Stopping the next Darfur

 

Six Degrees: The Stanford Journal of Human Rights

Stopping the Next Darfur: Structural Changes in the United Nations and Humanitarian Aid By Amanda Zerbe Winter 2013

 

feature.GENOCIDE

5

Stopping the Next Darfur by Amanda Zerbe

 

Structural Changesand in the United Nations Humanitarian Aid

Rwanda: approximately 937,000 dead.1 Te conflict in Darfur: probably about 400,000 dead and counting. 2  Where was the United Nations during these genocides? Te sad truth is that the United Nations is too bogged down with political games to deal with genocides quickly and effectively. In addition, it is all too easy to deny that genocide exists in a particular state, a problem that needs to be remedied. Tese greatly problematic aspects of the United Na-

ply by a lack of political support from the five major countries in the United Nations Security Council. Problems like these are by no means impossible to solve. Tey simply require the United Nations to consistently adhere to the standard set forth in Article IV of the Genocide Convention in 1949. Article IV states that “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private

tions call for an immediate and easily implemented solution. Te United Nations needs a subsection similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s but for humanitarian crises, complete with a body of trained, unbiased inspectors that would help to verify cases of genocide. If cases of genocide were considered indisputably valid, then there could be no disagreement about the duty of the United Nations to act. Finally, to make its action effective, the United Nations should be mandated to perform a Chapter VII, not a Chapter VI, intervention in confirmed cases of genocide. Te main problem with the current system is that often the United Nations doesn’t classify conflicts as genocides even when they are largely acknowledged to be genocides.

individuals.” Tese problems, however, are arguably harder to overcome at an ideological level, as they require a shift in how the United Nations views its role in the international community. Tis ideological shift is much more easily stated than it is actually applied. Te United Nations needs to drop the inaccurate assumption that its duty is to the countries it represents. Its duty is to the people of the world: it is supposed to create a forum for f or international cooperation that benefits the entire world’s population. By remaining loyal to its member states, the United Nations is able to

 A classification problem was was theprominent conflict inexample Darfur. of such a classification  Although the Genocide Intervention Networ Network, k, the United States Government, Government, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars all claimed the conflict in Darfur to be genocide, the United Nations avoided acknowledging it as such.345 It was not, therefore, forced to intervene. Moreover, when the United Nations does involve itself in a conflict, its action is often ineffective or ill-suited to the specific conflict. Such was the case with the Rwandan genocide, when troops were only authorized for Chapter VI or “peacekeeping” work, and thus could not shoot despite an obvious need to do so. Tis problem was not caused by lack of money or manpower. It was caused sim-

> Definition: acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Key Facts

> First UN genocide conventi convention: on: December 1948 > First legal conviction for a case of genocide: 1998 > Latest charges for genocide: Omar al Bashir, President of Sudan in 2010

6

 The United Nations Nations needs to drop the inaccurat inaccurate e assumption that its its duty is to the countries it represents. Its duty is to the people of the world: it is supposed to create a forum for international cooperation that benefits the entire world’s population. avoid intervening in a crisis that has direct consequences for these member states. Tis is, at a basic moral level, a legitimized form of corruption. Tere is an additional problem restricting effective and immediate action: a basic misuse of the concept of national sovereignty.. Tis concept, defined as the “intentional indesovereignty pendence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference” by West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, has been misused in order for countries to shield atrocities perpetrated against their people.6  In order to avoid a misuse of this concept and therefore also a subsequent erosion of its significance, it is essen-

country to conceal atrocities from United Nations Nations inspectors or to deny them access to important crime sites and other significant areas. If a conflict is classified as a genocide, the United Nations is actually bound by Article I of the 1949 genocide convention “to prevent and to punish” the genocide and its perpetrators, respectively.  Although the United Nations Nations seems to be committed to preventing genocide, it is also bound to recognize and punish its perpetrators. Tis group of inspectors would make both parts of the United Nations’ duty more efficient and more effective, identifying potential conflicts before they begin as well as localizing money and aid where it is

tial that United Nations take action. When a country  joins thethe United United Nations, Nations, it should be forced to sign a very simple and direct statement saying that it will not perpetrate, authorize, or allow genocide. Countries suspected to be in violation of this statement would, by the simple act of their violation, be forced to consent to United Nations inspectors entering their territory. Denying inspectors entry would be tantamount to allowing United Nations troops to enter the country. Te primary task of these inspectors would be to define a given war in a country as genocide if appropriate, thereby binding the United Nations to action. Tey would be sent to perform random surveys on all of the United Nations countries in an order chosen by the current Spe-

needed and giving theby United Nations a realistic idea of each conflict on a case case basis. Tere remains a problem with this hypothetical United Nations military involvement: it would require funding and troops. o secure the proper funding, one possible solution is to create a new foundation that would be tied to the United Nations and would govern funds reserved strictly for humanitarian crises. Tese funds could come from such as private institutions, charitable organi-zations, or even a slight increase in United Nations Nations dues. Te foundation would have a rotating treasurer to be selected by the United Nations Nations Secretary General. Naturally, Naturally, all decisions regarding the use of funds

cial Advisor on the Preventi Prevention on ofthree Genocide. Te inspectors, dispatched at a time, would be unaware of their target destination. Tey would also be accompanied by United Nations peacekeeping troops whose purpose would be to protect and defend them. Moreover, Moreover, the inspectors would be given free rein in terms of what they could request to see. Any refusal on the part of the government would also be considered grounds for a United Nations intervention. Countries worried about national sovereignty will undoubtedly object to these strict standards. It is, however, exceedingly clear that such measures are necessary. Without the threat of an intervention protecting the inspector’s inspector’s ability to survey a country, it would be too easy to for a

 To extend the metaphor  To metaphor,, if a neighbour knew a parent was beating, molesting, or killing his or her children, he or she would intervene or call the police who would then protect the children and arrest the parent. Simply exchange the neighbour for United Nations inspectors and exchange the police for United Nations troops, and it becomes very clear that concern for national sovereignty should, in cases of genocide, be overridden by civic duty.

 

feature.GENOCIDE

7 What the United Nations cannot possibly do is perpetuat perpetuate e an ineffective policy that has almost little or no effect on actual humanitarian crises.  would have to be authorized authorized by both the treasurer treasurer and the United Nations Security Council. Finally, there should be an absolute cap: no more than 80% of the reserved funds should be used in one calendar year year.. In terms of troops, however, however, not much would change. Te structure of pledging troops would remain in place. It seems unwise to demand a certain amount of troops from countries who may need all of their troops to deal with local security threats. Te only remaining major policy change to discuss is the mandatory involvement of Chapter VII United Nations (often known as “peacemaking”) troops in cases of genocide. Although this may seem like something of an extreme measure to take, to say that any genocide situation only requires Chapter VI authorized troops (commonly known as “p “peacekeeping” eacekeeping” troops) is unreasonable. Terefore, it seems necessary to mandate Chapter VII involvement if United Nations inspectors declare a genocide. Since this change requires little more than a relatively minor change in policy and demands no money or troops, it would be a relatively simple and immediate change to make. Such a mandate would help to control genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda. It would also prevent special interests of major powers from interfering in issues of genocide. For example, such a mandate would prevent China from shielding Sudan because of trade interests. o o make the system automatic allows countries to act according to the ideals of the United Nations without having to worry about breaking alliances or trade contacts. Te immediate objection to concepts like these is that the United Nations could still offend a country’s national sovereignty by intervening and therefore affect the entire balance of the international system. One metaphor for the concept of national sovereignty is that United Nations military involvement in a country is like telling a parent how to raise his or her children. In the case of genocide, however, it becomes clear how direly this intervention is necessary. o extend the metaphor, if a neighbour knew a parent  was beating, molesting, or or killing his or her children, he or

she would intervene or call the police who would then protect the children and arrest the parent. Simply exchange the neighbour for United Nations Nations inspectors and exchange the police for United Nations troops, and it becomes very clear that concern for national sovereignty should, in cases of genocide, be overridden by civic duty. What the United Nations cannot possibly do is perpetuate an ineffective policy that has almost little or no effect on actual humanitarian crises. Te Genocide Convention was signed in 1949. It is now 2012, sixty-three years later, and the United Nations still has not closed the loopholes in its own system that have allowed and continue to allow some of the greatest atrocities of both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to continue. Te United Nations is, to put it simply, bound to the people, and it has treated the people whose lives have been affected by genocide as second-class citizens. It is time that the United Nations underwent a key change in its policies so that it can fulfil its duty to the people of the world. Tanks to Sarahi Constantine for contributing feedback and ideas for this paper.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AMANDA ZERBE is a sophomore majoring in Earth Systems and planning a second major in International Relations. Although her main academic focus is ecology and environmental policy policy,, she has long been interested in human rights and development, and how international law can further both causes. In high school, she researched the impact of the Nuremberg Trials Trials on international criminal crimin al law, and was founder and co-president of a Global Action Club that raised money for impoverished women in Bangladesh. She currently serves as an associate editor for Stanford’s Journal of International Relations, and is a member of the Stanford fencing team.