Frank het die Duitsbesette Pole soos ‘n kolonie bestuur, “its inhabitants the ‘slaves of the Greater German World Empire'” (3376). Frank se standpunt was “that law was nothing more than ‘that which is useful and necessary for the German nation'” (2811). Volgens Lemkin was dit “‘a cynical denial of international law’ … Frank’s conception subordinated the individual to the state and was designed ‘to subordinate all the world under Germany'” (2811). In sy dagboek het Frank verder gegaan: “‘We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible’ … to maintain the structure of the Reich” (3426). Frank het die bynaam “Butcher of Warsaw” gekry (4043).

Vir die Nuremberg-verhoor het vier lande (Amerika, Brittanje, Frankryk en Rusland) elk twee regters en ‘n aanklaer benoem (1817). Lauterpacht het voorgestel dat die frase “War Crimes” (1837) en “Crimes Against Humanity” vir “atrocities against individual civilians” (1844) gebruik word. “‘Genocide’ … had been added at a late stage at the insistence of the Americans over strong British objections” (1896). “Genocide” is gedefinieer as “extermination of racial and religious groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups” (3035). Die Nuremberg-aanklagte sou geldig wees “whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated” (1866). “International law was not only ‘between States’ but ‘also the law of mankind'” (1874). “This was the first time in human history that the leaders of a state were put on trial before an international court for crimes against humanity and genocide, two new crimes” (4224).

Robert Jackson (1892-1954), die Amerikaanse hoofaanklaer, het gesê “the ‘real complaining party’ … was not the Allies but ‘civilization’ itself” (4376). Hartley Shawcross (1902-2003) was die Britse hoofaanklaer. “Lauterpacht prompted Shawcross to pre-empt the arguments of the defendants, the prospect that they’d assert that because states couldn’t commit crimes under international law, it followed that the individuals who served them also couldn’t be guilty of crime. A state could be criminal, Shawcross told the tribunal, and so it was imperative to repress its crimes by means ‘more drastic and more effective than in the case of individuals’. Individuals who acted on behalf of such a state were ‘directly responsible’ and should have punishments heaped upon them … ‘The state is not an abstract entity … Its rights and duties are the rights and duties of men’, its actions those of politicians who should ‘not be able to seek immunity behind the intangible personality of the state’. These were radical words, embracing the idea of individual responsibility, placing ‘fundamental human rights’ and ‘fundamental human duties’ at the heart of a new international system” (4439).

Lauterpacht was in groter en vaster mate deel van die Britse vervolgingspan as wat Lemkin van die Amerikaanse span was. “Genocide was referred to on the first day by the French and Soviet prosecutors, much to his [Lemkin’s] satisfaction. The Americans and the British followed, but they avoided any mention of the word” (4526). Lemkin het aan die Amerikaanse vervolgingspan geskryf dat “lesser terms – like ‘mass murder’ or ‘mass extermination’ – were inadequate, because they were incapable of conveying the vital element of racial motivation and the desire to destroy entire cultures” (5065). “The charge of genocide had to be part of a broader trial strategy, to show the defendants as enemies of mankind, a ‘specially dangerous crime’, one that went beyond crimes against humanity” (5073). Lemkin “faced political objections in the United States and in Britain, arising respectively from historic American treatment of blacks and British colonial practices” (5080). Desnieteenstaande “the word ‘genocide’ made its way back into the proceedings” (5087).

Jackson het nie die woord “genocide” in sy finale Nuremberg-pleidooi gebruik nie, maar Shawcross het dit wel gedoen. Lemkin wou hê dat volksmoord wat voor die uitbreking van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog deur die Nazi’s gepleeg is ook veroordeel moet word, maar die mandaat van die Nuremberg-verhoor was tot oorlogsmisdade beperk (5284). Die Franse vervolgingspan “invoked ‘genocide’ as a catch-all to cover all the crimes, from concentration camps to enslavement. The Soviet prosecutor Rudenko characterized the SS [“Schutzstaffel” die Nazi-Duitse Beskermingskorps] as a genocidal entity, so that anyone associated with the organization was complicit in genocide” (5413).

Lauterpacht het argumente in konsepvorm aan die Britse vervolgingspan voorgelê waarvolgens “‘crimes against humanity’ … was a starting point to vindicate ‘the rights of man’, to offer protection against the ‘cruelty and barbarity of his own State’ … the fundamental rights of man trumped national laws, a new approach to serve the interests of individuals, not states” (5130). Sy oogmerk was “to create ‘a most valuable precedent for any future International Criminal Court'” (5123). Lauterpacht het veral Frank uitgesonder as ‘n “‘direct agent’ of the ‘crimes of extermination'” (5144); “the foulest crimes that ever sullied the record of a nation” (5159). “Lauterpacht thought that ‘if one emphasises too much that it is a crime to kill a whole people, it may weaken the conviction that it is already a crime to kill one individual'” (5501). In sy pleidooi in die hof het Shawcross al Lauterpacht se verwysings na Frank en sy emosionale taalgebruik uitgelaat, maar “Lauterpacht’s ideas on crimes against humanity and the rights of the individual were firmly entrenched in the proceedings, colouring the entire case” (5356).

Frank het in sy verweer aangevoer: “Germany’s guilt had been erased ‘by the conduct of our war-time enemies towards our nation and its soldiers’. Such conduct had been entirely excluded from the trial, he was saying, a lopsided justice. Mass crimes ‘of the most frightful sort’ had been committed against Germans” (5434).

“Ninety-four witnesses had appeared, thirty-three for the prosecution and sixty-one for the defence” (5556). “Of the twenty-one defendants present, three were acquitted” (5618). “Several … were found to have committed crimes against humanity, but none were found guilty of genocide” (5626). “Twelve defendants were sentenced to death with no right of appeal. They included Frank” (5671).

Lemkin was teleurgesteld met die beperkte mate van erkenning wat volksmoord tydens die Nuremberg-verhoor ontvang het. In 1946 het die Algemene Vergadering van die Verenigde Nasies egter bekragtig: “Genocide is a crime under international law” (5724). “On 9 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [die teks is hier bo in die 10de paragraaf deels aangehaal], the first human rights treaty of the modern era” (5724). “In the years after the Nuremberg judgement, the word genocide gained traction in political circles and in public discussion as the ‘crime of crimes’, elevating the protection of groups above that of individuals” (5772).

Lauterpacht se werk “inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by die UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948” (5731), dus net ‘n dag na “genocide” amptelik deur die VN erken is. Hierop het gevolg “the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed in 1950 … that created the first international human rights court to which individuals would have access” (5738).

As hierdie onderwerp in sy geheel oorweeg word, kan gesê word dat die regsbeginsels van “misdade teen die mensdom” en “volksmoord” gedurende die Tweede Wêreldoorlog en daarna vorm aangeneem het en deesdae internasionaal erken word. Die direkte aanleiding was die uitwissing van miljoene Jode deur die Nazi’s. Wat as gevolg daarvan gebeur het, is die toenemende globalisering van aangeleenthede. Die tradisionele onafhanklikheid van state word ondergrawe deur hulle internasionaal verantwoordbaar te hou. Inmenging in die huishoudelike sake van state is tot ‘n internasionale reg verhef. Dit kom neer op die inperking van die vryheid en dus regte van sowel state as individue. Wat veral problematies is, is dat regte in die praktyk beklemtoon word en hulle dikwels nie met verantwoordelikhede gebalanseer word nie.

Internasionalisering verwater die identiteit van groepe (bv volke/nasies, state) en individue. Wat nodig is, is sowel individuele regte as groepsregte, albei gebalanseer met verantwoordelikhede. In die nuwe Suid-Afrika word (na bewering) net individuele regte grondwetlik erken. Afrikaners het geen grondwetlike groepsregte nie. Anders as bv Amerikaanse swartes het Afrikaners geen minderheidsregte nie. Afrikanerbelange word gevolglik ondergeploeg deur die belange van die swart meerderheid, wat op grond van hulle getalle in die praktyk handel asof hulle ongebreideld hulle groepsbelange kan afdwing. In werklikheid het nie-wittes, anders as wittes, groepsregte ingevolge hulle bevoordeling weens bv regstellende aksie en swart ekonomiese bemagtiging. Regstellende aksie en swart ekonomiese bemagtiging funksioneer terselfdertyd as groepsbenadeling van blankes. Wanneer menseregte opgehaal word, is dit dikwels ter bevordering van die belange van swartes. Blankes behoort geaktiveer te word om in groter mate plaaslik en internasionaal op hulle menseregte aan te dring. Enersyds kan blanke of Afrikaner-individue gevalle van misdade teen die mensdom wat hulle raak, identifiseer en sake daaroor aanhangig maak. Andersyds kan namens Afrikaners klagtes oor volksmoord gelê word, met die duidelike verstandhouding dat volksmoord nie net liggaamlike uitroeiing behels nie omdat dit ook kultuurvernietiging, bv die uitroeiing van Afrikaans, insluit. Internasionalisering kan dus voordele inhou; deesdae selfs vir Afrikaners.

My standpunt is dat die ANC-regering streng gesproke onwettig is omdat die blanke kiesers nooit die politieke magsoordrag aan swartes goedgekeur het nie. Dit is vir my ook duidelik dat die voortreflike moraliteit wat die ANC vir homself opeis, vals is, onder meer omdat daar in sy leierskorps mense is wat myns insiens misdadigers is. Die jongste is dat die ANC-regering Suid-Afrika aan die jurisdiksie van die Internasionale Strafhof, wat sedert 2002 funksioneer, wil onttrek, onder meer onder die bedenklike voorwendsel dat misdadigers uit Afrikalande teen uitlewering beskerm moet word. So maklik sal die ANC nie aan die tentakels van internasionalisering ontsnap nie. Lees bv Ruan Coetzee se artikel oor die Internasionale Strafhof (LitNet, 25 deser).

Neem deel aan die gesprek en lewer gerus hier onder kommentaar!

L.W. U gebruik die Disqus-kommentaarafdeling op eie risiko en PRAAG, die redaksie of enige verwante persone of entiteite aanvaar geen verantwoordelikheid vir u kommentaar en watter gevolge ook al daaruit mag voortspruit nie. Terselfdertyd vereis ons dat u ter wille van beskaafdheid, redelikheid en die gerief van ander gebruikers, u sal weerhou van kwetsende taalgebruik, vloekwoorde, persoonlike aanvalle op medegebruikers, twissoekery en algemene "trol"-gedrag. Enigeen wat só 'n laspos word, sal summier verbied word en sy IP-adres sal insgelyks versper word. Ons sal ook nie huiwer om, waar nodig, kriminele klagte aanhangig te maak teen individue wat hulle aan dreigemente, teistering of intimidasie skuldig maak nie.