Genocide and humanitarian intervention - Essay Example

genocide and Humanitarian intervention Genocide is not peculiar to human beings. It is now considered a perversion. But it “used to be considered socially acceptable”. (Diamond, 1991) At the advent of the twentieth century, almost half of the countries of the world were colonized by a clutch of European countries; the largest being the empire of the U. K. Hence even if there were humanitarian crises, they were contained within the colony and the ruling countries. The 20th century witnessed two World Wars, literally hundreds of civil wars, coups d’état and armed insurrections. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the start of humanitarian crises; the Tsars were exterminated, and a pogrom against Jews saw mass migration and a change in the world order. State-sponsored ethnic cleansing in Germany in pursuit of the pure Aryan race led to the Holocaust. But the international community reacted only when Germany started overt acts of invasion of surrounding countries and acts of war against the U. S. A. Even then, the reaction was not that of intervention, but of defense of respective territories. However, as stories of the atrocities against Jews started coming out, the international community reacted. A convention on Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in 1948.This was perhaps the first humanitarian crisis that the world as a whole reacted to. But there is no collective will of the nations to implement it. U. S. A. has not ratified the convention. The guilty go unpunished because of this apathetic attitude. The end of the Cold War ushered in dreams of peace and a new world order. But the harmony was shattered in the early 1990s with the explosion of ethnic conflict and humanitarian tragedies. But there were the “new wars” at the end of the 20th century (Pattison, 2008; Hobsbawm, 1994). With the advent of satellite TV, images of extreme bloodshed and violence were broadcast into the millions of homes around the world. For the first time, the better placed portion of humanity was confronted with images of mass carnage, violence and other humanitarian crises. Gradually, a groundswell calling for a decisive role for governments in ending these humanitarian crises and conflicts emerged, governments were pressurized to act. France, U. K. and U. S. the Allied forces in WW II have advocated direct military action in ending a conflict. But most governments have traditionally favored other instruments of diplomacy: political pressure, economic sanctions and imposed settlement through international bodies such as the United Nations. This is because what is to be told to the countrymen by the State may not be the best solution to the problem at hand. Hence even if there is outrage against the State for not rushing to restore peace in an area of conflict, the government may not do so. Foreign policy rhetoric of a State may be politically relevant but not always practically possible. Carleton & Stohl (1985). While military intervention is used very carefully, the international community has considered some type of military intervention in ending many crises. But military intervention, alongwith such other siblings as Peace Keeping Cores, Red Cross, Medicin Sans Frontiers comes with its own shortcomings and nuisance value. Military operations of course will cause “collateral damage” i.e. innocent people will die along with those who have provoked gunfire. The people really needing medical attention may be deprived in case the international teams tend to the wounded soldiers on both sides. The innocent populace, not being the target group for international agencies, is deprived even of basic medical care. In such circumstances, it is a debatable point whether any intervention is beneficial to the people towards whom it is directed. Human rights are key determinants of foreign policy. But how does the protection of human rights on a global scale influence the stated policies of governments around the world? When genocide occurs, it is natural for the international community to react. But does the international community have a duty to respond in cases of genocide and extreme human rights abuses? (Boettcher, 2004; Bloom, 2005; Glover, 2000). And further, does the international community have sanction to intervene? The Convention on Genocide does provide some sanction, but it has not been effective. This report is being prepared for Sociologists for Human Rights, an international nongovernmental organization. The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the human rights issue apropos genocide and intervention of foreign states. This paper will explore arguments by two major scholars, Bruce Cronin and James Pattison. James Pattison 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 (Abbott, 200). On the contrary, it is the theory of Bruce Cronin that the principle of sovereignty of nation states is abrogated by this sort of intervention. The paper is an attempt to understand this important and incredibly timely issue (Archibugi, 2005). International Humanitarian Intervention 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 practically everything (United Nations 1948). Setting 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). 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) (United Nations, 1948). Pattison’s view James Pattison highlights the moral imperative associated with humanitarian intervention in the face of genocide and mass human rights abuse.In his recent article “Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who Should Intervene?” it is argued 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, 2008) Humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping missions have proliferated in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Intervention by the United Nations, by the United States or by regional groups such as the Organization of African States or this or that International Peace Keeping Force has become a norm in countries where there is no central authority strong enough to quell fighting between two sides. There is an increased acceptance of humanitarian intervention in the international realm. The emphasis on freedom from external interference for adopting policies within its own boundaries has shifted to the state’s sovereignty as responsibility to secure peace and betterment of its subjects. The earlier concept provided a shield for weak states from interference by larger and more powerful states, but also provided impunity to despots who violated human rights of its citizens. Humanitarian intervention, from the perspective of the original concept of nation-state is unjustifiable, but no longer sacrosanct. The concept of sovereignty has changed to become “the responsibility to uphold citizens basic human rights” (Pattison, 2008, 397-398). 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. When genocide occurs, as in Darfur, the international community must intervene and put an end to the human rights violations which are occurring (Q & A: Sudan, 2009). Questions of Sovereignty - Cronin’s View There are many conflicts regarding the duty to respond on the one hand and state sovereignty and violation of human rights on the other. Issues surrounding international collective actions and questions of state sovereignty about the duty to intervene should be considered in the case of genocide and alleged human rights abuses. It is the sovereignty of state that is paramount because if that is eroded by overt or covert act of foreign nations, the authority of the state itself will vanish. In his recent Human Rights Review article, “The Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide” Bruce Cronin deals with the tensions that exist between the duty to respond to human rights violations and the principle of state sovereignty. Historically the principle of state sovereignty has overruled attempts by outsiders to intervene in the domestic matters of a state. But, the entrenchment of a universal human rights dialogue has paved the way for more of an interventionist outlook in political affairs. International law places much emphasis on the question of state sovereignty apropos 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, 2007, 24). 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. The principle derived from Westphalian peace treaties was “culious regio, eius religio” , which loosely translated means “whose realm, his religion”. The ruler was sovereign. Sovereignty comes with responsibility. Cronin advocates the precedence of sovereignty over the duty of international community to respond to humanitarian crises. Consensus is very difficult to achieve when it comes to making the decision to intervene in the internal affairs of state. International community has been hampered by much division on the subject of what constitutes a justified violation of state sovereignty. While political leaders may feel it expedient to intervene in instance of genocide, issues surrounding collective action and the ability for states to muster the political will in order to engage in intervention remain uncertain. Humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Rwanda and Sudan have been highly charged political matters with numerous ramifications for the potential interveners (Cronin, 2007). Understanding of Human Rights Violations: An Overview The notion of international human rights is a relatively new concept which has gained many adherents throughout the world. With the belief that human rights have universal features, the international community has stepped in when human rights are violated en masse. Though human rights have been 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. Since the end of World War II there has been international consensus that human rights abuse and genocide are unacceptable. But there is a dilemma between the duty to respond and the concept of state sovereignty. Genocide is never spontaneous and unexpected, according to Cronin. It is a protracted issue which takes years to materialize. Most scholars and political leaders 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 human rights violations have taken place. As a result, with the external intervention of an outside power in the domestic affairs of a state is questionable. Bruce Cronin is not against a duty to respond in the case of mass human rights abuse and genocide. He asserts that there are many dilemmas which must be properly understood in order to pave the way for adequate human rights intervention in the face of human rights abuses. 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,” Cronin highlights the collective action issues as well as those associated with intervention in the face of mass human rights abuse (Cronin, 2007). But Cronin ignores the fact that tragedies like genocide have multiple ramifications. The victims may have sympathizers in other countries, which may go beyond call of duty to intervene and might intervene without international sanction. This might trigger a bigger conflict considering the fact that nations have an inherent desire to be at war. Nations have an impulse in them to war, regardless of means and the ends to be achieved. Bertrand Russell, in his brilliant essay “War as an Institution,” analyzes the basic instinct of a people to be at war. (Russell 1916) Laws should be followed, but within bounds of the country where they opeate. When a nation is at war, all laws are suspended as against the other nations, and as Pattison argues, jus in bello is replaced by ad bellum. On the other hand, the argument advanced by Cronin presupposes that the ends do not justify the means. The arguments by Pattison fail because the so called superpowers abuse the charter of the united nations The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UNCG) established 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. 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 impending genocide in the southern Sudan. The last hundred years have witnessed 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 theuni versalised in the 21st century as 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 (Forsythe, 2000). 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 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, 2007). 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. Concluding Remarks 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 per James Pattison, 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 (Butler, 2003). 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. This duty is a moral one with important ramifications throughout the globe (Weiss, 2004). references Abbott, C. (2005). Rights and Responsibilities: The Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention. Global Dialogue 7(1-2), 1-14. Archibugi, D. (2005). Cosmopolitan Humanitarian Intervention is Never Unilateral. International Relations 19(2), pp.220-4. Ayoob, A. (2002). Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Journal of Human Rights, 6.1 , 81-102. Barry, J. & Thomas, E. (2000). The Kosovo Cover-Up. Newsweek. Bloom, M (2005). Dying to Kill. New York: Columbia University Press. Butler, M.J. (2003). U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945-1994: An Empirical Inquiry of Just War. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47:2, 226-248. Boettcher III, W.A. (2004). Military Intervention Decisions regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior. The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48:3, 331-355. Carleton, D., Stohl, M. (1985). Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Human Rights Quarterly, 7,205-229. Cronin, B. (2007). The Tension Between Sovereignty and Intervention in the Prevention of Genocide. Human Rights Review 8(4), 24-44. Farer, T.J. (2005). Cosmopolitan Humanitarian Intervention: A Five-Part Test. International Relations 19. 2, 211-20. Forsythe, D.P (2000). Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy. New York: United Nations University Press. Heinze, E.A. (2003). Waging War for Human Rights: Towards a Moral-Legal Theory of Humanitarian Intervention. Human Rights and Human Welfare, 3, 83-94. Hobsbawm, E. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus. Glover, J. (2000). Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press. Morgenthau, H. (1951). In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pattison, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who Should Intervene? The International Journal of Human Rights 12(3), 395-413. “Q&A: Sudans Darfur conflict”. (2009). British Broadcasting Corporation. Last Accessed November 16 2009 The United Nations (1948). New York: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Russell, Bertrand (1916) Principles of Social Reconstruction. London: Allen and Unwin Weiss, T.G. (2004). The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era. Security Dialogue 35(2), 149-152. Read More