Holocaust Memorials are Hypocritical

On a particularly cold day in March, I found myself walking on a somber grassy patch where the Holocaust Memorials are erected in Boston, U.S.A. While I walked among the structures that were raised to remember the victims, I was overcome with grief and yet I realized I was a hypocrite. I was a hypocrite and I was not alone, in fact there are millions of people, ordinary people and heads-of-state who, year after year go through the motions of remembering the victims of the Holocaust and yet turn a blind eye to ongoing genocides. A look at the history of the world since WWII would show us the promise of ‘Never Again’ was broken repeatedly with some amount of callousness on the part of the Developed Nations. After having stood by idly while Hitler massacred the Jews, the Developed Nations played spectator when more than a million were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, when almost a million were killed in Rwanda among other genocides.

The U.N. could use some much needed reform but, it is up to the Developed Nations to formulate and enact the reform. Reforms have been proposed and a number of them hold great promise. However, relying on the Developed Nations to act militarily to prevent genocide is sometimes wishful thinking. Very often the Developed Nations do not send troops to foreign soil owing to political pressure within the country. We then face a problem that is definitely not new and one that has few solutions. Sanctions in the past have proved ineffective and have prolonged the suffering of the people subject to the oppressive rule. Then again, I believe that sanctions could actually be effective if used as a tool to oust oppressive regimes in stead of a tool to punish them. In the past, sanctions have included economic and arms embargoes on the country that in many cases only serve to provide the oppressive regime with ammunition against the international community. In my opinion, achieving the twin objectives of deposing of an oppressive regime and doing it effectively would be possible with what I would like to call ‘stranglehold sanctions’. Stranglehold sanctions are based on the theory that the people of a country subject to oppressive rule would rise up against the oppressive regime when there is a dire lack of day to day amenities. Many of the third world countries where oppressive regimes exist are incapable of self-sufficiency and rely heavily on foreign aid to provide every day amenities. Stranglehold sanctions would prevent any trade or aid and also suspend the monetary holdings of the subject country in other countries, in effect, stranglehold sanctions call for a ‘blockade’. There is an adage that is being employed here, “The quickest way to a man’s loyalty is through his belly”. It is then possible according to the theory of stranglehold sanctions that, the people when faced with the options of starvation or ousting the oppressive regime, would quickly choose to oust the oppressive regime. It is also conceivable, according to this theory, that, the muscle of the oppressive regime i.e. the military/police or militia, would feel less obliged to protect the interests of the oppressive regime when starvation and the ire of the masses loom. People would not think twice about such a favourable action, when it would lead to the release of urgently needed aid waiting at the borders.

I would like to advocate the theory of stranglehold sanctions as a sure means of removing the threat of genocide. I hope that the UN reforms that are on going would include this as an effective and sure alternative to military intervention.

Mervin Jebaraj
Junior
Economics, European Studies, International Relations
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Telephone +1-479-718-2339