Never Again "Never Again"

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Above is the introduction to Justice Robert Jackson’s opening statement at the 1945 Nuremberg trials. Jackson’s statements, and the creation of the United Nations in the same year, were part of a realization that nations could no longer afford to ignore crimes against “the peace of the world” committed beyond their shores. The prosecution at Nuremberg stands as a testament to the recognition of our shared humanity. Sadly, in the years since 1945, the international community has regressed in its ability to stand up to these sorts of criminals and phrases such as “Never Again” now seem to ring hollow with cruel hypocrisy.

I was 11 in April of 1994 when the Rwandan genocide took place and have only vague recollections of hearing updates on shows like “As It Happens”. All that my sixth grade self could comprehend at the time was that a lot of people were dieing in some place in Africa that I had never heard of, and that I was glad that sort of thing didn’t happen in Canada. As time went on, my interest in the genocide grew. I started reading books such as Roméo Dallaire’s “Shake Hands with the Devil”, watched movies such as “Shooting Dogs” and even took courses and wrote papers on the subject, all in an attempt to understand why the world sat by while over 800,000 Rwandans died. More recently, the estimated 400,000 people that have been killed so far in the Darfur genocide has shown the issues with the international community have not yet been resolved to prevent such atrocities from re-occurring.

The failures of the organizations such as the UN to stop such events can likely be attributed to two factors. The first is related to an earlier post of mine regarding international health. The truth is that there needs to be a will to act against such atrocities and to intervene in areas that aren’t strategically or economically valuable. As of yet, the will is clearly not there, and such events are allowed to continue through our inaction.

The second problem though is more institutional in nature – the fact the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, reflect the nature of the world in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

The five permanent members of the Security Council (SC), the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom hold veto power over such intervention missions. While countries such as France, who supported the Habyarimana regime in Rwanda, are more responsible for letting the atrocities continue, all are equally culpable for the UN’s inaction. When examining the organization in greater detail, it becomes apparent that the SC has failed to keep up with the changing global realities, a fact which may play a part in their failure to respond to conflicts far from their borders or in areas where intervention is not in their economic interest. These countries represent only 28.6% of the world population and 43.7% of global GDP (figures from CIA World Factbook), indicating they represent neither the majority of the world’s population or the world’s wealth. Furthermore, when one looks at the distribution of Security Council nations on the map, one can see some glaring omissions. Regions such as South America, Oceana, the Middle East and Africa lack permanent members of the council. In addition, the Germany and Japan, two of the world’s economic leaders continue to lack representation and emerging economies such as Brazil and Botswana are also omitted. People generally more concerned about issues closer to home, so hopefully by expanding the permanent seats on the SC, events like these won’t fall to the wayside in the future.

The veto itself is incredibly problematic – the fact that all it takes is one of these countries to oppose intervention and then any action becomes impossible. By the time any resolution is agreed upon by all members, it is so watered down that the resolution is ultimately ineffective. While it is unlikely the current SC members will relinquish this control in the near future, it is a change that is vital if the organization is to be able to respond to such events in the future.

The second thing that prevented prompt intervention in Rwanda was the lack of troops available to perform the mission. Peacekeeping missions are for the most part preformed by developing nations who send their troops abroad, for the most part to receive UN training. While the Ghanans, by Gen. Dallaire’s admission, preformed admirably in Rwanda, the Bangladeshi continent was given orders not to put themselves at risk to protect refugees. In the end, the force available was understaffed and unreliable. In order to perform their duties, the UN must have a standing peacekeeping force of well-trained and well-equipped troops ready to respond on short notice to go in and preserve the peace in these regions until a more permanent presence can be established. By having a small ready-to-go force staffed and equipped on rotation from all UN states, it is possible the timetables of the Arusha accords could have been met. Even if the events in April 1994 weren’t completely preventable, a well-equipped unit on the ground with adequate rules of engagement in Rwanda could have set up a number of safe zones for refugees in order to significantly reduce the number of deaths.

The strategy of the Interahamwe against the Belgians in Rwanda and the militias against the Americans in Somalia was simple: Give the western powers a bloody nose and they’ll run off. It’s time we had a strong UN response force that can stand up to these bullies and say that the nations of the world are no longer willing to sit by idly while they starve and murder their own people. However as I mentioned earlier, before any of this can happen the countries of the world need to affirm that “Never Again” is something more than a hollow line used to comfort ourselves. It’s a promise.