By Lieke Kuiper
The 10th of December, 2019: Human Rights Day. A day on which the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations back in 1948 is annually celebrated. It was on this day that The Gambia, a tiny nation in West-Africa that only recently freed itself of a cruel dictatorial regime, sued Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The ICJ, located at the Peace Palace in the Hague, knows only one earlier example where a case was successful prosecuted under the Genocide Convention, namely that of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia. As we all know, this was not the first genocide there was. It is even said that the extinction of the Neanderthals was due to genocidal violence on behalf of the Homo Sapiens.
But it was only after the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews and many others were brutally slaughtered, that the words ‘Never Again’ became symbols for humanity at its worst. Ever since, these two words carry a heavy load of emotion. The international community felt something had to be done and the United Nations was born. In 1948 it adopted its first international convention: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
‘Never Again’ proved to be an empty sentence, however. Since the world witnessed humanity at its worst during the Second World War, we have seen many more examples of genocide or the ‘crime of all crimes’. The killing of up to 500.000 Serbs by the Croats during WWII. Operation Searchlight in 1971 in which 3 million Bangladeshi people were murdered an approximately 400.000 women were raped. Then again in 1975 during the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge, which led to the death of approximately 2 million people. Which comes down to 25% of the entire population. In 1986 the Anfal genocide started, in which the Iraqi government killed as many as 182.000 Kurds and Assyrians. Not to long after, the Rwandan genocide occurred. In 1994 the Hutu’s brutally slaughtered 800.000 of their Tutsi neighbours in only a 100 day time-span. In 1995, during the Bosnian war, the Serbs killed over 8000 Bosniak men and boys. And then again, in 20167 the Myanmar military attacked and killed 24.000 Rohingya, forcing another 700.000 to flee the country.
These are just some of the many examples of genocide that human history knows. The question is then: why does the world stand by and watches every time something gruesome as this happens? After the Second World war, when the ‘Never Again’ paradigm grew bigger, countless changes in legislation, both national and international were made. The Genocide Convention, the ad hoc and later permanent tribunals, the Blue Helmets and their peace missions. All those attempts of the international community to make sure that ‘Never Again’ would be something we could teach our children. That genocide would become something of the past.
And yet here we are. 2019; 71 years have gone by since the Genocide Convention was adopted. 71 years in which we have witnessed millions and millions of people being slaughtered, raped, displaced, traumatized… The UN Security Council (UNSC) has proven useless during the Srebrenica genocide, where the Blue Helmets could not stop the Serb forces from taking control of the protected zone, due to unclear mandates regarding the permission to use force. The UNSC only adopted a resolution on the serious human rights violations in Rwanda after the genocide had taken place. It did not act adequately in preventing or halting any of the accounts of genocide mentioned above.
This is not due to lack of adequate laws or military force. It is due to lack of political will. Countries are hesitant to use the word genocide, because it if they do, it requires them to actually intervene, by military means if necessary. The same goes for the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. The countries with veto power have the might to paralyze the UNSC and adhere her from intervening adequately.
Political leaders do this, because it might be too costly to intervene for their own countries. Or it might not sit well with the once they accuse. It might be costly in economic terms, or regarding international relations. But do all these things really matter when we are talking about the destruction of thousands or even millions of lives? Should it even be open for debate whether to intervene or not when a conflict only even could have genocidal intent? Shouldn’t we all rush to the aid of the victims of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, mass rape, forced displacement, and last but not least genocide?
It shouldn’t matter if we’re sure about the intent of the perpetrator or not. The international community should act to de-escalate the conflict and to protect the innocent, regardless of what side they are on. The UNSC should not allow itself to be paralyzed by the political agenda’s of the worlds powerful. The UN General Assembly should not allow the UNSC to be in deadlock or stalemate. It should provide the powers willingly to act on behalf of the powerless with clear mandates as to what force they can use in the act of collective self-defense.
Yes, the trial currently held at the ICJ at the Peace Palace in the Hague is important. It should be clear whether there was a genocide against the Rohingya or not. And if so, the perpetrators, including the so-called ‘armchair perpetrators’ or leading bureaucrats, should be held accountable. But before all that, our nations should have fought collectively to protect the Rohingya. Military might is not the only means to protect people. Apart from the possible use of force or deployment of the Blue Helmets, economic sanctions, universal condemnation of what is happening, providing of safe refugee camps, etc. could all have been done to protect the Rohingya and put an early stop to the ongoing attacks against this minority group in Myanmar.
A clear mandate for the Blue Helmets located near Srebrenica could have prevented the Serbians from taking over and slaughtering thousands of men and boys. An early intervention to stop the radio broadcasts that were calling to ‘Cut the tall trees’ or that put the put the Tutsi’s as equal to cockroaches, could have prevented the violence from breaking out in the first place. The demand for international accountability regarding the aid China provided to Cambodia could have minimized the impact of the genocidal regime of the Khmer Rouge. And so on. Maybe not all of these genocides could have been prevented. Maybe not all lives could have been saved. But by early intervention, clear condemnation of what was or is going on, political leaders taking a stance for the ones being victimized, and so on, we sure could have saved some lives. Now isn’t that worth the trouble?
Comentarios