How to Handle Conflicts in the Workplace

Theory 

The world has always had conflicts for as far as people can remember. Communities have and still fight against each other, and countries have also engaged in wars. There is no possibility that conflicts and human crises are going to stop anytime soon. Human beings have almost the same genetic make-up and as such, all people are expected to live in harmony and work for a common destiny but cohesiveness among all people in the world may not be attained anytime soon. The incessant conflicts and wars have led to the development of the theory that human-kind is prone to self-destruction (Caldwell, 1999). That means that regardless of the environment, resources, or situation, there seemingly is a natural tendency among humans to conquer each other, and even eliminate those who are weaker or powerless among themselves. 

The self-destruction tendency theory among humankind has been suggested to explain the past conflicts, and the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the present world. For instance, the First World War caused the death of more than 10 million people, especially from countries, which participated in the war (Levy, 2015). Although soldiers at the warfront were more vulnerable to death, innocent civilians found themselves entangled in the conflict, and consequently lost their lives or were badly wounded. World War 1 was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. A Serbian terrorist group sent agents to assassinate the Archduke. The assassination was a protest against Austria-Hungary for controlling the Serbian regions. The assassination of the archduke made Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. At that time, there had been a high sense of nationalism. The Slavic people in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not want to be part of Austria-Hungary but instead wanted to be part of Serbia. Austria-Hungary did not want to let go of them. The Austria-Hungary declaration provoked a response from Russia, which wanted to defend Serbia. Germany rose to defend Austria-Hungary while England and France responded to settle their past scores with Germany. Precisely, every country in the First World War was fighting for its own interests. 

Reasonably, the Slavic people ought to have been given the freedom to choose the country to which they wanted to belong. When the countries engaged in the war, their intention was to kill their enemies. It was a demonstration of power and might; hence winning the war meant killing more and causing massive destruction to the enemy. And if those who lost the war did not accept defeat, it is possible they would be wholly exterminated. War is a tool with which humankind destroys itself. For example, by the end of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, more than 21000 British soldiers had been killed. 8,000 Germans were also dead (Levy, 2015). Interestingly, their own governments had approved the war; and gave them weapons to destroy each other. 

Evidently, from history, it is evident that humankind is prone to self-destruction. Ancient people made primitive weapons such as bows and arrows in anticipation for each other. People from certain ancestry would settle in marked territories and the presence of people from different groups would provoke them. The immediate response would be to attack, and kill. Countries presently have evolved in the manufacture of weapons, and currently, some countries have developed intercontinental missiles. The reason for the manufacture of such dangerous weapons is always provided as “the need to defend oneself”. These weapons are not just made to scare or chase away people, but to kill and maim. If war is triggered, the most powerful nation is that which will kill the biggest number of people and instill fear. 

Hypothesis 

Genocide is one of the instruments which humankind uses to destroy itself. The study of genocide has a short history, only dating back to the end of the Second World War. The term was coined following the massacre committed by the Nazis against the European Jews. In just about three months, more than one million Jews were killed during the holocaust. Previously, nobody had come up with a specific term to describe the mass killings of a common group of people. Nevertheless, the massive death of the Jews prompted the international community to create a term in an attempt to prevent the killing and targeting of specific communities. The main focus of this working paper, however, is to establish whether the war in Darfur, Sudan, is genocide. The killing of large numbers of people in Darfur is genocide in all ways, especially considering the factions that are always in conflict. 

The Sudan’s Darfur conflict started in 2003 when rebels launched attacks on the Sudanese government as a protest against the government’s disregard of the western region, which comprised mainly of non-Arab population (Straus, 2005). The government instead supported and equipped Arab militias, which were popularly known as Janjaweed to fight against the rebels in Darfur. The Janjaweed militias also terrorized the civilians in Darfur and blocked international aid organizations from providing food and medical supplies, which were critically needed in the region. By 2007, the crisis had led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the region, and caused the displacement of more than two million people, both internally and externally. In 2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) claimed that President Bashir bore responsibility for the Darfur crisis and was subsequently summoned to the court to defend himself from the accusations. Up to now, Bashir has defied all court orders. 

Literature Review 

The greatest contention in regard to the Darfur issue is whether the mass killings qualify to be referred to as genocide. Significant numbers of documented reports attempt to understand the nature of the war in Darfur. Most of the reports are as a consequence of researches conducted for different purposes. That, therefore, implies that not all statements about the war can be relevant in answering the question of whether the Darfur crisis can be referred to as genocide. Some of the reports that explain the Darfur crisis include: the United States report, The United Nations as well as the Amnesty International Reports. 

To start with the United Nations Report, in September 2004, the United Nations formed the International Commission of Inquiry to investigate the violence in Darfur. The task given to the commission was to record all the international laws violated in the region, the perpetrators of the violence, as well as establish whether the violence could be referred to as genocide. The commission drafted a report a year later which strongly suggested that the Darfur crisis was not genocide but crime against humanity (Schabas, 2005). The rationale was that the aspect of intent lacked in the war. The commission argued that the perpetrators did not have the ‘intent to destroy’ a portion or a whole target group. Besides, the commission said that the genesis of the violence was the Sudan government’s retaliation to the attacks from rebel groups, and therefore, it was not their sole intention to wipe out an entire group. 

The United States selected two reports to issue their position on the nature of the violence in Darfur. The first one relied on results of investigations conducted by the Atrocity Documentation team in Darfur in 2004. The team conducted actual research using a survey and was able to get first-hand information on how the attacks started and how they were being carried out. The report showed that soldiers moved from village to village committing crimes such as rape, torture and murder of non-Arabic communities (Totten, & Markusen, 2005). The second report dubbed, “The Crisis in Darfur” which was drafted by the then United States Secretary General, Colin Powell revealed that the government of Sudan and Janjaweed committed crimes, which could only be referred to as genocide as per the 1948 Genocide Convention (Straus, 2005). 

Amnesty International published a report titled “Rape as a Weapon of War: Sexual Violence and its Consequences” in 2004 in reference to the conflict in Darfur. The Amnesty group studied sexual violence, mainly trying to establish whether the crisis had escalated to a genocide level (Blum et al., 2007). In the report, the group argues that rape was used as a tool by the perpetrators to destroy the victims both physically and psychologically. The group also singled out sexual violence to have long-term consequences on individuals and the entire target group. Consequently, the Amnesty International concluded that the Darfur Violence was genocide, especially due to the far-reaching negative effects. 

Copnall (2013) in an article published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) gives a snippet of the events of the Darfur crisis that could possibly make the crisis be termed as genocide. Darfur had been underdeveloped and the diminishing rainfall caused a food crisis. The African groups in Darfur such as the Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit felt that the government favored the Arabs. Religion was not a big issue since almost everyone in Darfur is Muslim. When the rebels struck the airport of Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, the government responded by supporting and arming the Janjaweed. The Masalit, Fur, and Zaghawa villages were bombed and burnt, while scores of civilians were killed and many women raped. According to Copnall, the genocide charge, which Bashir faced at the International Criminal Court, alleged that he had masterminded an attempt to wipe out the Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit communities. 

Analysis of the Literature 

The United Nations report failed to classify the violence as genocide for supposedly lack of enough evidence to prove it. The report, however, acknowledged the presence of criminal activities against humanity that also violated international laws. The United Nations recommended the ICC to investigate the issue further and act accordingly. The strength of this report was that there was a thorough analysis of the violence and a satisfactory reason given to underpin the conclusion that was deduced. The two United States reports believed that genocide took place in Darfur. The reports also argued that there were various violations of international laws and that the UN needed to intervene. The most prominent strength of the United States reports was that they were drawn from more than one research, and hence, their accuracy was high. The Amnesty International delved into the issue of sexual violence especially against women. The report showed that women from specific communities were targeted by the government forces and the Janjaweed militias. Rape and sexual offences amount to crimes that violate the international laws. The strength of the report was that it came from a reliable source, which is often lauded for coming up with credible information. Copnall (2013) article mainly focused on how the government targeted particular communities, in its disguise of dealing with rebel attacks. The strength of this source is that it names the specific communities that were targeted by the Sudan government, as well as the atrocities committed against the particular communities. The BBC is also a reputable source of information because journalists visit war-torn areas to gather first-hand information. 

All the literature sources contribute significantly to the determination of whether the Darfur violence was a form of genocide or not. The only difference in these reports lies with the circumstances that led to the investigations. The United States, for example, wanted to establish whether the violence was genocide or not while the United Nations wanted to understand the legal characteristics of the war. The report given by the Amnesty International could have been motivated by the desire to protect human rights. The BBC definitely is a news broadcaster; hence is obligated to inform its audience of events happening around the world. 

Despite the information and arguments provided by the various literature sources, it is important to understand the term ‘genocide’ in a wider perspective to conclude whether the Darfur crisis can be classified as such. According to Huttenbach (2007) the act of genocide is motivated by man’s willingness to destroy an entire segment of the human population. Subsequently, the potential to destroy a group of humans is universal, meaning it is present in all societies. Huttenbach posits that genocide is a collective enterprise, which entails collective thought, followed by collective deeds. When a community identifies itself in narrow terms the potential to consider an annihilationist mode of behavior becomes more likely. Genocide is not unique to specific cultures, but can be found in cultures which feel threatened by another. It is possible to argue that genocide belongs to the category of natural behavior. When a culture feels threatened by another, there is a natural tendency to use violence of a radical kind, with the potential of eliminating the other. People who commit the atrocities are commonly treated as warriors by their specific communities because they are perceived as heroes who are ready to deal with the community’s enemies. 

Genocide sometimes is perceived to be a western form of violence; hence making it difficult to classify some atrocities committed in African countries as such. Whenever the term is uttered, almost everyone thinks of the mass killing of the Jews by the Nazis. The Genocide Convention of 1948 also involved only Western countries because most African countries had not gained independence. Consequently, most African countries as well as other developing nations think they are excluded from the definition and responsibility of mass killings. Nevertheless, the genocide definition adopted during the convention includes all countries in the world. Specifically, the convention defined genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial, or religious group (United Nations). Specific examples provided by the convention include; killing members of the group, causing severe bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting deliberately on the group conditions of life designed to bring about physical destruction, among others. The convention further stated that genocide can be committed in time of war as well as in time of peace. 

For comparison purposes, it is essential to analyze two main genocides, which have occurred in the world. The objective is to evaluate how the Darfur crisis compares, and whether it falls in the same category. The most prominent genocide was that which involve the mass killing of European Jews. The holocaust or Jews genocide was sparked by the ideals held by Adolf Hitler, who became the leader of the Nazi Party (Luban, 2006). The Nazis were racists who believed that their Aryan race was superior to others. According to the Nazis, an Aryan was anyone who was European but not Jewish, Slavic or Romany. When Hitler became the head of state, he drafted anti-Semitic laws that outrightly discriminated against the Jewish people. He viewed them as problematic people who needed to be removed. The mass killings of the Jews were to serve as the final solution. 

In 1994, mass killing began in Rwanda, a small country in East Africa. The conflict escalated between two ethnic groups; the Hutus (majority) and Tutsis. By the end of the genocide about 800, 000 Tutsis and 100,000 Hutus had been killed. The Hutus mainly cultivate crops while the Tutsis reared livestock. It emerged that rearing animals was more profitable, making Tutsis to rise to important leadership positions. Seemingly, the Hutu majority were not pleased by the Tutsi prominence, especially when the Tutsis were the minority. Secondly, the Ugandan Tutsi rebels, RPF were fighting with the Rwandan government ( Beauchamp, 2014) . Many Hutus thought the Tutsi minority were the main problem and consequently hatched a plan to eliminate them. When the then Rwandan president’s plane was hit and the president (Hutu) was killed, the Hutus found the best opportunity to implement their covert plan. The Hutu militia were supported by the government and armed to kill and maim the Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The objective was to exterminate the entire Tutsi minority in support of the Hutu nationalism. 

The Darfur conflict is comparable to both the Jew and Rwandan genocides. Genocide is characterized by the intention to exterminate certain groups of people. In other words, it could also be referred to as ethnic cleansing. Genocide begins with the view from a particular community or people that they are superior to others. In Sudan, most Arabs viewed themselves as superior to other minority African tribes such as the Fur. In the 1980s, Muammar Gadhafi, the Libyan president, had begun a wave of Arab supremacy, which was also embraced by most Arabs in Sudan. Bashir was an Arab, and probably believed that the Arabs were superior to the other African minorities. He could have underdeveloped Darfur purposely to cause suffering to the minorities. Bashir seems to have hatched a plan to get rid of the African tribes in Darfur. The response to the rebels strongly suggested Bashir had a covert objective to exterminate the minorities. Commonly, when rebels emerge in states, governments deploy troops to pursue the rebels while protecting innocent civilians. On the contrary, Bashir sponsored the Janjaweed, an Arab militia, to not only deal with the rebels but to rape women and kill innocent African minorities. The soldiers also deliberately bombed and raided the villages occupied by the minorities. The intention was to either threaten the minorities or eliminate them. Precisely, the attacks were sponsored by the state, which was controlled by the Arab majority. The holocaust in Europe and genocide in Rwanda were all triggered by the intention of the ruling majority to keep the minorities at bay, while appealing for a sense of nationalism from the majority. Similarly, the Darfur crisis was caused by the inherent hate of the minorities by the Arab majority, which appealed for Arab nationalism. Therefore, the Darfur conflict was genocide. 

To conclude, the theory of self-destruction tendency among humankind seems to hold, especially when analyzing genocide. Genocide is a tool that is popularly used by humankind to exterminate groups of people, which seem weaker. The Darfur crisis was genocide since the objective compares to that which influenced the Nazis in Germany and the Hutus in Rwanda. In Darfur, there appears to have been a covert mission by the Arabs, led by Bashir to exterminate the African minorities. Sponsoring of the Arab militia group, Janjaweed, demonstrates that Bashir believed in Arab nationalism and had an inherent hate for the African minorities. 

References 

Beauchamp, Z. (2014). Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters. Vox . https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5590646/rwandan-genocide-anniversary 

Blum, R., Stanton, G. H., Sagi, S., & Richter, E. D. (2007). ‘Ethnic cleansing’bleaches the atrocities of genocide.  European Journal of Public Health ,  18 (2), 204-209. 

Caldwell, L. K. (1999). Perspectives on the Self-Destructive Tendencies of Humanity: A Symposium Response.  Politics and the Life Sciences ,  18 (2), 269-283. 

Copnall, J. (2013). Darfur conflict: Sudan's bloody stalemate. BBC . https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22336600 

Huttenbach, H. R. (2007). A Genocide Theory: in Search of Knowledge and the Quest for Meaning. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/genocide-theory-search-knowledge-and-quest-meaning 

Levy, J. S. (2015). The First World War: Causes, Consequences, And Controversies. http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/syllabi/LevyWW1syllabus.pdf 

Luban, D. (2006). Calling Genocide by Its Rightful Name: Lemkin's Word, Darfur, and the UN Report.  Chi. J. Int'l L. ,  7 , 303. 

Schabas, W. A. (2005). Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, and Darfur: The Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide.  Cardozo L. Rev. ,  27 , 1703. 

Straus, S. (2005). Darfur and the genocide debate.  Foreign Aff. ,  84 , 123. 

Totten, S., & Markusen, E. (2005). The US government Darfur genocide investigation.  Journal of Genocide Research ,  7 (2), 279-290. 

United Nations. What is the Genocide Convention? http://ask.un.org/faq/232870