UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff CCeennttrraall FFlloorriiddaa SSTTAARRSS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2010 WWhhaatt''ss IInn AA NNaammee?? GGeennoocciiddee EEaarrllyy WWaarrnniinngg MMooddeell FFoorr HHuummaanniittaarriiaann IInntteerrvveennttiioonn Alexandria Lewis University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SSTTAARRSS CCiittaattiioonn Lewis, Alexandria, "What's In A Name? Genocide Early Warning Model For Humanitarian Intervention" (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4385. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4385 WHAT’S IN A NAME? GENOCIDE EARLY WARNING MODEL FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION by ALEXANDRIA JEAN LEWIS B.A. University of Central Florida 2008 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2010 © Alexandria Jean Lewis ii ABSTRACT There is much debate among genocide scholars as to the causes and even accurate definitions of genocide. Early warning developed to address the increasing need for humanitarian intervention in violent conflicts around the world. As a subset of genocide studies, early warning seeks to go beyond explaining the causes of genocide. The early warning model created here uses six indicator variables—government, leaders/elites, followers, non-followers/bystanders, outsider group, and environment—to detect the likelihood of genocide within a given case study. Four cases were chosen—Kenya, Nigeria, Yemen, and Ethiopia—and analyzed using the indicator variables to determine if these violent conflicts may already be or may become genocides. Preliminary findings show that the civilian outsider group is a vital component when determining whether or not a conflict is or may become a “limited-genocide” and that genocides are a function of the interaction of the six indicator variables and not just their presence. Other implications for sovereignty and humanitarian intervention are discussed. iii I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Edward and Lucinda, my brother Brennan, and my good friend Amber. Without their support, understanding and most of all love, the completion of this work would not have been possible. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the advice and support of Dr. Waltraud Q. Morales, committee chair. I also thank Professor Dwight Kiel and Dr. Houman Sadri, members of my graduate committee, for taking the time to work with me during this endeavor. I owe my deepest gratitude to Dr. Bernadette Jungblut, my mentor and most influential committee member. I began my research in genocide studies with her as one of her undergraduate students almost four years ago. Without her confidence in my abilities, her encouragement for me to push my limits, her guidance and countless hours of advice and ideas throughout my thesis-writing period, this thesis would not have been accomplished and I would not be the person I am today. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Genocide Research and Definitions ................................................................................ 3 Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention ................................................................. 14 Early Warning ............................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER TWO: METHODS ......................................................................................... 33 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 33 Data ............................................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER THREE: KENYA .......................................................................................... 44 Overview of the Conflict ............................................................................................... 44 Indicator Variables ........................................................................................................ 48 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER FOUR: NIGERIA .......................................................................................... 52 Overview of the Conflict ............................................................................................... 52 Indicator Variables ........................................................................................................ 58 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER FIVE: YEMEN .............................................................................................. 64 Overview of the Conflict ............................................................................................... 64 Indicator Variables ........................................................................................................ 68 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER SIX: ETHIOPIA ............................................................................................ 71 vi Overview of the Conflict ............................................................................................... 71 Indicator Variables ........................................................................................................ 75 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 76 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 78 APPENDIX A: GENOCIDE RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL ........................................ 86 APPENDIX B: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................ 88 APPENDIX C: THE TOXIC TRIANGLE ....................................................................... 91 APPENDIX D: KENYA’S INDICATOR VARIABLES ................................................. 93 APPENDIX E: NIGERIA’S INDICATOR VARIABLES ............................................... 96 APPENDIX F: YEMEN’S INDICATOR VARIABLES ................................................. 99 APPENDIX G: ETHIOPIA’S INDICATOR VARIABLES .......................................... 102 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 105 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of Kenya ......................................................................................................44 Figure 2 Nigeria Linguistic Groups ...................................................................................52 Figure 3 Map of Yemen .....................................................................................................67 Figure 4 Map of Ethiopia ...................................................................................................71 Figure 5 Case Study Indicator Variable Comparison ........................................................82 viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION There can be no more important issue, and no more binding obligation, than the prevention of genocide. Indeed, this may be considered one of the original purposes of the United Nations. The “untold sorrow” which the scourge of war had brought to mankind, at the time when our Organization was established, included genocide on a horrific scale. The words “never again” were on everyone’s lips…and yet, genocide has happened again, in our time. (Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 2004). The concept of genocide itself is not very clear, even though many scholars have been researching for years to define it and to determine its characteristics. These words by Kofi Annan express the current state of the international community where genocides still occur; despite our acknowledgement of what the consequences are should there be a failure to prevent them. This uncertainty of the concept of genocide, and even a consensus on one definition, helps to hinder attempts at prevention by institutions such as the United Nations. Many of the problems with defining genocide come from the single-shot case study method used by most genocide scholars, where the scholars tend to treat each case as unique or they do not compare one case of genocide to any others. Furthermore, with this case study method, variables are not derived until after the case has been analyzed. This paper analyzes each case with six variables that have already been determined by building upon previous research from genocide scholars and leadership studies to create a more comprehensive, integrated model. Instead of waiting to call organized violence genocide until it looks like a “classic genocide,” this model contains factors which could lead to genocide predicting instead of “post-dicting.” By focusing on pinning down all 1