Can it be stopped?
The international community continues to struggle with the troubling question of why genocide remains a threat around the world and what -- if anything -- can be done to stop it, writes Jaideep Mukerji
Last month, delegates from 55 countries descended on Stockholm, Sweden to participate in an international forum called "Preventing Genocide; Threats and Responsibilities". The three-day event was the last in a series of forums organised by Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, who staged them as a way of addressing what he felt was a lack of international dialogue on issues surrounding genocide.
"The task is ours," Persson told delegates. "There is no one else. We, together, must take action. We are here to discuss what action. How do we prevent genocide?"
The question is a difficult one to answer. Despite the international community's repeated declarations and commitments to put an end to genocide, Amnesty International reports that there are five countries in the world where genocide is "imminent" and another eight countries where there is an "elevated risk" of genocide breaking out.
Keenly aware of the international community's failure to respond to imminent threats of genocide in the past, delegates at the Stockholm Forum agreed to consider a proposal made by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to create a committee on the prevention of genocide and for naming a special UN rapporteur who would monitor efforts to prevent genocide.
"I long for the day when we can say with confidence that, confronted with a new Rwanda or new Srebrenica, the world would respond effectively, and in good time," Annan said. "But let us not delude ourselves. That day has yet to come."
Annan's proposal was met with optimism by human rights organisations. Richard Haavisto, a researcher with Amnesty International's Central African Desk, called the proposal "a step in the right direction".
Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly from his office in Uganda, Haavisto said the initiative was important because it "would provide the international community with detailed information on emerging threats of genocide".
Haavisto cautioned, however, that while Annan's proposal was a positive development, simply collecting information on when and where genocide was in danger of taking place still failed to address the underlying problem of the international community's lack of political will in preventing genocide.
"You might call [Annan's proposal] a necessary condition but not a sufficient one," he said. "In order for it to really have effect the international community has to be willing to act and has to be willing to intervene and the past shows that really hasn't happened."
Haavisto pointed to Rwanda as an example of how the international community has sometimes failed to even take the most basic action to stop genocide.
"There is evidence, for instance, that if the international community had been prepared to take action -- and not even going so far as to send troops -- but to simply and forcefully inform the then leaders of Rwanda for instance that 'what you are doing is unacceptable' the genocide in Rwanda probably wouldn't have happened," he stated.
Beyond admonitions and warnings, however, there is a general consensus among experts that the key to preventing genocide also lies in creating an international system that holds those responsible for acts of genocide accountable for their actions. Central to allowing this to happen is the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court that would have a specific mandate to ensure that those responsible for genocide are brought to account for their actions.
Haavisto explained that an institution like the ICC was important because "one of the major problems of genocide has always been the notion of impunity and accountability. The ICC would serve as a deterrent to future genocide by naming individuals responsible. Justice is essential in preventing collective guilt wherein 'all Hutus are guilty' or all 'Bosnians are guilty'," he said. "Guilt has to be assigned individually and the perception of fair trials as opposed to vengeance is one of the key purposes of the ICC."
Yet despite the ICC's obvious importance in the fight to end genocide, the court has thus far failed to materialise owing in large part to strong resistance from the United States. Although the Clinton administration originally signed the Rome Treaty that called for the creation of the ICC in 2000, the US withdrew its support under current US President George Bush, who cited fears that the court would be used for politically motivated reprisals against the US.
So strong is the Bush administration's opposition to the ICC that the US has taken to pressuring countries to sign bilateral agreement requiring countries to not surrender US citizens to the ICC. In one notable example the US even went so far as to suspend five million dollars in military aid to Colombia as punishment for their unwillingness to sign such an agreement.
And while the ICC was a prominent theme during last month's Stockholm Forum, US delegates in attendance showed no signs of softening their opposition to the ICC.
The US's continued obstinacy towards creating the ICC, is "a major disappointment", according to the Stockholm Forum's Secretary-General Krister Kumlin, "The ICC is extremely important. One of the main things as far as ending genocide is in bringing perpetrators to justice," he told the Weekly. "We are very sorry that the American attitude towards the ICC is so negative; it is something that we all regret."
Kumlin felt, however, that even though the Stockholm Forum failed to solve the deadlock over the ICC, the forum was nevertheless an important step in helping put an end to genocide.
"I am very, very satisfied by the way the discussions at the conference developed," he said. "These forums are the first international conferences in more than 50 years that addressed genocide. The fact that they took place is in itself a great success."
Although this year's forum was the last one scheduled to be held, Kumlin said that it by no means meant an end to international efforts to prevent genocide.
"I think we have to make an assessment on how to ensure these proposals we have discussed, like the ones made by Kofi Annan, are brought into practice," he said adding that "This particular conference has certainly served to open the eyes of the world for the necessity to act in a concerted way to prevent genocide."
Haavisto agreed telling the Weekly, that from Amnesty International's point of view, forums like the one in Stockholm play a key role in ensuring that genocide remains present in public debate.
"Human memory tends to be very short," he says. " [Genocide] has to be brought up again and again because forgetting is perhaps the biggest threat towards ensuring more genocide and massive crimes against humanity."
