Saddening news on the human rights. Please see the shocking development regarding ICC and Bashir #genprev

State sovereignty was cemented by the Westphalian Agreement. We can argue that the Westphalian Agreement is dead, but in the case of genocide, it seems alive and kicking. Because of the anarchical ordering system of the states, it is difficult for any individual state to intervene in the internal issues of another state. Documents, such as President Clinton’s PDD-25, clearly reflect a standpoint of political leaders as it relates to international intervention. Among other points, unless there is national interest, any country is unlikely to intervene.

So, that leaves us with the U.N. or regional regime intervention. The U.N. is known to be under-funded and subject to veto of the Security Council’s permanent members. Ultimately, even if the intervention is approved, can we be sure the funds will also be available for an intervention?

There are several plausible efforts going on. GIS may be useful in raising awareness and as Mr. Levinger points out, could be used as a policy tool. Social networking sites such as Ushahidi, Zimbio and Change.org also contribute to the public awareness. Additionally, bloggers, such as Patrick Meier and educational efforts, such as Engaging Governments on Genocide Prevention are significant contributors to the development of the genocide prevention field.

Apparently, there is plenty of work left in this field, starting with the definition of what is genocide; that in its current form enables perpetrators to avoid justice as proving intent of genocide is a truly slippery slope.

There are several plausible sites working on raising awareness to genocide. An example of such work is Change.org a website page entitled Stop Genocide which houses an interesting medley of activist blogs. It is also a home page to Sam Bell’s uplifting article that brings up excellent points. A year has passed since the Task Force issued the recommendations on preventing genocide and that some progress is made. The work is commendable and the fact that there is a movement in the U.S. administration is encouraging. The main contributor, Michelle, offers informed blogs reporting the latest news related to genocide thus making the topic accessible to an average reader. I particularly like the “Take Action” section where actions from organization such as Amnesty International Call on Investors to Stand Up for Human Rights in Darfur, and call on the readers to sign a petition. The site is well thought out, but could use links to other related sites for more in-depth analysis.

Another plausible educational effort is Engaging Governments on Genocide Prevention. Additionally, Engaging Governments on Genocide Prevention EGGP project, a brain child of Dr. Andrea Bartoli, is a collaborative effort by the scientist from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution of George Mason University (ICAR), Columbia University’s Center for International Conflict Resolution (CICR), and the United Nations Studies Program (UNSP) at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs to collaborate on advanced educational seminars for mid-level officials of governments in the area of genocide prevention. The program concentrates on genocide prevention and education on how to recognize and act in early stages of genocide.

Such work is certainly contributing to raising awareness to genocide and may serve, in concert with the governmental action, toward future genocide prevention programs.

Dr. Kressel, in his book “Mass Hate”, uses Rummel’s words: “Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.” Indeed, non-democracies are likelier to kill their own citizens rather than democracies. Mass hatred is, without a doubt, a basis for genocide. Dr. Kressel gives an excellent critical analysis of different frameworks including psychological, societal, economic and educational and concludes that there are two strategies best suited for combating mass hatred;  “relentless pursuit and punishment of the perpetrators of atrocities, and the promotion of stable democracies wherever possible.”

Dr. Kressel has a point. If other states’ actions are guided by their interests, than his framework for promoting democratic values, or work from within the society could work. This is not a guess as we have living proof in the Western constitutional democracies that could not be farther from genocide. Often I ask myself, why are second generation Americans just that – Americans? And why are, for instance, Serbs living in Croatia still Serbs? To be fair, it is not my intention to single out the Croatian/ Serbs in any bad way. The example is mentioned as an illustration of a concept. Is democracy the independent variable influencing this phenomenon?

If so, than the world should strive toward democratization. Alas! Finally, I find something to agree upon with President Bush. The problem, however, is in transformation from a non-democratic to a democratic system. Democratizing states have the tendency of turning to nationalism that can lead to conflict, as Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder write in their article on Democratization and War. I highly recommend reading this article, even though the topic is really interstate conflict, I believe the concept could also apply to intrastate conflict because nationalism can give rise to mass hatred and mass hatred can give rise to genocide. As a reminder, it did not come easy for the French, the Germans, or for the Americans. Clearly, there is pain in becoming a democracy, but clearly, a pain worth enduring.  The long-term view has to prevail.

Dr.Kressel’s other point, punishment, also works, but only locally within the state. Punishment could not be considered an independent variable, rather an influencing variable. If it were an independent variable, it would be effective as a deterrent of other states committing genocide. American bombing of Serb positions most clearly was a deterrent to the Serb leadership. However, did the fact that Milosevic was put on trial in Hague deter atrocities in Sudan. Is punishment a deterrent? That could be debated. If a comparison can be made with capital punishment.  Studies show that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent for people committing crimes. What punishment actually accomplishes is a sense of justice and closure. I believe it works more on the victim’s side than on the perpetrator’s side. Additionally, governments committing genocide do not actually advertise their crimes. Generally, the crimes are hidden from the view of the international community and if discovered, the crimes are denied. An illustration:  according to the Turkish government, did they commit genocide against the Armenians? Examples abound!

Another interesting point of view is Sean-Paul Kelley’s. I was very curious in finding out what a realist has to say about this topic. Kelley’s recommendation of “aiding nations with their early experiment in democracy by encouraging dialogue, consensus and reconciliation is a good first step.” As he notes, sometimes the efforts of peaceful conciliation fail. He then recommends using “Firm credible warnings, followed by the use of sanctions. When conditions of wholesale slaughter, mass deportations and concentration camps emerge, armed intervention must be made in concert with the United Nations, or unilaterally, if necessary.” I agree with the first point of aiding with consensus and reconciliation. Even that effort requires foreign aid, which opens a whole new debate outside the scope of this blog. His point on sanctions seems feasible if implemented through the U.N. arm. Armed intervention is an admirable recommendation, however, I doubt it is feasible. Again, we hit a brick wall – state interests or lack of thereof. Yes, there is an international law on genocide but states go to great lengths to avoid compliance. Samantha Power in her article on Rwanda writes about this phenomenon. 

Sadly, that leaves us with democracy as a lone feasible independent variable in genocide prevention. 

Certainly, the citizens of the states located in Europe may be in a better position when it comes to genocide early warning and prevention since they may fall under NATO jurisdiction. The citizens of the states, such as Guinea or Nigeria with vast oil resources, or other natural resource rich countries may also benefit from genocide early warning. The citizens of the states that do not have natural resources interesting to other states may not be as lucky, as even if there were early warning, other states may not be interested in intervening. Yet, such states might be more vulnerable to genocide at the same time.

As seen in the numerous “muddling through” policies on international ethnic conflict, vividly demonstrated for example, in the safe zone of Srebrenica under the UNPROFOR watch, thousands of Muslim boys and men were slaughtered. A similar fiasco happened in Rwanda, where also under the U.N. watch worse atrocities were committed. At the U.N. Commander Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire’s dismay was obvious because there was nothing he could do to stop the atrocities without funds and reinforcements. Even if a hegemon does not find national interest, he should allow other interested states to intervene. In Serbrenica, it took the French ultimatum of “either lead or get out of the way” type for the U.S. to intervene. In Rwanda, the French also wanted to intervene, but it did not pan out. In my view, the approach should be two pronged: The U.S. national interest; or if there is no immediate national interest, than the U.S. should allow other states to intervene. Understandably, the leadership might appear as compromised, but that is a small price to pay to save lives. I am certain that the realists will strongly disagree with me. 

By passage of a U.N. Resolution, states must intervene in cases of genocide. The governments may conveniently find other terms to call the crisis, as seen in the past. Thus, tying warning to action may prove more difficult as the atrocities escalate. Therefore, early intervention is a key.  However, to intervene earlier than later also has its dangers. Namely, how to prove genocide was prevented and the offending state was not attacked for other reasons.

The Task Force makes a direct correlation between genocide and national interest, which is the best possible and a right solution. The obstacle may be in convincing the U.S. Congress and other arms of government that this is the case.

However, public awareness is a double-edged sword. While alerting the public outside the country, at the same time a “moral hazard” is a possible. Why? Because the local people might be encouraged to act thinking that someone is listening and having empathy, whereas they might not be acting up if they did not have hope that someone will come to their aid. The aid may or may not come, as we have seen, albeit in a different context in Iran’s election this year. Yes, there is an Internet revolution, but how many governments have fallen because of it thus far? Well, maybe time will tell. 

 The distinction, however, is in the involvement of the media, such as radio programming, not the technology of radio as a tool. It is in fact, what the information radio carries, rather than radio as a technological tool. State actors know the power of the media all too well, so in numerous regimes the media is censored. Technology today serves as a tool to raise awareness, and that awareness may lead to an intervention of the international actors.

The problem, however, is whether there is an actor interested in intervening. My feeling is that unless there is a national interest in intervention, chances are the intervention will either not happen at all or not be timely. The tricky question for any politician authorizing intervention is: how can we prove genocide was prevented? Moreover, of course, Dr. Betts‘ “illusion of an impartial intervention,” or “Who does the intervener pick as a winner?”

Other distinguished authors, such as Mr. Mathew Levinger, in his article on Geographical Information Systems Technology as a Tool for Genocide Prevention: The Case of Darfur, published in Space and Polity, writes on the topic of early warning and views technology as one of the possible avenues for early warning. He posits that the value of the Geographic Information System (GIS), such as Google Earth may not be for the public advocacy; rather its value is for policy practitioners by “stimulating more effective responses to emerging threats of genocide.”

In this article, Mr. Levinger uses a metaphor of Panopticon, the ideally built prison that needs only one guard to monitor all the inmates. However, who is the guard in the world of state sovereignty? The local hegemons may not have national interest in intervention, besides they would need to determine who wins. (This brings us to entirely separate discussions of negative peace and structural violence, which is not the topic of this blog.) The U.N. or a local organization such as the African Union that are under-financed. The U.N. intervention is also at the mercy of the Security Council’s  veto. The NATO responsibility is restricted to Europe and its interests are no different from the U.S. interest. In my opinion, it is certainly beneficial to have real- time electronic conflict maps in forming public opinion and advocacy; but Google Earth may not be the best tool for an early genocide warning application. Additionally, by itself, GIS is not likely to spur other state’s intervention once the villages in the offending state are burning.

Patrick Meier gives a critique of Mr. Levinger’s article by bringing up three points: Google Earth layer is not updated, the Museum has produced only Google Earth layer for every corner of Earth, and a correlation between virtual globes and a Global Panopticon effect is difficult to prove. Clearly, all of his remarks are to the point and relevant.

So, maybe Google Earth may not be the best tool for early genocide warning as there are other technology applications, such as the websites of Amnesty International and Ushahidi  that provides real-time witness updates that are serving as excellent awareness and publicizing tools. They serve in opposition to the offending governments who, naturally, want to keep abuses hidden from the international public view.

The report lays out recommendations in a comprehensive fashion separating them into categories such as early warning, early prevention, and preventive diplomacy, employing military power and strengthening international regimes. The recommendations are well thought out and relevant. Most of all, these recommendations actually stand a chance of being used by practitioners. I will be referring to this source throughout my blog.