By Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda
April 23, 2017 (SSB) — In recent time genocide has become common term used recklessly and selfishly during the war. According to The Politics of genocide an excerpt from the book by Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, the word “genocide” has increased in frequency of use and recklessness of application, so much so that the crime of the twentieth century for which the word originally was coined often appears debased. Thus, this work is an attempt to assess the meaning of genocide in brief, the purpose for which it was coined, to further explain the politics of genocide, that is, how the meaning of genocide has highly been distorted to suit political interests, which, as a result, has resulted into its failure to protect human rights and how this understanding of genocide has affected its effective application in South Sudan and then I conclude.
The overall argument of this article is that genocide has become highly political to the extent that it has lost its real meaning and purpose for which it was invented and because of that it has become ineffective in protecting human rights due to the fact that it is embroiled in political debate. Hence, genocide is not applied in the context of which it was originally meant as it was in 1970s and 1980s but it has taken political connotation which has made it become very discriminative and ineffective. In that regard, I argue that the term genocide was purposely invented to protect innocent and “bonafide civilians” who are being killed due to their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. I used the term “bonafide civilians” to show that such civilians are completely innocent and are not part of conflict in any manner whatsoever though they are trapped among rebels. Thus, I begin in the order as I have given above.