Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: genocide

  • Preventable Genocide: Who Speaks for Humanity

    It’s wonderful to be in Santa Barbara and to see such a good crowd – especially given the fact that it is beautiful Saturday morning in sunny California and genocide is the subject of our discussion. It is clear that I have strayed from my California roots and been on the East Coast too long, as I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared in the New Yorker magazine, with the text, “Would you like to grab a drink after the Genocide panel?” How indeed, do we incorporate something like genocide into our “normal” lives?

    In the aftermath of the Second World War, Raphael Lemkin coined the word ‘genocide’. Lemkin, a lawyer and Holocaust survivor wanted to find a way to describe the policies that were intended to exterminate Jews throughout Europe in order to prevent such a thing from happening again. Based on his efforts, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and went into force three years later. The Convention defined genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” and it made genocide a punishable crime under international law.

    Institutionalization of Hope

    The United Nations was itself created from the ashes of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust in order to prevent the extraordinary human suffering witnessed at that time. From the beginning, the United Nations has spoken to the ideals of people around the world for a better and more secure future – it was what former President Clinton recently called the “institutionalization of hope,” based on three ideals: the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of economic development, and the protection of human rights. As envisioned from the beginning of the Organization, governments could take action under the United Nations Charter to prevent genocide. The United Nations second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold said the United Nations’spare job was not to take us to Heaven but to keep us from Hell. Genocide is the ultimate Hell.

    But we have not always lived up to the promise, sometimes succumbing to divisive international politics; the lack of collective political will to confront evil; and a callous tendency to preference sovereign rights of nations over the rights of vulnerable individuals in those nations. While the United Nations helped ultimately bring peace to Cambodia in the 1990s, it did so only after more than a million people died at the hands of the pathological Khmer Rouge regime. Alongside all countries of the world and all other international institutions, the United Nations failed to stop the mass murder of 800,000 in Rwanda in 1994. And again it failed, we all failed, to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the mid-90s.

    In short, history demonstrates that the United Nations faces a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand it represents both the highest ideals of humanity and the “institutionalization of hope,” but at the same time, its high ambitions have often contrasted sharply with the realities of what national governments have been able to agree on and deliver.

    While the United Nations may be imperfect, it is also indispensable. As the only universal body representing and bringing together every country and region of the world, the United Nations enjoys a unique legitimacy.

    So the United Nations is being asked to do more and more things: a quadrupling of United Nations peacekeeping forces in the last decade, so that at this moment, with over 93,000 sets of “boots on the ground” in 18 hot-spots in every corner of the globe, the United Nations is second only to the US in terms of the number of troops deployed around the world. The United Nations has also been relied on for providing humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies, such as in Southeast Asia after the tsunami and in Darfur, so that now there are more humanitarian missions run by the United Nations than ever before, serving the needs of over 40 million people around the world each year in almost 40 countries. The United Nations has also become the pre-eminent provider of organizing and monitoring national elections. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals are a blueprint that have been agreed to by all the world’s countries to meet the needs of the poor, including halving extreme poverty and curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    Responsibility to Protect

    But what about preventing genocide?

    Is the United Nations’role limited to providing the normative and legal framework for combating genocide embodied in the Convention? Or can the United Nations become the pre-eminent service provider in this area, as it has in peackekeeping, humanitarian, elections, and providing a framework for development? The United Nations is not a world government, and it does not have its own military to send in to prevent or stop genocide. Ultimately, the decision to intervene and deliver troops and equipment is up to the governments of the countries that make up the United Nations, and more specifically, the Security Council.
    But the United Nations’s role is extremely important in getting governments to make that calculation. The Secretary-General has a moral voice to draw attention to humanitarian crises and he has done that tirelessly on Darfur.

    And in September 2005 at the United Nations, the largest gathering of heads of state ever assembled took another huge step. They approved, by consensus, the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” – the idea that every government has a responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, but when they are unable or unwilling to do so, the community of nations is be prepared to take collective action. In terms of international norms and law, this was a fundamental shift. Governments have always been able to hide behind sovereignty, by saying that they have a right to determine what goes on behind their own borders. Now, governments as large as China and as small as Burundi have acknowledged that they have a responsibility to their civilians and that failure to do so means that the international community has the responsibility and can take action, either through diplomatic, humanitarian, or other means, including military means (under Chapter VII) of the United Nations Charter.

    Such a historic agreement is possible only through the United Nations. Those who criticize the United Nations, arguing instead for coalitions of the willing or alliances of democracies to replace it, have failed to realize that an agreement on how to address genocide by angels alone, leaves most of humanity at the mercy of those less angelically inclined. But through the United Nations we now have an agreed principle for protecting all of the world’s people.

    However, despite its adoption last year, the Responsibility to Protect has not yet been operationalized. Turning it from a principle into an actionable norm is essential. Civil society and NGOs can help by influencing policy makers in governments and insisting that they put into action the Responsibility to Protect.
    Three different types of United Nations institutions can play on enhanced role in the fight against genocide:

    First, the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide

    In 2004, the Secretary-General appointed Mr. Juan Méndez, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide based on the lessons learned from past instances of collective failure to address gross human rights violations. The Special Advisor acts as an early warning mechanism to bring attention to situations that could result in genocide and advises the Secretary-General and the Security Council. This is the first time the United Nations has had a position that is devoted exclusively to preventing genocide and mass abuses of human rights, and he has been active on Darfur, traveling to the region and reporting back on how to prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

    Second, the new Human Rights Council

    Another recent development that can significantly bolster human rights at the United Nations is the establishment of the Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights. The world needs an intergovernmental body which effectively deals with human rights. The Human Rights Council is a crucial opportunity and holds great promise despite some early stumbles that make it appear to be replicating some of the failures of the Commission. It meets year around and has a new feature – the universal peer review that ensures that all members, including the most powerful countries, who sit in judgment of human rights situations around the world, have their own human rights records scrutinized. The Council is an important development but it has to be supported and made to work.
    Third, the International Criminal Court , war crimes tribunals, and “hybrid” courts

    Within the last 10 years, we have seen ICC investigations on Sudan and Uganda have dramatically changed the political equation there. remarkable progress in international justice – the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, which have tried the first genocide cases against top officials, and the hybrid national/international courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. But questions have been raised about whether pursuing justice may undermine peace. In cases like Uganda, where the suffering has gone on for two decades, some say that we should not disrupt such hard won peace talks by trying the perpetrators. But peace without justice for the victims is not sustainable or wise.

    Darfur as a test case

    So we have witnessed progress in key areas. But can we prevent genocide?

    The singular biggest test we face is that in Darfur, Sudan.

    The situation on the ground is stark. Since the conflict began in 2003, more than 200,000 people have been killed from fighting, famine, or disease, and over 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. As a reminder, just 6 days ago large scale militia attacks in West Darfur on 8 settlements caused scores of civilian deaths, including 27 children under the age of 12.

    With the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May we had a framework for ending the violence and a road map for moving to stability, but not all parties have accepted the Agreement. The Security Council adopted a resolution to send in United Nations peacekeeping troops. This has been rejected by the Sudanese government. We therefore need smart pressure and a global diplomatic campaign. In the meantime, the African Union has done a tremendous job, but it needs to be strengthened. The UN has committed to providing support for the AU mission in Sudan, and we are looking at bolstering that support, but again, contributions depend on Member States.

    Now we have to alter the calculation of potential perpetrators of abuses, and equally importantly, make it much more difficult for governments which decide not to act to prevent genocide.

    The Responsibility to Protect must be put into practice. The role of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide could be strengthened. The Human Rights Council, should adopt a country-specific resolution on Darfur as recommended by the Secretary-General that urges the government of Sudan to allow United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur.

    Achieving a lasting peace in Darfur also means bringing those responsible to justice. The Security Council has referred Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The case against the perpetrators is being built as we speak. Action by the International Criminal Court must be supported and seen through.

    Conclusion

    In order to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, we still face tremendous challenges. But nothing is inevitable. Genocide is indeed preventable. 60 years ago, we didn’t even have a name for this evil. Now, we not only can name it, we have legal mechanisms obligating all to act to stop it, and increasing experience at trying to stop it. We now have the knowledge, we have the United Nations institution to help organize our response, and the political, economic, and military tools to prevent it. The question is, “Will we use them?”

    Let us work together to do so. Santa Barbara may feel as far from Darfur as a place can be – indeed it is. And yet, you all turned up today to engage on this most difficult of subjects. A crucial first step. Now organize, let your representatives know how you feel. The United States as a country must show leadership. Support United Nations efforts. Place pressure on all national governments to fulfill their obligations. Support the NGOs whose dedicated staff are risking their lives on the front lines.

    Today’s topic was “Who speaks for humanity?” One of my favorite saying is by Pastor Martin Niemöller, a German citizen of conscience who reflected on his experience with genocide in his own country 60 years ago:

    First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

    So to the question posed today, “Who speaks for Humanity?”, the answer is clear – we do. We must.

    Robert Orr is Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The speech was given at a United Nations Day event held in Santa Barbara, California on November 4, 2006.

  • US Can Help End Darfur Genocide

    The time is long overdue, but not too late, to stop the active genocide in Sudan. What can we do as Americans?

    The Darfur region of Sudan is in flames. For nearly two years cynical leaders in Khartoum have been seeking to enhance their power by using the country’s armed forces and local militia to suppress the local non-Arab population. They have driven a million and a half people from their homes, holding them in concentration camps and denying them access to adequate food, water, and shelter. More than 30,000 have been killed, and a range of crimes against humanity have been committed, including the mass rape of women and the systematic destruction of villages, livestock, and crops.

    If nothing is done, US officials predict that 350,000 people could be dead of starvation, disease, or murder by the end of this year.

    Does all this sound familiar? Yes – it also happened in Rwanda , Bosnia , and Kosovo. An international convention drafted in 1948 after the Holocaust and ratified by the United States and other countries commits the world “to undertake to prevent” the crime of genocide. Shamefully, in Rwanda that commitment rang hollow in 1994 when 800,000 people were slaughtered in less than three months. In Bosnia and Kosovo the lesson of Rwanda was remembered, although too late for many victims. Intensive diplomatic and military efforts were organized within a UN framework by the United States and other countries in 1995 and 1999. These efforts saved hundreds of thousands of lives and established under international law a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention to stop a genocide in progress.

    What can Americans do to save lives in Sudan?

    First, we must put aside domestic politics. The growing genocide in Darfur is not a partisan issue but one that reaches across a broad range of constituencies, including religious, human rights, humanitarian, medical, and legal communities, among others, all of which are advocating an aggressive international response to the crisis. Many organizations with a conservative bent, particularly within the religious community, have been at the forefront of advocacy for the people of Sudan ; others have been hesitant to link up with them.

    These groups must put aside their differences and join forces to increase pressure to move Sudan to the top of the international agenda. They can do this by stimulating more media coverage, organizing grassroots contacts with members of Congress, seeking support for urgent action from both presidential candidates, and connecting with counterparts in other countries.

    Second, a new push for international action can be mounted on the recent visits to Sudan by Secretary of State Colin Powell and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Powell now “owns” the issue in the Bush administration, and he should be urged to exercise strong leadership on Darfur both in the administration and in the UN Security Council.

    The council must immediately adopt a resolution authorizing much stronger sanctions against the Sudanese leaders if they fail to carry out their commitment to Powell to disarm the militias.

    The resolution should also create the authority for a multinational military force to secure access by the people of Darfur to the humanitarian relief that the government has blocked. Third, the intervention in Darfur should be built on African support, with logistical, financial, and personnel assistance from the United States and European countries. The African Union , a coalition of African countries, recently sent a small group of observers to monitor the tenuous cease-fire in the civil war in southern Sudan . This initial commitment gives the African Union a stake in resolving the crisis and provides legitimacy to an international presence in Sudan . To be effective, however, the intervention will require a large military force to provide security both to the monitors and, more important, to the massive humanitarian relief operation needed to prevent starvation, disease, and ethnic cleansing from claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in the coming months. That force should be assembled from African countries with US and other backing.

    Finally, we should recognize this as an opportunity for the United States to begin to reestablish its role in the world as a defender of human rights. As a result of the disastrous intervention in Iraq , the scandal over prisoner abuses, and unconstrained US unilateralism, American credibility on the world stage has sunk to its lowest point in a generation. In addition, a decade ago we looked the other way and did nothing as genocide swept through Rwanda . Actions, not words, are now needed to restore our human rights credentials. That’s why the United States should act now within an international framework to help rescue the people of Darfur before it’s too late for them, and for us.

    John Shattuck, author of “Freedom on Fire: Human Rights Wars and America ‘s Response”, is CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

    Originally published in the Boston Globe

  • A Symposium on Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement

    Convened by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Simons Centre
    for Peace and Disarmament Studies, December 5-6, 2003

    On 5-6 December 2003, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies convened a symposium entitled “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement,” enabling constructive dialogue among academics and leaders of civil society organizations about the role of the United Nations in enforcing measures to protect civilians from genocide and other gross violations of human rights.

    Keynote speaker Lloyd Axworthy, Director and CEO of the Liu Institute for Global Studies at the University of British Columbia and former Foreign Minister of Canada (1995-2000), was joined by Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a range of panelists with varying backgrounds in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. The resulting discussions were constructive and cutting edge as the participants shared their ideas on how to engage the UN in facing the challenges posed by humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect civilians from avoidable catastrophe.

    The Politics of Intervention

    On 5 December, Richard Falk set the tone with his address entitled: “The Politics of Prevention and Enforcement in a Time of Mega-Terrorism” during the public morning session. Professor Falk spoke of the need to learn from past experiences such as Rwanda, East Timor and Kosovo. He then proceeded to describe the present context of intervention as shaped by the selective response of leading states (primarily the US) to humanitarian crises that reflect their political and strategic interests. In order for the international community to effectively and reliably prevent and protect civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity, Falk identified the need for the UN to detach considerations of humanitarian intervention from geo-politics and state interests.

    In highlighting the degree to which state sovereignty can insulate a government from external accountability for human right violations within its national borders, Falk also addressed the need for the UN Security Council to resolve the tension between the protection of human rights and respect for state sovereignty.

    Falk ended his initial remarks by encouraging the resumption of efforts by the global justice movement during the 1990s prior to 9/11. Under the pretext of the “war against terrorism,” the US has imposed its global security interests on the rest of the world, resulting in unilateral action without the consent of the international community. In order to overcome this, Falk called for the establishment of a “necessary and desirable” long-term vision by the global justice community.

    Saul Mendlovitz, co-founder of Global Action to Prevent War, commented on Falk’s remarks by drawing a parallel between the challenges addressed by the symposium and South Africa’s success in abolishing both the apartheid and nuclear weapons, which illustrated the ability of the global social justice movement to influence normative shift in social paradigms. Similarly, the establishment of the Ottawa Landmine Treaty and the International Criminal Court were achieved over time through successful cooperation within the global civil society. Mendlovitz concluded by recognizing the current state of the political climate as timely for mobilizing the global justice movement to develop standing forces to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.
    Options for a Prevention and Enforcement Force

    Peter Langille, Senior Research Associate and Human Security Fellow at the Center for Global Studies, University of Victoria, discussed “Options for a United Nations Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Langille provided a historical review of lessons learned from previous attempts and diverse proposals to develop a dedicated UN mechanism for diverse peace operations. He supported the need for the UN to develop a suitable mechanism for securing present and future generations from genocide and crimes against humanity. In the event of a crisis, Langille highlighted the need for the immediate deployment of a UN emergency service. This would serve to prevent further atrocities during the four to six months when the UN encounters difficulties deploying multinational contingents.

    Langille shared his thoughts on workable rapid deployment proposals. First, he argued for a multi-dimensional and multi-functional capability, including military, police and civilian services. This sophisticated and comprehensive approach would provide a combination of promising incentives and disincentives to deter violence and promote peace. Langille’s second argument was that any new UN emergency service should not be confined solely to preventing genocide and crimes against humanity, to attract wider support it should also be able to promptly manage diverse assigned tasks in preventing armed conflict, protecting civilians and providing robust peace operations, including those that entail modest enforcement. Third, Langille warned against the failures of overly ambitious proposals in the past, calling instead for a more focused approach.

    Langille also discussed the current efforts of the multinational ‘Stand-by’ Readiness Brigade. (SHIRBRIG), and called for the establishment of a “UN Emergency Service,” consisting of independently recruited volunteers comprised of 13,200 individuals, a static headquarters, and two mobile units.

    Commenting on Langille’s proposal, Professor Robert Johansen, Senior Fellow and Professor of Political Science at the Kroc Center at Notre Dame University, reminded the audience that positive institutional changes occurred slowly throughout history. He cited the normative shift on racial discrimination and equality, which occurred during the period between the drafting of the charters by the League of Nations after World War I and the UN after World War II. Furthermore, Johansen remarked on the reluctance of many governments to embrace past proposals due to issues related to costs, intervention and control over the UN. In order to overcome this reluctance, Johansen proposed an initial capability with limited intervention powers, a narrow political agenda and uncontroversial laws. Johansen stated that Langille’s proposal was the most sophisticated to date. He left the audience with several questions to ponder: Should the proposal address terrorists? What is the potential for the abuse of power of a UN Force?
    The Responsibility to Protect

    In his keynote address, Lloyd Axworthy spoke of his involvement in “The Responsibility to Protect: A Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.”
    In addressing the challenges of humanitarian intervention, the report wrestled with issues concerning state sovereignty, the duty to protect civilians against human rights violations and the current opposition to providing the UN with the autonomy and resources to act in the interest of preventing genocide and crimes against humanity.

    In its recommendations, the report proposed to establish the principle of humanitarian intervention on the basis of international law and to redefine state sovereignty through its right to national security and defense as well as its responsibility to protect its civilians. The failure of any state in fulfilling its obligations to protect its citizens would trigger international action for intervention. The decision to intervene should not rely on decisions from elite states but should instead be based on established procedures that determine whether the violation of human rights would justify intervention. With the primary objective of preventing and stopping genocide and crimes against humanity, humanitarian intervention should, therefore, not necessarily include regime change and/or winning a war.

    In recognizing the failure of current efforts in protecting civilian security, Axworthy spoke of the need to reestablish the integrity of the international community and to reform the UN and its decision making procedures in the Security Council. This can be achieved by enabling progressive voices to formulate, disseminate and elaborate an effective prescription to generate global public support, as well as by empowering the younger generation with the ability to bring the issue to the fore of the international arena.
    Global or Regional?

    Bill Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement, discussed the “Next Steps in Creating a UN Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Pace identified governments as the weakest link in the responsibility to protect civilians due to their reluctance to respond to circumstances with potential political and strategic risks. At the regional level, however, alliances such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and SHIRBRIG have proved their ability to move forward by establishing rapid deployment forces, yet lack the ability to adequately train and equip their troops.

    Pace therefore suggested a “three-legged” approach for effective protection action, in which the UN, a regional organization and, more controversially, the US or another leading power are involved in creating a robust force. Furthermore, Pace reiterated the importance of terminology and issue framing in order to minimize opportunities for criticism from opponents of the project. In advocating for the shift of present discussions from “the right to intervene” to the “responsibility to protect,” Pace supported the expansion of constituencies of peace organizations to effectively tackle the issue.

    Don Kraus, Executive Director of the Campaign for UN Reform, commented on Pace’s discussion on political viability by focusing on the need to counteract US resistance to the proposal. He emphasized the need to replace the idea of preemption with that of prevention and protection. Furthermore, Kraus recommended the empowerment of the UN through increasing its role in post-conflict reconstruction and shifting its current zero financial growth to a policy of sound fiscal management. Kraus agreed with Pace on the necessity to reach out to new constituencies, and identified the need to frame the issue as attractive to the media.
    Next Steps

    The participants proceeded to discuss ways forward during the working sessions following the symposium. Throughout the afternoon portion of December 5, the participants discussed preferred models for UN prevention and enforcement. Langille’s second presentation elaborated on the current status of the Brahimi report, the expansion of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the UN Standby Arrangements System, the SHIRBRIG and the related, recent efforts to enhance rapid deployment. Kraus spoke about HR1414, the International Rule of Law and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2003. This bill calls on the US to support negotiations on creating a UN Civilian Police Corps. Mendlovitz proposed a UN Constabulary Force as part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on the Rome Statute of the ICC, Mendlovitz envisions a standing force to intervene in the event of genocide or crimes against humanity. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, provided his perspective on the role of the Security Council in moving forward.

    On December 6, the participants extended their discussion of preferred models for a UN force to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. The scope and responsibilities of a potential UN force was discussed, and a consensus on a working title, a UN Emergency Peace Service, was reached.

    Following this, the working group deliberated on contents for a draft proposal, agreeing to use and adapt material from “The Responsibility to Protect”; “Building the Commitment-Capacity Gap”; as well as the Brahimi Report. A drafting committee was established to prepare a proposal and participants proceeded to consider logistical measures to enable an effective Emergency Service under UN auspices.

    The working session ended on a high note, as participants collectively brainstormed ways to promote the Emergency Service, making initial arrangements for future steps to be taken. Proposals included the establishment of an international coalition of civil society organizations, encouraging an annual meeting with DPKO, and approaching sympathetic governments to play an active role.
    For further information, contact Justine Wang, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, at advocacy@napf.org.