Lessons from Rwanda: The United Nations and the Prevention of Genocide

• Home
• About the Programme
  • General Assembly Resolution
  • Preventing Genocide
  • Supporting Survivors
• Discussion Guide
• Exhibit
• Visions of Rwanda
• Audio/Visual Resources
• Annual Commemoration
• Survivor Testimonies
• Key Documents
• Additional Resources
• Contact Us
• UN Homepage

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Who is responsible for protecting vulnerable peoples?

Starting on 6 April 1994 following the deaths of the Presidents of Burundi and Rwanda in a plane crash caused by a rocket attack, intense and systematic massacres of minority ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutus took place in Rwanda over several weeks. The killings, which resulted in the deaths of many as one million people, shocked the international community and were clearly acts of genocide. An estimated 150,000 to 250,000 women were also raped.

On 7 April, the Prime Minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, a moderate Hutu leader, was brutally murdered together with ten Belgian peacekeepers assigned to protect her. Other moderate Hutu leaders were similarly assassinated. After the massacre of its troops, Belgium withdrew the rest of its force. On 21 April, after other countries asked to withdraw troops, the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR),mandated to oversee the peace accords that ended the civil war the previous year, was reduced from an initial 2,165 to 270.

The Rwandan tragedy was compounded by the faltering response of the international community. The capacity of the United Nations to reduce human suffering in Rwanda was severely constrained by the unwillingness of Member States to respond to the changed circumstances in Rwanda by strengthening UNAMIR’s mandate and contributing additional troops.

Background: The emergence of the concept of “humanitarian intervention”

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Kosovo in 1995 and 1999, the international community began to seriously debate how to react effectively when citizens’ human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The issue at the heart of the matter was whether States have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene militarily in a country for humanitarian purposes.

It was during this period in the 1990s, with incidents in Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Kosovo, that the discussion of a “right to humanitarian intervention” evolved into the concept of a “responsibility to protect”.

In his Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recalling the failures of the Security Council to act in a decisive manner in Rwanda and Kosovo, put forward the challenge to Member States:

From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect – the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.

The Commission’s report stated that the responsibility to protect (R2P) embraces THREE specific responsibilities:

• responsibility to prevent by addressing both the root and immediate causes of conflicts within countries, as well as other man-made crises;
  
  
• responsibility to react by responding appropriately to situations of massive human rights violations by, for example, imposing sanctions, bringing international prosecution; and, in extreme cases, intervening with military force;
  
  
• responsibility to rebuild by providing full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation particular after any military intervention
  
  

Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report (2004)

In 2004, the High-level on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, endorsed the emerging norm of a responsibility to protect, stating that use of force by the international community was a possible step, if necessary and as a last resort.

The panel proposed some basic criteria that would legitimize the authorisation of the use of force by the Security Council “in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing and serious violations of humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent”, which include the seriousness of the threat, the fact that it must be a “last resort” and the proportionality of the response.

In Larger Freedom (2005)

In his report “In larger freedom”, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan “strongly agreed” with the approach outlined by the High-level Panel and suggested that the proposed criteria be applied for the authorization of the use of force in general.

World Summit Outcome (2005)

In September 2005, at the United Nations World Summit, all Member States formally accepted the responsibility of each State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At the Summit, world leaders also agreed that when any State fails to meet that responsibility, all States (the “international community”) are responsible for helping to protect peoples threatened with such crimes and that they should first use diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful methods. Then, if such methods are inadequate and if national authorities are “manifestly failing” to protect their populations, they should act collectively in a “timely and decisive manner” -- through the UN Security Council and in accordance with the Charter of the UN -- by using force.

The World Summit Outcome Document further stresses the “need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect”.

What is the UN doing?

The international community, through the UN, must now work to bring clarity to the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect in international law, to define its exact nature and content and who has the ultimate authority to determine when it should be enforced.

At the same time, the United Nations is looking at ways to protect targeted and vulnerable peoples by strengthening the international community’s ability to quickly identify and resolve problems before they escalate. These measures include behind the scenes diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict; humanitarian activities designed to save targeted people, improve their living conditions and ensure the observation of their rights; and “other peaceful measures” including building up people’s ability to protect themselves or the society’s ability to ensure their protection or making public statements or agreed-upon military interventions. In this way, it is hoped, the need for military intervention can be avoided.

What can You do?

• Ask your government to pass national laws against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without these, international laws often cannot be used by national courts to punish people responsible for genocide and other crimes in your country;
  
  
• Learn to recognise the stages to genocide
   – visit www.un.org/preventgenocide
  
  
• Call on governments to promote human rights for all, to practice good governance and to ensure that laws are obeyed by everyone;
  
  
• Lobby for better early warning systems so that action can be taken early to prevent violence before it begins;
  
  
• Lobby for governments and government leaders to advocate for inclusion of all groups in the political arena and fight discrimination of ethnic, racial, national or religious minorities;
  
  
• Ask governments to address problems of unfair access to resources or extreme poverty among specific groups, as these are often causes of discontentment and war.