Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention - Research Paper Example

 The 20th century was arguably one of the most violent in human history. Accordingly, this century witnessed two World Wars, a Holocaust, literally hundreds of civil wars, coup d’états and armed insurrections, as well as a Cold War. The end of the Cold War ushered in dreams of peace and prosperity and a new world order with the United States and liberal democracy firmly entrenched as the dominant political power and ideological system in international affairs. Optimistic dreams of a new world order in which markets were free and peace was global, became the modus operandi following the end of the Cold War. Despite optimistic dreams, harmony was shattered in the early 1990s with the explosion of ethnic conflict and humanitarian tragedies on the grandest scale. Ethnic conflict threatened the territorial integrity of countries throughout the world including Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Liberia in Africa; Bosnia and Kosovo in Eastern Europe; state-sponsored ethnic cleansing in East Timor in Asia and extreme violence on the North American island nation of Haiti. These were the “new wars” at the end of the 20th century (Pattison 395-414; see Hobsbawm 1994). While ethnic conflict and humanitarian crises have existed since the dawn of time, for the first time ever images of extreme bloodshed, violence and even genocide were broadcast into the millions of people around the world, from New York to New Delhi and from London to Lagos. Images of children being slaughtered, women being raped and people brutalized were beamed into the living rooms of concerned citizens all over the world, for all to see. For the first time the public was confronted, on a near daily basis, with images of mass carnage, violence and humanitarian crisis. People pressed their congressmen, parliamentarians and state representatives to act and, in varying degrees, a groundswell calling for a decisive role for governments in ending these humanitarian crises and conflicts emerged. Although some wanted direct military action, often French, British or American, in ending a particular conflict, most governments have traditionally favored other instruments of diplomacy: political pressure, economic sanctions and imposed settlement through international bodies such as the United Nations. As Carleton, & Stohl (1985) have emphatically demonstrated, a foreign policy rhetoric may be politically salient but not always political possible. While support for military intervention was certainly not the operative interventionist choice for most in the cases mentioned in the introductory paragraph above – for example, how many Americans before 1994 could locate Rwanda on a map? – in each case presented above, the international community did consider some type of military intervention in ending the respective crises. Are human rights a key determinant of foreign policy? If so, how does the protection of human rights on a global scale influence the stated policies of governments around the world? When genocide occurs, is it incumbent upon the international community to act? Accordingly, does the international community have a duty to respond in cases of genocide and extreme human rights abuses? (Boettcher, 333; Bloom 13-25; see Glover, 2000 for an in-depth analysis of the international community’s response to genocide in Rwanda). Te purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the human rights issue of genocide and humanitarian intervention. With the aim of providing a thorough and concise overview of an incredibly timely issue, the following will explore arguments by two major scholars in the field regarding this important human rights issue. Bruce Cronin (2007) argues that there are many tensions surrounding the duty to respond and state sovereignty in the face of pending genocide. Thus, issues surrounding international collective actions and questions of state sovereignty may trump concerns about the duty to intervene in the case of genocide and alleged human rights abuses. On the other end of the coin, James Pattison (2007) emphatically argues that the principle of state sovereignty cannot be used to mask genocide and mass human rights violations. States have a duty to respond and there is a moral imperative for action in the case of genocide and mass human rights abuse. The analysis of each scholar will be thorough and will demonstrate how each allows us to understand the important human rights issues of genocide and humanitarian intervention. Following this, an overview of how the infringement of human rights can be tackled by the world community will explore the work of multiple scholars as it relates to understanding this important and incredibly timely issue. Our case analysis will focus on the war-torn region of Darfur in Sudan and ask whether or not the international community can sit idly still while violence occurs. If genocide is proven, the international community must respond to the atrocities in Darfur. We now turn to the arguments for and against international humanitarian intervention (see also Archibugi 2005, Abbott 2000). International Humanitarian Intervention Political philosopher James Pattison does an excellent job of highlighting the moral imperative associated with humanitarian intervention in the face of genocide and mass human rights abuse. Although many people talk about human rights and the importance of preserving them, few actually know how to define the term. The concept of human rights is best defined by the United Nations, which, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, contains 30 articles and emphasizes universal freedom and equality and prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (United Nations 1948). Seeing human rights as a common standard and guaranteeing rights in the political, social and economic realms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promotes the right to life, liberty and the security of the person (3), prohibits slavery (4), torture (5) and promotes the right to legal recognition before the law (6). Although a full definition of the entire UN Declaration of Human Rights is unnecessary here, it is important to keep these concepts in mind with respect to genocide and the international duty to intervene as codified in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UNCG) (Pattison 395-400; United Nations, 1948). Accordingly, in his recent article “Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who Should Intervene?” James Pattison argues that the duty to respond in the face of genocide and mass human rights violations trumps concerns of state sovereignty in the international system. Pattison begins by highlighting the fact that questions surrounding international human rights and humanitarian intervention in the 21st century was nearly discredited with the American-led invasion of Iraq. This was a war with “seemingly questionable motives” (Pattison 395) which threatened to fundamentally harm the humanitarian interventionist movement. Despite these concerns however, humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping missions have proliferated in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, intervention by the United Nations, by the United States or by regional groups such as the Organization of African States has occurred in earnest in recent time. According to Pattison, there is an increased acceptance of humanitarian intervention in the international realm. Furthermore, Underlying this apparently increased acceptance of humanitarian intervention has been a gradual change in the concept of sovereignty. As traditionally conceived, the principle of sovereignty emphasizes a state's freedom from external interference, so that it can pursue whatever policies it likes within its own boundaries. Although this notion of sovereignty as authority provided a legal and normative barrier that weaker states could use to fend off the interference of larger states, it presented the leaders of certain states with what was essentially a free hand to violate their citizens' human rights with impunity. Humanitarian intervention, from this perspective, is unjustifiable. Indeed, a key aspect of the traditional notion of sovereignty is the non-intervention principle. This notion of sovereignty as authority, however, is no longer sacrosanct. The concept of sovereignty has been gradually changing to one of sovereignty as responsibility, the responsibility to uphold citizens' basic human rights (Pattison, 397-398). James Pattison persuasively argues that state sovereignty is no longer a mask for the violation of human rights and that if a state does not protect the rights of its citizens, and engages in genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to respond through humanitarian intervention. This is a responsibility to protect which has become entrenched in international law. Utilizing cases such as Rwanda and Bosnia to emphasize the fact that international failures have occurred, Pattison argues that humanitarian intervention is a duty which is incumbent upon the international community in the face of mass human rights violations. When genocide occurs, as is alleged in Darfur, the international community must intervene and put an end to the human rights violations which are occurring. Despite much consensus within the international community about a duty to respond, there are still some scholars who argue that the sovereignty principle may in fact supersede the so-called duty of the international community to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state. Aiming to explore the multiple tensions which exist with respect to humanitarian intervention in questions of state sovereignty, the following explores scholar Bruce Cornin in comparative perspective (Q & A: Sudan 2009; Pattison, 395-400). Questions of Sovereignty? In the case of extreme human rights abuse and genocide, does the international community have a duty to respond? According to Bruce Cronin in his recent Human Rights Review article, “The Tension Between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide”, many tensions exist between the duty to respond to human rights violations and the principle of state sovereignty. Thus, while historically the principle of state sovereignty has overruled attempts by outsiders to intervene in the domestic matters of a state, the entrenchment of a universal human rights dialogue has paved the way for more of an interventionist outlook in political affairs. Importantly, Cronin highlights the fact that international law places much emphasis on the question of state sovereignty and individual domestic responsibility. This principle of sovereignty gives states the leverage to manage their domestic affairs and accordingly, “implicit in this entitlement is the right to be free from external interference in matters that are deemed to be domestic” (Cronin 24). Historically then, the principle of state sovereignty has provided the basis for the international concept of non-intervention in the affairs of others which has been a feature of the nation-state system since the days of Westphalia. Bruce Cronin does an excellent job highlighting the fact that with sovereignty comes with responsibility. Despite this, the notion of international human rights is a relatively recent concept which has gained many adherents throughout the world. With the belief that human rights have universal features and can be universalised, the international community has stepped in when human rights are violated en masse but scholar Bruce Cronin does an excellent job of highlighting some of the important problems with intervention since the end of the Second World War (Cronin 24-40). While not taking away from the fact that human rights have been universalised and codified since the establishment of the United Nations in 1948, Bruce Cronin highlights many of the problems associated with intervention and the abrogation of state sovereignty in the name of human rights. Despite the fact that since the end of World War II there has been a near universal international consensus that human rights abuse and genocide are unacceptable, there is an inherent tension with the so-called duty to respond and the question of state sovereignty. Accordingly, the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UNCG) establish the precedent and legal framework for states to respond to mass human rights violations in other states. This Convention effectively overrode the principle of state sovereignty and makes it incumbent upon the international community to respond in instances of genocide and mass human rights violations occur. Thus, Cronin emphatically demonstrates that consensus is very difficult to achieve when it comes to making the decision to intervene in the internal affairs of state and the international community has been hampered by much division on the subject of what constitutes a justified violation of state sovereignty. Accordingly, this scholar highlights the fact that while political leaders may have a duty to intervene in instance of genocide, issues surrounding collective action and the ability for political actors to muster the political capital in order to engage in intervention, remain apparent. Thus, the humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Rwanda and potentially in the Sudan have been highly charged political matters with numerous ramifications for the potential interveners (Cronin 24-44). Furthermore, Bruce Cronin argues that genocide is never spontaneous and unexpected but rather is a protracted issue which takes months and even years to materialize. Accordingly, most scholars and political leaders would argue that the most effective way to stop genocide is through prevention but since genocide is not spontaneous, one cannot intervene and ignore state sovereignty before any violations have taken place. As a result, there are many tensions associated with the external intervention of an outside power in the domestic affairs of a state. Importantly, Bruce Cronin is not adamantly against a duty to respond in the case of mass human rights abuse and genocide but believes that there are a variety of dilemmas which must be properly understood in order to pave the way for adequate human rights intervention in the face of mass human rights abuses. Thus, while admitting that “over the past decade the debate on whether states or international organizations are justified in violating a state’s sovereignty to prevent or stop genocide has shifted sharply in favor of external involvement’, this scholar does an excellent job of highlighting the collective action issues as well as those associated with intervention in the face of mass human rights abuse (Cronin 24-44). A Duty to Respond We live in an era in which violence is an important feature of the human existence and in which human rights are frequently abused. Within the past 70 years, we have witnessed a Holocaust in central Europe, ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe, genocide in central Africa and a pending genocide in the southern Sudan. Accordingly, the last hundred years have been some of the bloodiest in human history. James Pattison’s analysis of the moral responsibilities to intervene in the case of mass human rights violations and genocide provides an excellent example of the ways in which the human rights dialogue has become the universalised in the 21st century. This scholar has done an excellent job in helping to understand the human rights issue of genocide and the surrounding questions regarding the duty to intervene and the role of the international community in ensuring that an event such as the Holocaust in central Europe or mass genocide in Rwanda, never occurs again. Arguments for a duty to respond in the face of mass human rights violations are predicated upon the idea that human rights are universal and that the international community has a responsibility to protect the human rights of people around the world. The universality of human rights is a relatively recent concept and Pattison persuasively argues that while genocide may be a local event, the ramifications of mass slaughter are international. Countries which seek to kill an entire people cannot hide behind the cloak of sovereignty. In this respect then, Pattison, along with numerous scholars such as Eric A. Heinze (2003) & Tom J. Farer (2005), have done an excellent job helping readers understand the human rights issue in question as well as address the important questions surrounding genocide in the 21st century. When rights are infringed and mass slaughter is underway, the international community has a duty to respond and provide safety and security to those in need. While highlighting the more imperative behind the duty to intervene, Pattison helps us understand and address the human rights issues at play (Pattison 395-410; see Forsythe, 2000). Bruce Cronin, on the other hand, does an excellent job of highlighting the important questions and dilemmas faced by the international community in the event that human rights are violated and genocide is undertaken with impunity. This scholar persuasively highlights the global context of human rights and the humanitarian intervention debate but does not seek to understand the domestic reasons for genocide. With a focus on the international system and the rules of law which exist between states, this scholar focuses on the legal implications of state sovereignty while deemphasizing the issues surrounding the reasons for the intervention. Similarly, Ayoob, A. (2002) explores the issues surrounding state sovereignty as an overriding concern. Accordingly, the global context of the intervention is persuasively understood by Bruce Cronin but attempts at addressing the human rights issue of genocide do not provide an adequate solution. While Bruce Cronin admits that an interventionist discourse has overtaken concerns regarding state sovereignty, he raises important issues surrounding the concerns leading to intervention but does not appear to properly tackle or address the human rights issue in question. We now turn to an analysis of the conflict in the Sudan and seek to discover whether or not the international community has a duty to intervene in the alleged genocide in Darfur. CASE ANALYSIS: DARFUR Is the conflict between the Sudanese government and the inhabitants of Darfur an example of ethnic cleansing and modern genocide? If modern-day genocide is taking place in Africa, in the wake of what has happened in Rwanda, does the international community have a duty to respond to the conflict and intervene to put an end to the genocide? According to international law, yes. International norms put a burden on the global community to intervene in the case of extreme human rights abuse leading to genocide. It precisely for this reason that the Darfur conflict remains hotly contested and mired in controversy. According to many, human rights in Darfur are violated on a daily basis. Looking at the Universal declaration of Human Rights, the following rights have been violated in Darfur: Freedom from Discrimination; Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security; Right to Equality before the Law; Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile; Freedom of Belief and Religion. Darfur, a region in western Sudan, has been plagued by conflict between the central government and Darfur-based militias since 2003. This on-going conflict has turned into a humanitarian catastrophe. Accordingly, since the start of the war between rebellious groups in Darfur and government militias, between 200,000 and 400,000 Darfuris have been killed while up to 3,000,000 have been displaced. This conflict is particularly insidious because the conflict appears to have ethnic overtones as the belligerents are from different ethnic and cultural groups. The government in Sudan, headed by current President and former military strongman Omar al-Bashir, is largely composed of northern Sudanese who are ethnically Arab. The people of Darfur are ethically black African and are distinctively of a different ethnicity of the governing clique in Khartoum. Accordingly, this conflict has exacerbated the ethnic cleavages within Sudanese society (British Broadcasting Corporation 2009). The main protagonists in the war in Darfur include the ethnically Arab Sudanese government in Khartoum and the Janjaweed militia, a group of loosely affiliated militiamen on horseback, on one side and the ethnically African people of Darfur plus two rebel organizations, the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. The causes of the present conflict are varied and include access to resources, demands for autonomy, overpopulation and historical tribal animosities. As noted above, the ramifications of the present conflict include the killings of hundreds of thousands, the displacement and a life of squalor in refugee camps for up to 3 million Darfuris. For the government of Sudan, the conflict has been costly from a diplomatic perspective as Sudan remains diplomatically isolated with threats of sanctions hanging over its head. Additionally, Sudanese President al-Bashir may be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for having masterminded the genocide in Darfur. The response of the international community has been divided thus far on the issue of genocide in Darfur and while an African Union force has been mandated to keep the peace in the region, it has yet to be seen whether or not concerted military action will be taken by the Western powers to end the violent crisis in Darfur. An argument for Sudanese sovereignty cannot be a cloak for genocide in Darfur (British Broadcasting Corporation 2009). Concluding Remarks Do concerns for state sovereignty trump the concerns of the international community with respect to the maintenance of peace and stability and the safety and security of the person? As James Pattison emphatically demonstrates, the international community has a moral imperative to intervene in the case of mass human rights violations and genocide. This moral imperative supersedes questions of national responsibility and state sovereignty and makes it incumbent upon the international community to respond when human rights are being violated and when genocide is being undertaken. States can no longer hide behind the cloak of sovereignty and while Bruce Cronin does an excellent job of bringing to light the important tensions surrounding intervention in the 21st century, states can no longer engage in violence such as genocide and expect the world to sit back and watch. The United Nations universalized the concept of human rights and established international precedent through the UN Charter as well as the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The international community thus has a duty to respond when genocide is undertaken. The case of Darfur emphatically calls for action and the international community must respond. This duty is a moral one with important ramifications throughout the globe (Butler 227; Weiss 151-152). works cited Abbott, C. “Rights and Responsibilities: The Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention.” Global Dialogue 7.1-2 (2005), 1-14. Archibugi, D. “Cosmopolitan Humanitarian Intervention is Never Unilateral.” International Relations 19.2 (2005), pp.220-4. Ayoob, A. “Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty”. International Journal of Human Rights, 6.1 (2002_ , 81-102. Barry, J. & Thomas, E. The Kosovo Cover-Up. (2000). Newsweek. Bloom, Mia. Dying to Kill. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Butler, M.J. “U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945-1994: An Empirical Inquiry of Just War.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47:2(2003), 226-248. Boettcher III, W.A. “Military Intervention Decisions regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 48:3 (2004), 331-355. Carleton, D., Stohl, M. “Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan.” Human Rights Quarterly, 7 (1985), 205-229. Cronin, B. “The Tension Between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide.” Human Rights Review 8.4 (2004), 24-44. Farer, Tom J. “Cosmopolitan Humanitarian Intervention: A Five-Part Test.” International Relations 19.2 (2005), 211-20. Forsythe, D.P. Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy. New York: United Nations University Press, 2000. Heinze, Eric A. “Waging War for Human Rights: Towards a Moral-Legal Theory of Humanitarian Intervention.” Human Rights and Human Welfare, 3 (2003), 83-94. Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1994. Glover, J. Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Morgenthau, H. In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Pattison, James. “Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who Should Intervene?” The International Journal of Human Rights 12.3 (2008), 395-413. “Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict”. British Broadcasting Corporation. Last Accessed November 23 2009 < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.1998. New York: The United Nations. Weiss, T.G. “The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era.” Security Dialogue 35.2 (2004), 149-152. Read More