Aside from Gaza, where have there been suspected or alleged genocides or ethic clensingd in the past 20 years
Executive summary
In the past two decades, several conflicts beyond Gaza have been credibly described by states, international bodies, scholars or human-rights groups as genocidal or as ethnic cleansing — notably Darfur (Sudan), the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Uyghur campaign in China, and atrocities by ISIS against minorities in Iraq and Syria — though legal findings and terminology vary and remain contested [1] [2] [3] [4]. Determining whether an event legally qualifies as genocide hinges on proving specific intent to destroy a protected group, a high evidentiary bar that international law and political actors have applied unevenly [5] [2].
1. Darfur, Sudan — mass killing and displacement widely accused as genocide
Beginning in 2003 and continuing through much of the 2010s, Sudan’s counter‑insurgency in Darfur involved Sudanese security forces and allied militia (often called Janjaweed) who have been widely accused of killing large numbers, burning villages and expelling millions of civilians from their homes; scholarly and policy summaries describe this as a genocidal campaign or ethnic cleansing and cite hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions displaced in that period [1] [6]. International debate followed over labels and responsibility: the scale and patterns of mass violence prompted accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity, yet the process of legal designation and effective international remedy remained fraught [1] [6].
2. Myanmar (Rohingya) — “textbook case of ethnic cleansing,” with genocide allegations
Violence against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State, especially in 2016–2017, led U.S. and UN coverage describing the campaign as a brutal crackdown and a “textbook case of ethnic cleansing,” while legal experts and some international bodies considered whether the facts met the genocide threshold; political leaders have often used careful language because legal proof of intent is difficult even when expulsions, killings and mass flight are undisputed [2] [5]. Reporting emphasized forced displacement more than an established legal finding of genocide, illustrating how the two concepts can be invoked differently by observers and states [2].
3. Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China — allegations of cultural destruction and accused genocide
Since the mid‑2010s, international commentators and some governments have characterized China’s campaign against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang as a form of cultural destruction and argued it could amount to genocide, while scholars note that many of the reported abuses—mass detention, forced assimilation and coercive population policies—fit within broader debates over ethnocide, ethnic cleansing and genocide but that legal proof of intent remains contested [3] [7]. The New Yorker and academic literature frame the Uyghur case as central to contemporary disputes over definitions: cultural destruction and forced removal complicate the line between ethnic cleansing and legally recognized genocide [3] [7].
4. ISIS (Iraq and Syria) — targeted mass atrocities and formal U.S. findings of genocidal intent
The Islamic State’s campaign against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq and Syria included mass murder, enslavement and forced displacement; U.S. officials and international investigators found that IS carried out genocidal acts or ethnic cleansing against certain minorities, recognizing both the physical destruction and territorial expulsion facets of those crimes [4]. That finding underscores how non‑state actors can perpetrate crimes that meet the legal or descriptive thresholds for genocide or ethnic cleansing, and how label usage by governments can shape international responses [4].
5. Why labels matter — law, politics and the danger of euphemism
Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” overlap but differ: international law defines genocide narrowly around intent to destroy a protected group, while ethnic cleansing commonly denotes forced removal and territorial homogenization and lacks a standalone criminal definition — a distinction that has led observers to invoke one term to avoid the heavier legal and political obligations the other implies [5] [8] [2]. Critics warn that euphemisms like “ethnic cleansing” can understate mass killing and slow prevention, while defenders argue careful terminology reflects legal rigor; both points are present across the reporting [6] [9].