I really like it when two or more of my classes intersect subject matter by accident and explore the different facets of the same material. For example, Hans Blix gave a lecture at Uppsala University yesterday and our first assignment for my Peoples of the Baltic class was to attend. Aside from the awesomeness of being able to attend a lecture with such a notable international figure (who grew up in Uppsala and is an alumnus of the University) I found his speech to be enlightening and interesting. He addressed the topic of the various armed conflicts in the world (tying in nicely with my other class) and how the UN works as a peacekeeping force. Pointing out to all those naysayers that presently there are fewer conflicts in the world than there were ten years ago; 25 presently down from about 50. He also explained that the UN works in a similar fashion to an orchestra in that it only works at its best if everyone in it is playing the same song. There is the temptation to think of it as a sovereign entity with executive powers it really is up to the group as to what gets done. So basically, if there's some terrible human rights violation in the world and the UN fails to stop it, it's not the fault of the UN as an organization but rather the fault of its members for not getting off their asses and doing something.
And moving right on to the link between the classes, tonight was a lecture on genocide. Anthropology sure may not be boring but it isn't the most cheerful science either. The lecturer said that he thought that genocide should not be used as a term because it is too specific and too vague at the same time. The UN's definition of genocide is "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such." Seems good enough, but political groups are not listed because they needed the USSR to agree to the definition and Stalin wouldn't sign it if it meant that the 30 million people he killed for political reasons constituted genocide. So now the tricky part is this, since political affiliations are clearly potential targets for genocide (and who will disagree with figures like 30 million?) would any conflict involving the elimination of a political doctrine constitute genocide? Would the French be guilty of it by killing off the Royalists in the French Revolution? Or the Allies for killing Nazis? That doesn't sound quite right, does it? And if the targeting of religious groups for extermination is clearly genocide, then one would have to agree that the US's efforts to destroy the Taliban is genocide. And what about the attack on the Branch Davidians? No one would call that genocide but legally it is. And it's because of legal traps like that that no one intervened with Rwanda. Now there's a supreme irony: the subjective definition of genocide actually allowed the act of genocide to occur.

OK, the next few posts are going to be lighthearted and jolly, or at least not so damn depressing. I promise.