Genocide, Humanitarian

Intervention, and R2P

1) What is a genocide?

From the Genocide Convention: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Rwanda fits. Extremist Hutus were trying to extinguish the Tutsi people, "final solution."

2) What is a humanitarian intervention?

The use of military forces in another state with the aim of providing protection or relief to the civilian population.  This may often require peacekeeping missions authorized by the UN, EU, NATO, or another body. Occasionally, humanitarian interventions are carried out by single states operating on their own. But, the global consensus is increasingly that these interventions should be internationally authorized and multilateral. 

3) What is R2P?

R2P stands for the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.  R2P is an evolving international norm that members of the international community have a responsibility to engage in a humanitarian intervention if large-scale human suffering is occurring. 

4) What does all this mean for peacekeeping operations?

Cold War peacekeeping was characterized by:

• Operations were limited in number due to lack of agreement on the UN Security Council.
• Went in where had agreement of ALL parties concerned, or the host state if there was just one state involved.
• Involved interposition of lightly armed/unarmed “blue helmets” between combatants, following an agreed-upon ceasefire.
• Took place outside superpower spheres of influence.
• UN role as impartial in dispute—goal to allow parties to resolve, not to take sides.

New-style peacekeeping is characterized by: 

• Greater numbers (from 1988-2000, more PKOs than in previous 40 years!)
• Expanded geographic scope (into former superpower spheres of influence).
• Expansion of kinds of missions (humanitarian assistance, nation building).
• Went from early ‘90s great optimism, more numbers to fewer and less optimism in the later 90s.  Today, more tempered but still some ambitious projects (Congo, 18,000 personnel, $1 billion a year).  US has stepped back after Somalia. Encourages regional organizations to participate.

Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur examples of murkier, confusing post-Cold War types of missions.  Peace making rather than peace keeping?

5) Why did the genocide in Rwanda happen?

• Economic factors, competition over land, one of the most densely populated agricultural countries in the world.

• Colonial/historical reasons: Belgians separating the two groups and favoring the Tutsi, created classes and grievance on the part of the majority Hutus.  Tutsis had long dominated Hutus (this is controversial). 

• Ethnic hatred. Hutu propaganda.  Political entrepreneurs selling hatred to advance themselves.

• Not a mass frenzy of killing, planned, lists of names.

6) Why did the outside world not do more to stop the slaughter?

• These kinds of killings just happen in Africa, 40,000 killed earlier in the '90s in Burundi next door

• Somalia disaster 1993 where American troops killed/for what?

• Racism. Care about white people in Bosnia but not black people in Rwanda.

• French protected the Hutus with whom they had a long relationship.

• Africa not important, no national interest, no knowledge of Africa in US government.

• Many believed this would be a quagmire, trapped in ancient hatreds.

• UN-Kofi Annan knew there was no will or resources. Didn’t push. Wouldn’t let Dallaire act.  Believed that Dallaire’s intelligence was being manipulated.  Didn’t believe about arms caches.

• Other reasons:

• Clinton lack of credibility with the military.

• US embassy: couldn’t imagine something that awful happening.

• Genocidaires knew weak desire of Westerners. Attack Belgian peacekeepers to drive the foreigners out (and it worked).

• Catholic Church failed to condemn Hutu extremism (Hutus in church, didn’t want to lose out?)

• US paying more attention to Bosnia and Haiti at the same time, Rwanda fell through the cracks.

• Rwanda a sovereign state. Increasingly being transgressed: Somalia, East Timor, International courts but not in this case.

• None in the US to advocate, no constituency.  Military was anti-intervention, anti-PKO. No Rwandan Americans to lobby.

7) How would a US liberal advocate dealing with a situation such as the Rwandan genocide?

We should care as much about Rwandans as we do about Americans. We are all part of a common humanity.  This tragedy is on such a scale that it rises to the level of an international concern.  Intervening to halt the genocide would be in keeping with past legal agreements, like Genocide Convention, that planned slaughter of a people group should not be allowed to happen.  We must intervene, if we are able to make a difference.  Right has to stand up, with military force if necessary, against wrong.  We must light the way into a better future by behaving morally and building a better world through our actions.  The genocidal Hutu regime in Rwanda will represent a threat to regional peace and security.  It is in the best interest of all that the regime be stopped.

8). How would a US realist?

Politics is about power and national interest. US has no national interest in Rwanda (no security interest, no economic interest, no resource interest, no interest PERIOD).  No desire to get sucked into tribal warfare in Africa.  Quotation from Rwandan human rights activist: US no interest in seeing our boys come home in coffins.  US has to take care of itself; Rwandans have to help themselves.  Therefore, Clinton administration acted properly in not intervening.

9) Is R2P realist of liberal?

10) Is humanitarian intervention realist or liberal?

11) How is the crisis in Darfur similar to or different from what happened in Rwanda?

Similar: Genocide (called by both Bush and Powell)

None of the organized factions with clean hands, murky. Groups splinter, some go to working with government.

Relative failure of international effort to protect civilians.

Protectors on Security Council prevent action: Russia, China.

Fear of losing troops over Africa: US and others.

Largely hidden from view.  Outside world has only glimpses of the violence.

Charges brought by international courts. ICC for Darfur.  ICTR for Rwanda.

No peace for peackeepers to keep.

PKO just a "band-aid" on a much larger, more complicated problem.

Different: UN force didn't protect genocidaires but ineffective nonetheless.

Late updated: August 11, 2011.

Author: tanp@uncw.edu

Back to Dr. Tan's webpage: http://people.uncw.edu/tanp/