When Does Violence Become Genocide? –By Matthew Ma

There is considerable and well-documented evidence that some areas of Nigeria are experiencing widespread and systematic violence, including mass killings, kidnappings, and forced displacement. Although many people refer to this violence as Christian genocide, others argue that categorizing it as genocide, particularly Christian genocide, is a contentious issue. While several advocacy groups and some politicians have adopted this label, international legal bodies necessitate proof of a specific intent to eliminate a protected group, either in whole or in part. In the following sections, I will: (1) define the legal categories, (2) explain the reasons behind the contested terminology, and (3) outline the consequences of naming any violence genocide.

Genocide
Whenever violence or a crisis arises in Nigeria, we seek to find the appropriate terminology to describe it. Some of the most critical terms include whether the violence constitutes Christian genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. Although the terms are frequently used interchangeably, each possesses a distinct definition. For example, genocide refers to the systematic extermination of a specific group of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion. The key factor is intent — not only that many people were killed, but that the killers specifically aimed to eliminate an entire group because of their identity. For instance, between 1933 and 1945, state-sponsored persecution under Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime resulted in the deaths of six million Jews, along with millions of others, including individuals with disabilities and political dissidents. The Cambodian Genocide, which took place from 1975 to 1979 under the Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot, led to an estimated 1.7 to 3 million fatalities. The violence in Rwanda, particularly the 1994 genocide, saw extremist Hutu militias murder approximately 800,000 Tutsi. This atrocity stemmed from long-standing ethnic tensions, political manipulation, colonial legacies, and intentional propaganda. Furthermore, the ongoing genocide in Darfur, which started in 2003, has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Darfuri people, predominantly Muslims. The Sudanese government has supported attacks by militias against civilian populations. Each of these events serves as a somber reminder of the atrocities of genocide. These examples prompt the question: Can we classify the killings in Nigeria as acts of Christian genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity?

Under international law, particularly in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to classify an act as genocide, two essential elements must be present. First, there must be a specific intent (Dolus Specialis) to destroy the targeted group. This distinct intent is what sets genocide apart from other forms of mass atrocities; simply killing a large number of people does not qualify as genocide unless the purpose is to eliminate the group itself. The second element delineates several specific acts that are recognized as genocide. These include inflicting serious bodily or mental harm on members of the group, deliberately creating harsh living conditions that lead to the group’s physical destruction—such as through starvation, forced displacement, or hindering access to medical care—implementing measures aimed at preventing births within the group, and forcibly transferring children from the group to another group. To classify an act as genocide, it is essential to establish both elements: the specific intent behind the act and the commission of one or more of these listed acts.

Certain Nigerians, particularly advocacy groups and diaspora activists, assert that the frequent attacks on farming communities in the Middle Belt amount to Christian genocide. They contend that, due to the region’s predominantly Christian population, the violence directed at these communities qualifies as such. However, relying solely on emotional arguments does not fulfill the legal criteria for this classification. What is needed is concrete evidence of a deliberate and coordinated plan to eradicate a specific group. However, an examination of the motives behind the violence in Nigeria shows that such a classification does not apply. Consequently, without clear evidence demonstrating the primary intent behind these massacres, it remains challenging to support classifying these acts as genocide in a court of law.

Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic cleansing, though not precisely defined by law, refers to actions aimed at removing a specific group from a particular geographic area. The term gained prominence during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, despite the practice having much older origins. Today, it is commonly used in international law, human rights reporting, journalism, and political discourse; however, it lacks the formal legal status of “genocide.” Thus, a situation should be labeled as ethnic cleansing when certain elements are present. First, a group is targeted based on its identity, typically ethnicity, nationality, or religion. Second, the group is forcibly removed rather than being destroyed. Third, the methods used for removal involve coercion, violence, or instilling fear. Finally, the displacement is organized or systematic. Some episodes in Nigeria clearly illustrate this reality.

Crime Against Humanity
A situation is classified as a crime against humanity when certain conditions are met. First, the victims must be civilians, and the attack should be directed at a civilian population rather than at individual victims or military targets. Secondly, the acts must either be carried out on a large scale, affecting many victims, or cover a vast area. Thirdly, the actions in question must be cohesively linked, rather than treated as isolated incidents. This means there should be a clear connection or pattern that ties the events together, creating a comprehensive narrative that highlights their significance as a collective, rather than as unrelated occurrences. Finally, the perpetrators must be aware that their actions are part of this broader attack. Therefore, when framing the argument according to the criteria of the Rome Statute, the evidence suggests that there are widespread, systematic, and targeted attacks against civilians, carried out with intent. Thus, it can be reasonably and defensibly asserted that the killings in Nigeria meet the definition of crimes against humanity.

Why Not Genocide?
Genocide, by definition, requires clear evidence of an intent to systematically eliminate a particular ethnic, religious, or national group, either wholly or partially. In the context of Nigeria, the ongoing violence is often characterized by complex and intertwined motivations that extend beyond the narrow framework of genocide. While activists and certain political factions may assert that ethno-religious animosities drive the violence, the reality is more nuanced. Much of the violence we see in Nigeria can be attributed to economic and social reasons rather than a singular goal to eradicate a particular group. Moreover, the violence in Nigeria is not orchestrated by a centralized state authority or a cohesive coalition with a clear agenda. Instead, it manifests in a sporadic and fragmented manner, with various identity groups and local factions engaging in targeted violence that is often inconsistent and unpredictable. Given these complexities, applying the label of “genocide” to Nigeria’s violent landscape fails to capture the intricacies of the situation and may oversimplify the root causes of the violence. As such, it is better to approach the topic with a more nuanced understanding, recognizing that a mere classification of genocide does not adequately explain the conflict dynamics at play in Nigeria.

So, what does it matter which term is use? Using the correct terminology is crucial, as each label carries distinct legal ramifications, political implications, advocacy influences, and international obligations. While the nature of the violence may remain constant, the global response can differ significantly. Hence, the terminology employed is significant, as each term invokes varying international legal duties. For instance, under UN conventions, if a situation is identified as genocide, other nations may find themselves legally compelled to intervene—whether diplomatically, militarily, or through sanctions. Therefore, over-labeling “genocide” may be seen as political manipulation or delegitimizes genuine grievances if the evidence is weak. Therefore, the term “crime against humanity” is the most precise and defensible designation for the violence occurring in Nigeria. This classification corresponds with the legal patterns evident in the actions of Boko Haram, various bandit groups, and specific instances of communal violence.

Conclusion
We strongly encourage both the media and individuals with personal or emotional connections to the ongoing situation in Nigeria to exercise caution before jumping to conclusions or hastily classifying the crisis. Recent reports indicate that numerous individuals have been quoted selectively or taken out of context, primarily because our collective focus remains fixated on terminology rather than effectively addressing the immediate violence and suffering occurring on the ground. It is crucial to understand that the determination of whether a situation qualifies as genocide is a grave matter that cannot and should not be decided on social media platforms. Such labels require thorough examination and declaration by established reputable judicial bodies that specialize in these complex cases. Thus, careful consideration must be given to the context and evidence surrounding any allegations of genocide to avoid hasty conclusions that could exacerbate an already volatile situation.

While we all desire a prompt and effective resolution to the escalating conflict, it is imperative to remind those advocating international intervention that such actions carry significant, far-reaching consequences. A historical overview of regions where the United States has intervened militarily reveals that these interventions have resulted in long-term instability, loss of life, and numerous complex issues that continue to this day. For example, the official justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the assertion by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed or was actively developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. However, subsequent inspections after the war revealed no active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iraq. In 2001, the reasons provided by the U.S. for invading Afghanistan centered around the response to the September 11 attacks. The U.S. announced its intent to dismantle al-Qaeda and prevent future terrorist activities. They believed that al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, had planned and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, where its training camps and leadership operated with relative impunity. However, in the years that followed, efforts to eradicate al-Qaeda faced numerous challenges. Despite significant investments in military presence, nation-building, and training Afghan security forces, the U.S. and its allies found it difficult to establish lasting political stability and economic development. As a result, many long-term objectives—such as fostering a stable government, enhancing governance, and protecting human rights—remained elusive. By 2021, the situation rapidly deteriorated, culminating in the swift resurgence of the Taliban and their eventual takeover of Kabul. This development raised urgent questions about the sustainability of the U.S. intervention and underscored the complexities of achieving lasting peace in a region deeply affected by socio-political challenges.

The United States participated in the intervention in Libya as part of a NATO-led mission authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The U.S. framed its involvement as a crucial step to prevent mass killings and avert a humanitarian crisis. The primary rationale for this engagement arose in early 2011 during the Arab Spring uprising in Libya, when Muammar Gaddafi’s forces were ruthlessly attacking peaceful protesters with heavy weaponry and conducting airstrikes against the opposition stronghold in Benghazi. President Obama and U.S. officials warned that, without intervention, Gaddafi was likely to carry out a massacre of tens of thousands of civilians in Benghazi. Following the U.S. intervention, Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces later that year. The question arises: Did the U.S. succeed in its objectives? After Gaddafi’s removal from power, Libya plunged into a civil war, characterized by rival militias and a fractured government divided between the east and west. This period witnessed the emergence of extremist groups, including ISIS affiliates. While a humanitarian objective was achieved in the short term—characterized by minimal U.S. casualties and limited financial expenditure associated with the intervention—the ensuing civil conflict resulted in significant casualties over the following decade and contributed to regional instability. Arms originating from Libya spread to other conflict zones, including Mali, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, and Syria. Furthermore, the chaos in Libya intensified the European migration crisis. President Obama later described the aftermath in Libya as the most significant mistake of his presidency, particularly emphasizing the lack of a postwar plan. Thus, the question of whether “genocide” was imminent in Libya continues to be a topic of debate.

Given these troubling histories, we must take the time to reflect on past failures and extract valuable lessons. Our narratives and public discourse regarding the emerging threat of genocide in Nigeria must be informed by these historical contexts, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities involved. Let us approach this situation with caution, avoiding impulsive calls for foreign intervention that could inadvertently exacerbate the problem. International interventions, while often well-intentioned, can complicate local dynamics and increase suffering for those we aim to assist. The unintended consequences of foreign involvement can create further instability and may hinder rather than help the resolution of the conflict. While we all yearn for a swift and effective resolution to the escalating violence and humanitarian crisis, we must remain vigilant about the significant and far-reaching repercussions that can arise from advocating for international intervention. A thoughtful, informed approach that prioritizes the voices and experiences of those directly affected by the conflict is essential during these pivotal moments.

Rev. Ma, S.J., is a Jesuit Catholic priest from the North West Africa Province of the Society of Jesus and a public policy analyst. He currently writes from Abuja, Nigeria.