Unlearning Intolerance
Critical Perspectives in Combating Genocide
By Sally Bolton, for the Chronicle
|
 |
| Seminar panellists (from left): Juan Méndez, Dina Temple-Raston, moderator Shashi Tharoor, Benjamin B. Ferencz, Simone Monasebian and Louise Mushikwabo.
Photo/S.K. Belal Hassan
|
Combating genocide was the focus of the fourth seminar in the “Unlearning Intolerance” series of the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI), held at UN Headquarters in New York on 21 November 2005. Jointly organized by DPI and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the seminar—“Critical Perspectives in Combating Genocide: What we can do to prevent. What we can do
during. What we must do after.”—brought together a distinguished panel of speakers, who have worked across a range of fields in the aftermath of genocide and continue to work tirelessly to prevent genocide from occurring again.
Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information Shashi Tharoor, who served as the moderator, introduced the speakers as “important figures in the quest for justice and the understanding of genocide”. The panel featured Juan Méndez, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide; Dina Temple-Raston, journalist and author of Justice on the Grass: Three Journalists, Their Trial for War Crimes, and a Nation’s Quest for Redemption; Simone Monasebian, Chief of the UNODC New York Office and a trial attorney for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, from 2000 to 2004; Louise Mushikwabo, a human rights activist and media commentator on Rwanda; and Benjamin B. Ferencz, one of the chief prosecutors for the post-Second World War Nuremberg Trials.
The seminar coincided with the sixtieth anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, an occasion that was foremost in the minds of the assembled panellists. Sixty years to the day after Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson presented his opening statement at the Trials, Mr. Méndez acknowledged that they “have been of crucial importance for the introduction of genocide as a legal concept”, while Ms. Monasebian quoted Justice Jackson in her opening remarks, stating that “civilization cannot survive these crimes being repeated”. Mr. Méndez, however, pointed out that despite the existence of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which took effect in 1951, “numerous cases of massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law have occurred” since the Convention’s adoption without triggering action. He further said: “All too often and sadly, the Darfur example is one such case. The debate over whether or not genocide is occurring becomes more important than taking action to reverse the situation and prevent further violations.”
 |
|
Autographed photo of Justice Robert H. Jackson (first row, third from right) with members of his prosecution team at the Nuremberg Trials. Photo/Charles Alexander, Office of the United States Chief of Counsel, courtesy of Harry S. Truman Library.
|
Mr. Méndez also called on the international community to “return to the legal and moral consensus of the aftermath of the Second World War and take the prevention of genocide seriously to avoid learning the same historic lessons over and over again”. He emphasized the recent establishment of the “responsibility to protect” in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document as an important development in the fight against genocide. “The responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity establishes a moral principle that was long overdue after the experiences of collective international failure in cases such as Rwanda and Srebenica.” He further said that “the responsibility to protect implies an accompanying responsibility to prevent”.
Simone Monasebian highlighted the important work that is being done by the UN system to respond to genocide, from the explicit work of the office of Mr. Méndez to the role of the United Nations Children’s Fund in helping children recover from such atrocities, as well as the role of DPI in addressing the root causes of violence through such education initiatives as the “Unlearning Intolerance” series. She emphasized the significant role civil society and individuals have played, stating that “it takes all of us to combat this beast called genocide”.
Dina Temple-Raston, in addressing the role the media can play in inciting and responding to genocide, talked about her experience in reporting on Rwanda and more recently on Darfur. The Rwandan genocide, which saw the Hutus kill an estimated 800,000 of the Tutsi minority in just 100 days, “was so quick and so efficient that we in the media were caught flat-footed, and many of us said at the time that we would never let that happen again”, she said. After covering President Bill Clinton’s apology at Kigali airport in 1997 for “standing on the sidelines of the slaughter”, she felt compelled to write a book about Rwanda, specifically on how the domestic media played a role in the genocide. “What’s undeniable is that the media in Rwanda during the genocide was very effective and was able to stir up all the colonial resentments between Hutus and Tutsis and became a very powerful force in inflaming the genocide.” On the role of the international media in such a crisis, she said, “as a journalist I am left wondering why we can’t be as powerful when we mean to do good, and specifically I am referring to the situation in Darfur”.
Louise Mushikwabo spoke from a very personal
perspective on the task of “picking up the pieces” in the aftermath of genocide. She was living in the United States in 1994, but lost many family members in the Rwandan genocide, and for the last 11 years has been trying to deal with the senseless acts that occurred. “I think, in terms of picking up the pieces and of unlearning intolerance, the State should be involved, because the State teaches intolerance.” There are three steps, she said, that a State needs to try to deal with genocide: first, the perpetrators must be made to understand the depth and the gravity of the crimes that they have committed; second, they have to accept that there has to be punishment for their crimes; and only then that the third step of meaningful trials and prosecution can occur and people attempt to again “live a normal life”.
“I have chosen to embrace whatever comes my way in terms of discussion, in terms of debate, in terms of understanding”, Ms. Mushikwabo said, “and I think that once you reach a certain level of understanding, then you are interested in prosecution and compensation and so forth.” Despite the atrocities committed against her family, her story of picking up the pieces was ultimately optimistic. “I have a very positive attitude 11 years after Rwanda, just because I never thought Rwandans would make it. I never thought when I returned to Rwanda in December 1995 that it would even ever get back to normal. The resilience of the Rwandan people makes me believe that anything is possible.”
Benjamin Ferencz focused on what can be done to prevent genocide, drawing on his experiences working on the Nuremberg Trials and serving as a soldier during the Second World War. “It seems to me that if you’re talking about what we can do to prevent, the first step is to understand the mentality of those who commit genocide, and that isn’t very well understood.” He described the mentality of the lead defendant in the trial against the Einsatzgruppen (SS extermination squads), General Otto Ohlendorf, who tried to justify the killing of 90,000 Jews under his direct command, as self-defense. “I had not been much impressed at that time with the argument that pre-emptive self-defense by pre-emptive attacks is a justification which is legally acceptable, and the judges did not accept it either”, Mr. Ferencz said. “So the first thing to do to prevent is to understand. There are people who don’t believe in the rule of law, they believe in the law of force. If you’ve got the power, use it, understand it, don’t condemn it, because you say, ‘well, they must all be madmen’. They are not. You have to understand the causes which drive them and try to deal with it accordingly.”
Mr. Ferencz emphasized the importance of building strong, credible and effective institutions for the rule of law, such as the Genocide Convention and the International Criminal Court, and equipping these institutions with the power to make it difficult or impossible for genocide to occur. On an individual level, he was adamant that everyone can and should play a role in combating genocide. “You can recognize the truth, you can work for the building of institutions, support the United Nations in all of these important efforts they are conducting”, and to those who are against these efforts, “let them know that you oppose their objections”, he said. “Those who don’t believe in the rule of law, they have got to be persuaded that law is better than war.” |
|
The DPI Unlearning Intolerance series encourages discussion between various civil society representatives and the United Nations system on how intolerance can be addressed by education, by inclusion and by example.
|
Talking with the Special Adviser on the Prevention of GenocideThe post of Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide was created as part of an action plan presented by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the Commission on Human Rights on 7 April 2004, on the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. The source of its mandate is Security Council resolution 1366 (2001), which approved “an effort to acknowledge lessons learned from the failure to prevent such tragedies as the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre in Srebrenica”, says Juan Méndez, who was appointed to the post in July 2004 and was serving as President of the International Center for Transitional Justice.
The functions of the Special Adviser include: collecting existing information, particularly from within the United Nations system, on serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law of an ethnic or racial origin, which if not prevented or halted may lead to genocide; acting as an early warning mechanism to the Secretary-General and through him to the Security Council, by calling attention to situations that could potentially result in genocide; making recommendations to the Council on actions to prevent or halt genocide; and liaising with the UN system on activities for the prevention of and working to enhance the UN capacity to analyze and manage information relating to genocide and other crimes.
Mr. Méndez sees his role in the wider context of efforts to create a culture of prevention within the Organization. “My office cannot be regarded as a universal early action and early warning mechanism for the prevention of genocide worldwide, but rather as an effort to improve the United Nations capability to respond to situations of potential violations of human rights and humanitarian law. The strong support of Member States, NGOs, academia and others is crucial in this effort.”
Describing his first year as Special Adviser,
Mr. Mendez says that he “found that both in the short and long term the prevention of genocide seems predicated in acting comprehensively in four interrelated areas”: protecting populations at risk against serious or massive violations of human rights or humanitarian law; establishing accountability for violations of human rights and humanitarian law that have already occurred; providing humanitarian relief for access to basic economic, social and cultural rights; and addressing underlying causes of conflict through peace agreements and transitional processes.
Pressing concerns for the Special Adviser’s Office include the role of hate media in inciting violence, such as in Côte d’Ivoire and the situation in Darfur. Of his September 2005 trip to Sudan, Mr. Mendez says that there is “a very dangerous situation of unraveling right now”, despite the lives that have been saved by the deployment of African Union troops and the massive humanitarian effort. He adds: “There is renewed fighting in all three of the Darfur states; there is a complete state of lawlessness in West Darfur, including in the capital, where armed groups, whether you call them Janjaweed or something else, very openly defy any sense of law and order. That is making the delivery of humanitarian aid very difficult and very dangerous, so that not only are there new displacements going on but the people who are displaced are beginning to lose contact with humanitarian assistance.”
Mr. Méndez is adamant that the international community needs to urgently reinforce the three-pronged approach of supporting the deployment of African Union troops, the massive humanitarian relief efforts and the peace talks in Nigeria. “Unless we act simultaneously on all fronts and aggressively on all fronts at the same time, I’m afraid that the situation is very dangerous. It may not go back to the level of killings of the campaign of 2003 and early 2004, but it’s an intolerable situation even if there weren’t new attacks and new killings.”
|
Go Back Top
|
|
Print