Book Review: Jane Springer's Genocide and the Fight to End It

Introduction and Overview of Springer's Genocide

In Genocide, Jane Springer opens by examining the mass murder of Africans in Darfur by the Janjaweed — the armed Arabic horsemen who served as hired mercenaries of the Sudanese government, paid to exterminate the African population. Springer describes in vivid detail the plight of the African people, their hopelessness, and how the outside world barely seems to notice what is going on, with the media only intermittently covering the genocide in Darfur.¹ From there, Springer pulls back from the micro and examines the macro — the history of human rights in the West and where our present regard for human rights comes from — namely, the ideals of the French and American Revolutions: the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness; equality, fraternity, liberty.² Springer takes note of several defining moments and works of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that advocated for equal rights, whether for all people or for women specifically, including Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women.

Once having established this historical context for why we should be troubled by genocide, Springer goes on to describe the Jewish Holocaust of World War II and how the United Nations responded to that catastrophe with its new "crimes against humanity" charge.³ She describes the UN Declaration of Human Rights as essentially a two-hundred-year belated response to Rousseau's charge that "Man is born free — and everywhere he is in chains."⁴ The Genocide Convention was established thereafter, which Springer regards as a "high point in the history of human rights."⁵

Historical Context: Human Rights, the Holocaust, and the UN

Springer then jumps back in time to show how genocide has been depicted throughout history, touching on the Armenian genocide, the destruction of Carthage, and other historical cases. She discusses what it means to be a victim of genocide, how to prevent it, and why so little is being done about the genocide in Darfur: "To date, no government or group of governments has adequately confronted the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. There is no 'political will' — no commitment by governments to devote the needed efforts and resources."⁶ In other words, despite the UN declaration, nothing of any significance is being done to stop the atrocity in Africa. It is as though the world were silently backing the Sudanese government — and indeed, with China supplying weapons to Sudan, that appearance is difficult to dismiss.⁷

The main argument Springer makes is that in spite of the West's own historical experience of genocide, and its high-minded UN declaration, it still does little to get directly involved in crises like the one in Darfur. Springer notes that Genocide Watch identifies twenty different regions where genocide is occurring, from Chad to Chechnya, and that nothing is being done to address these instances. It is as though the UN were merely paying lip service to the idea of opposing genocide.

Inaction and the Failure of Political Will

Springer argues that prevention is necessary to stop the roots of genocide from developing — and this means rooting out the racist and political ideologies that lead to it. It also means freeing up the necessary forces so that Western troops can be deployed to areas where genocide is occurring. She specifically argues that this means withdrawing soldiers from Iraq and the Middle East so they can assist in Sudan and other parts of the world where genocide is actively happening.⁸ Springer wants the reading public to understand that although genocide has occurred throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it does not have to continue. Those nations that signed the UN Declaration have a duty and responsibility to stop genocide from recurring. She shows that the central problem is a lack of action on their part and urges readers to get involved by supporting and petitioning their governments to act.

Conclusion and Personal Response

In conclusion, it is important to remember that when hate turns into a dominant ideology, whole groups can suffer. Genocides have occurred throughout history — in World War II, in the Middle East, and across many other regions — and they all share one thing in common: an attitude of hate directed from one group toward another. That attitude has shaped political, social, domestic, and foreign policy. Genocides are part of the human story. However, the fact that genocide is historically common does not mean it should be accepted. Genocide and the hate that fuels it should be rejected by societies that have the power to stop its spread.