Challenges and Implications of the Draft UN Anti-Genocide Pact

“CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DRAFT UNITED NATIONS ANTI-GENOCIDE PACT ON THE PRACTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE: EXAMINING AMERICA’S CONTROVERSIAL STANCE ON MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES AS OPPOSED TO THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS” By Hallmark Hopkins Hakeem Kwame Nkrumah Once again, the United Nations is busily putting everything together to put into law a seemingly new anti-genocide pact; having its roots from the horrendous atrocities of genocide that had taken place in various parts of the world such as Rwanda and Bosnia. The idea behind the United Nations Anti-genocide draft document indeed is a laudable one since it signals various expressions of hope and a wealth of opportunity for the whole of humanity. However, the ability on the part of the United Nations to ensure effective implementation, management and administration of all issues and concerns that border on such matters as genocide are some of the most difficult puzzles and challenges that need to be given very serious international focus and attention. Promulgation of the new anti-genocide legal order to which all states are expected to sign up to, bringing to mind some of the most difficult decisions the international community is expected to take and act upon. This is particularly so if we are genuinely committed as a people towards making any significant headway in our collective resolve to live up to a free, peaceful, secure and harmonious future; for our own good, first of all, and for emerging generations. One of the most interesting things worthy of note in connection with the draft anti-genocide pact is that when it is ultimately signed into law by states, it would constitute an obligation on the part of states to intervene in places where all forms of genocide are taking place. This of course includes ethnic cleansing, among other forms of racial or tribal hate and acrimony. It would also help to empower states to determine practically sensible ways to initiate intervention; thus enabling them to determine whether to go diplomatic by considering options of dialogue, negotiations and other goodwill gestures. It would also enable states to acknowledge the need to use fundamentally worthwhile military force to help bring about a halt to any foreseeable chaos and anarchy in any part of the world. However, in spite of any good intentions that this legal instrument is expected to secure for the good of humanity, at least in recognition of the need to use our common sensibilities and conscience by any means plausible, especially in cases such as genocide and ethnic cleansing, there are some major sensitivities and concerns in various quarters as regards the challenges and implications thereof, particularly within the context of both legal and moral technicalities. The United States for instance is arguing, that instead of making a case on the need for states’ intervention in cases of genocide, and doing so because they are legally obliged, they consider it expedient if that could be done on moral grounds. That is to say that states may consider intervention in cases of genocide if they so feel, that it is morally right, at least, for them to act in order to bring about a halt to such inhuman acts, and consequently help to achieve peace, security and harmony for the people. In fact, America’s rather controversial stance on this matter, possibly arguing their point on grounds of need to respect the sovereignty of states as provided for in international law, of course creates concerns that need to be addressed. This has become necessary in view of the challenges and their implications on both the practice and administration of international law and justice. Some of the underlying factors leading to these arguments are cases of blatant hipocrisy, clearly irresponsible behaviour and carelessness that resulted in unnecessary killing and death of lots of people in various parts of the world. For instance, when the Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic’s troops were butchering more than 7,500 Bosnian Muslims at a United Nations safe haven in 1995, the worrisome thing is that Dutch UN soldiers looked on passively without any iota of concern. In another development, barely a year earlier, Rwandan troops made a sad mockery of the old wise saying, that “women and children first” as they so shamefully pushed aside with disdain quite frightened, doomed and socially- impoverished Tutsis. However, back in the wilderness, the then Clinton administration made a fuss over political semantics: there have been acts of the genocide, State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly muttered rather inarticulately but not genocide. The irony is that a year earlier, the United States Holocaust Museum based in Washington D.C. had opened its doors with a dozen windy speeches- including one by President Clinton- all pretty much saying the same thing: Never Again. Never again is easier said than done but unless you happen to be a Rwandan Tutsi or Bosnian Muslim, you may not be able to appreciate let alone understand the pain and anguish that sprouts from situations where people in positions of trust fail seriously; rather very unfortunately, to act quickly and decisively to change bad situations for the better. On the other hand, there may today well be a Christian or a pagan in Dafur where militias from the Sunni Muslim north have been systematically killing, displaying including starvation of people in the south. Now a decade later, the geniuses at the United Nations are here again at the crossroads of a new, well thought out plan to end genocide once and for all. The UN anti-genocide pact is expected to be brought forward for discussion at the forthcoming UN Summit in New York. It looks big an idea on paper but in practical terms we should not lose sight of the need to accord the document the practical touches of conscience and genuine reasoning that have their foundations in truth, justice, freedom and, above all, the need to apply a little innovation and creativity in our thinking and actions. It is an international agreement that would make it an obligation on the part of states to recognise and acknowledge the need to intervene whenever there is evidence of genocide, racial killings and other war crimes. Again, it would very relevant when a country’s government proves unwilling or unable to stop large-scale atrocities that take place in the country. The pact, the relief organisation Oxfam says, could prevent atrocities such as the Rwandan genocide. The UN anti-genocide pact is, by all intents and purposes a good, great one until one recalls that there is already an anti-genocide pact in place. It is called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide (UN Genocide Convention in short) which was signed into law in 1948 at the time when the ashes of the Holocaust were still smouldering. The convention, the brainchild of Rafael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer who came up with the term genocide, requires all participating countries to prevent and punish actions and inactions of genocide in war and in peace times. One very important question that needs asking is about how effective the UN Genocide Convention has been. The point here is- two weeks into the Rwandan genocide crisis, the UN Security Council met to discuss pulling UN troops out of Rwanda. In one of those emotionally charged, charming coincidences in our history it was the murderous Rwandan Hutu government’s turn to sit on the Security Council, and to decide the fate of the UN’s presence in its country. Throughout the entire session, not even a word was uttered about the Rwandan genocide. Not surprisingly, the Council voted unanimously to withdraw the troops, guaranteeing the senseless murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi civilians in that rather unfortunate process. Quite ironically, the United Nations is asking that the United States to put its John Hancock, at least for once, on another seemingly ineffectual document that may not have the teeth to bite whenever there is a need so that when the next genocide occurs, the culpability can be spread around a bit more democratically. The Bush administration is being blamed, as usual, for diluting the agreement, and has been tossed into the same pool as some rogue states such as Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Cuba, Iran and Syria are actively seeking to scuttle the pact. “[The U.S. is] trying to water it down because it seems they do not want any automatic or compulsory agreement that countries must act upon, said Brendan Cox, a senior Oxfam official. Clearly we disagree with this analysis and argue that in cases such as Rwanda, that sort of wiggle room means that millions are killed”. The fact is that if there is anything governments have in surplus, it is wiggle room. Just as the Clinton administration avoided involvement in Rwanda by simply refusing to call a genocide a genocide, so too will future governments employ semantics and vagaries just to avoid any form of what one may call “foreign entanglements”. Can anyone really and fully blame the Bush Administration, at least entirely, for not wanting to be told what to do by a highly bureaucratic international organisation that has no firm foundations on which international law and justice can be managed without fear or favour. In fact the issue brings to mind an organisation that counts among its voting member representatives of states that may be seen as constituting the axis of evil? As for its effectiveness, a private T- Shirt pretty much says it all as regards the U.N.’s track record: “Genocide dictators, beware of our non-binding resolutions!” It looks too frivolous regarding what the UN is actually able to achieve in line with best interest expectations of humanity and the international community. There is another sketch that questions the competence and sometimes the integrity of the United Nations in dealing with world issues by the former Assistant Secretary of State Mr James Woods. He said “Under the United Nations, you get your throat cut, you get mutilated, you can’t defend yourself, you are put in harm’s way, and this is another reason you wouldn’t want to get yourself identified with a United Nations operation. The fact is that the UN is just like a large metropolitan high school full of envious and disenchanted brats where our friends treat us like enemies, and our allies pretend they do not know us”. Quite surprisingly, the media has happily picked up on the United States’ unwillingness to sign the pact as another example of a malevolent and egoistic superpower stubbornly maintaining its go-it-alone stance and principle. Fortunately, nearly half of Americans believe the US is right for not trusting the United Nations as regards its ability to do the right things including, of course, fulfilment of expectations of the international community. Sourcing information from the CNN International, it is indicated that an Excite Poll found that 47 percent of Americans said that the US should refuse as a matter of a just principle to sign the pact, compared to 42 percent in favour. Enlightened Americans, anyway, know that if it were up to the UN, Saddam Hussein may still be gassing his own people, invading foreign countries, and may very well have acquired nukes from North Korea by now, doing so with disdain. In fact more Americans are also coming around to the position that the United States is indeed better off going it alone. Mark Steyn, in his new book “America Alone”, argues that with the Anti-Americanism that fuels both old Europe and Radical Islam, America will have no choice but to go it alone-stand alone. The world will therefore be divided between America and the rest of the world; adding “and for our sake America had better win.” The fundamental theory of American “Exceptionalism” may be regarded by the so-called allies as egoism, but inwardly, they are relieved to have the US fighting their battles for them. “The reason that we so often must stand by ourselves is that the United States really is different,” writes US foreign policy analyst Victor Davis Hanson. “Our constitution singularly preserves the sanctity of the individual; American culture is truly a revolutionary society that has empowered millions of free and freed people regardless of religion, race or background—and had, by so doing, unleashed economic and military power never seen before for the benefit of the people, particularly in the interest of those who fell victim to the most unfortunate and very difficult circumstances that befell America in the past.. The common anti-American slurs of ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘unilateralism’ are, in fact, compliments of the highest order.” According to Hanson, America going it alone (with occasional support from the UK) has been the rule, not the exception of the past 60 years: It is worth refreshing our memories in line with the fact that in all the recent crisis of the past, America has stood nearly alone. By 1942, Europe and most of Asia were fascists, and the other continents were best in their neutrality stances such as those nations that formed the Non-Aligned Movement. England in fact was America’s sole democratic ally. During the Cold War-and despite periodic appeasement in Europe and the venom of the elite left—the United States stopped the spread of the Soviet communism, and finally bankrupted its murderous hegemony. In neither case did the League of Nations or the United Nations offer much assistance; with both passing sanctimonious resolutions while millions were butchered in silence to death by Adolf Hitler, Tojo, Stalin and Mao. Our recent encounter with Milosevic was thus predictable. When the US leaders believe that America is exceptional only in its culpability the world becomes ripe for more Somalias, Rwandas, Srebrenicas, and Darfurs, with clearly belated apologies to follow. For the first time since the Reagan administration, leaders in America seem to believe that America has the moral standing as well as a moral obligation to spread democracy, freedom, and rule of law including the need to fight all forms of fascism and totalitarianism. What a clear bonus if the United States President were able go confidently and succinctly in expression of that exceptionalism, and maybe even put into effect in Darfur some of the practically workable and positive remedies that come from such moves, at least doing so on the basis of sound diplomatic principles and effective foreign policy formulation and administration. The sad fact is that America is exceptional only when it has exceptional leadership with a genuinely defined purpose. As a matter of fact, the concerns raised by the United States in connection with the Draft UN Anti-Genocide Pact are genuine in the sense that it would be highly pointless for any state to sign up to a legal document that may have no firm foundations in effective application and administration of international law and justice. Let alone its ability to source and use mechanisms that can at least guarantee freedom, peace, security and justice to our people. However it is worth noting that the fact we have made mistakes in the past may not constitute any justifiable grounds for one to think that we cannot do anything credible to bring about positive changes in our situations. The fact of the matter is that it would not be enough under given circumstances for the United Nations to initiate any programme that would only pre-empt states to intervene on moral grounds alone- particularly in such highly sensitive and emotional cases such as ethnic cleansing and genocide; senseless killing of innocent people and loss of precious lives. As an international body made up of people with their own personal and professional weaknesses and strengths, we need to support the United Nations on sustainable basis with suggestions and ideas that can clearly, without doubt, help to bring about better ways through which international disputes, conflicts and other senseless occurrences can be fully and effectively handled. As a matter of fact, it would be very ideal and practically prudent for us – the international community, to accord the legal stance greater respect and recognition since it is the only means through which we would be able to procure, secure and defend the cause of freedom, human rights, guarantee democracy its full weight and strength, and, above all, muster the courage to make life of every single human person much more precious than we have done in the past. We have to be able to come to terms with the fact that apart from the clearly, undeniable fact that moral obligations on states need to be given its full respect, support and encouragement, we need not lose sight of the fact that unless we need to accord full and absolute legal inclinations towards some of the highly sensitive international issues such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. While trying to justify any factor or reason for not wanting to be legally obliged or bound by any international legal order such as the UN Anti-Genocide Pact, particularly because we find some comfort zones within the confines of moral obligations, it is worth realising, rather interestingly, that it is even more appealing and comfortable, whenever we are able to secure and consolidate some of the most fundamental legal markings on the wall that clearly, in no uncertain terms, help to guarantee humanity a noble discourse that shape and bless us as a people. The United States is right in lodging or trading in the concerns regarding the draft UN Anti –Genocide Pact but it cannot rule out completely the fact that human life is so precious such it would be ridiculous for anyone to stand loose on grounds of moral justifications alone while giving little or no focus on the most fruitful ideals and values that that tend to give prominence to international law as the most universally acknowledge basis for administering justice, far play and freedom to all peoples and all nations. Our ability to fulfil our responsibilities as a people with some levels of common purpose, vision and values, including the fact that we share a common need to fight for international freedom and justice as a matter of fact, would depend, to a very large extent, on our ability once again to build and consolidate firm foundations on which priceless gifts of peace, security, justice, equality before the law including, very important, the sanctity and dignity of the human person can be procured for the total good of our people regardless. As the United Nations tries to gather momentum to freshen itself up by initiating reforms in the international system, its highly respected Secretary General – Mr Kofi Annan would be expected to fashion out innovative measures, policies, values, ethics and principles that would help to transform the world body into one that is not only able to initiate laudable international laws and resolutions but also, equally important, endorsement and consolidation of certain fundamental, clearly articulate and workable frameworks within which problems and challenges that may confront humanity at any point in time can best be handled and managed . The United Nations must accord an exceptional importance towards the building and consolidation of integrity and goodwill of the peoples in whose interests and vision it was established to champion and defend, for whom due recognition must be paid in terms of creation of confidence and unwavering trust, and, above all, to whom the international system must vow against all odds to procure full wealth of ideas and knowledge needed for nurturing new dimensions as regards how best we can help ourselves by way of harnessing resources for greater takes offs in our relationships with each other as nations on one hand, and as a people on the other. Any blatant diplomatic and foreign policy formulation and implementation failures on our part, mediocre tendencies in our decision making encounters including, very important, our inability to disassociate ourselves from utter irresponsibility as regards the importance of ensuring fairness in our dealings with one another, particularly so within the context of contemporary challenges of international relations and diplomacy may, very unfortunately create for us even more difficult problems that can break our necks in our attempts at securing peace, security and sustainable development in the future. For at such points in time and space, the harms had already been done and may not merit any reversals whatsoever. The opportunity to initiate and reengineer a collective resolve to champion a genuine, formidably transforming and practically assuring diplomatic actions and foreign policy moves represent the only trump cards with which we can secure a more rewarding, dream and vision fulfilling future for ourselves as a people. In all things also, we need to remember that God represents the centrality of all things, the most pivotal focal point with WHOM we can do anything that is worth doing right, following HIS established principles, values, directives, teachings and guidance, else we may be playing just games all the way through. The time to start doing things just right at least in our own interest, is now or never.