Home › News › 2009 Press Kit ›

Strategic Focus: The Horn of Africa

Printer-friendly versionPDF version

The “Three Ps” for Confronting Mass Atrocities

Despite the world’s repeated pledges of “Never Again,” our collective response to genocide and mass atrocities has rarely matched our stirring rhetoric. Again and again, the international community has failed to act decisively when confronted with the specter of innocent civilians being killed in large numbers.

Several factors contribute to this paralysis: public opinion is rarely mobilized until after killings reach a crescendo and global decision makers define these crises as humanitarian challenges and do not accord them the required attention and resources. Indifference and inertia drive our inaction, and the world is often reluctant to stand up to those committing the worst abuses or take the risks, and make the investments, that can stop and even prevent these crises.

The good news is that there is a growing consensus that the world cannot stand idly by when a state fails to protect its own people from, or is in some cases the actual perpetrator of, genocide or other mass atrocities. The better news is that together, the world’s citizens and leaders can abolish mass atrocities and genocide.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to preventing, mitigating, or stopping, mass atrocities. But there is an effective common strategy that can lead to success. And it is a simple one, built on promoting peace; protecting civilians; and punishing the perpetrators. Pursued concurrently and calibrated appropriately, these “three Ps” can achieve the immediate goal of ending mass atrocities while also helping to prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future.

PEACEMAKING

Forging agreements that address the root causes of conflict and create the conditions for durable peace requires sustained international engagement. Paradoxically, however, the world spends far more effort and resources responding to the humanitarian consequences of war than in the investments that might prevent or end armed conflicts and the mass atrocities that often arise from them. The international community most often reacts, providing humanitarian assistance rather than undertaking the aggressive diplomacy needed to forge just and durable settlements. As the survivor of one long-running conflict starkly put it, “They simply want to make sure that we are well fed when we are shot.”

An emphasis on peacemaking, with external influence and diplomacy applied appropriately and judiciously, can prevent incalculable human suffering and also save billions of dollars. A landmark study by Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict suggests that the old adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”rings true. In the case of Rwanda, they calculate that preventive and sustained engagement might have cost $1.3 billion. But the international community actually spent more than $4.5 billion responding in the aftermath of the genocide.

Peacemaking takes time, a level of diplomatic and economic investment that far surpasses the status quo. It requires tight coordination with our allies. It demands serious partnerships between international institutions, regional and external governments, and dedicated resources to back up sustained engagement. It cannot be pursued on the cheap, or absent a willingness to take risks. It can yield results – but only if we make it a priority.

PROTECTION

The world’s failure to protect human life when it is threatened en masse remains one of the most significant failures of the international community. In light of this failure, former UN General Assembly Kofi Annan endorsed in September 2005 the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect”, which affirms that the international community, through the United Nations, has a responsibility to act when governments cannot or will not protect their citizens from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Although some 150 heads of state and the UN Security Council adopted this new international norm, this new principle is being tested, and with dismal results. In Darfur, in eastern Congo, in northern Uganda and elsewhere, the international community has thus far failed to act decisively to assume its responsibility to protect vulnerable civilians. Despite the affirmation of the ‘responsibility to protect,’ diplomats and politicians still invoke the primacy of state sovereignty over the protection of vulnerable civilians. In doing so, the international community often enters into a surreal bargain, essentially asking the same governments that are responsible for mass atrocities for permission to stop the killing.

While protecting civilians does not always require military intervention, it does demand that the international community employ all of the tools at its disposal. The presence of human rights monitors and protection officers from humanitarian agencies, for example, can sometimes provide limited protection to potential victims and serve as a useful deterrent. Economic pressures imposed against governments or parties responsible for committing mass atrocities can, in some cases, compel them to stop.

There are also cases where combating mass atrocities does demand military intervention. All diplomatic means (including coercive ones) should be employed to secure the consent of the relevant parties before deployment, but the desire for consensual intervention should not allow the perpetrators of mass atrocities to exercise a veto over international action. When consent is not forthcoming, the international community must consider the legitimacy and viability of military action. If the threshold is met, the intervening force should be multilateral (ideally through the UN or another regional organization), accountable, endowed with the appropriate military capacities, and mandated to protect civilians by all means necessary.

While the diplomacy might be complicated, the costs significant, and the risks high, the bottom line is clear. In the face of mass atrocities, the international community must focus clearly and unequivocally on the protection of civilians, and act on its responsibility to afford that protection.

PUNISHMENT

A failure to hold individuals accountable for mass atrocities leads to a culture of impunity on the battlefield and encourages warring parties to rightly believe that there are no consequences for attacking civilians. Taking appropriate punitive action to hold perpetrators responsible for their actions can help to end individual conflicts, but when accountability is pursued more comprehensively, the message to the perpetrators changes. The costs are clear, and the international community is armed with an effective deterrent.

The International Criminal Court is the best legal mechanism to try perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocide when host-country courts are unwilling or unable to do so. To ensure the Court’s effectiveness and impartiality, the international community must cooperate fully with its investigations and help relieve the prosecutor of the burden of deciding whether to suspend an investigation in the interests of justice and peace. This role should be left to the UN Security Council, which has the responsibility for maintaining and restoring international peace and security. But like the UN Security Council, the ICC can only achieve its full potential if all of the world’s governments endorse its legitimacy. As the ICC gains strength and influence over time, international support should also be provided to local efforts – national tribunals, truth and reconciliation commissions, or local prosecutions – can also help to break the cycle of impunity. There are other legal instruments that can be applied – in the United States, for example, the Alien Claims Tort Act and the Torture Victim Prevention Act allow individual victims of gross human rights violations to take the accused perpetrators to court. The rule of law offers a potent counterforce to the culture of impunity – but so does the wallet. Another way to punish the perpetrators is to make them pay. Asset freezes, trade and arms embargoes applied multilaterally – either through the UN or a “coalition of the willing” – incur real costs, and can be targeted to punish individuals or companies without adversely impacting innocent civilians. Financial pressure can also be brought to bear through divestment. When shareholders dump stock and banks suspend loans for companies associated with accused human rights violators, they create a financial disincentive for a regime or individuals who profit from these companies.

Visit Our Focus in Africa

<< Enough's Experts  Press Kit Home Page   From Strategy to Action >>