Countries should view sovereignty in a positive light as 'responsibility to protect' people, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide told MPs this week.
Dr. Francis Deng spoke to a joint meeting of the all-party parliamentary groups on genocide prevention, the great lakes region of Africa and the United Nations.
Dr Deng's approach signals a move "from treatment to prevention" of genocide.
The duty to protect theory argues that sovereignty should not be seen as a barricade to international involvement because sovereign states have a responsibility to protect populations from genocide.
If they cease to fulfil this it is right that the international community step in, he declared.
Dr Deng, who has won several distinguished prizes for his work on conflict resolution, said that a state of denial surrounds genocide, on the part of both the perpetrating state and the international community.
He told the audience that genocide is the most "heinous" of crimes and that having such an emotive and despised word in his title has hampered his attempts to establish dialogue with states.
"We need to de-mystify genocide and break it down," he added.
Commonly-held views were disputed by Dr Deng on two counts.
First, he declared that the potential for genocide is global - the phenomenon is not confined to developing states.
Second, he said the idea that strong states are imperialists who are always keen to intervene in the affairs of weaker states is misplaced.
In fact strong countries are often too reluctant to intervene.
The audience were invited to participate in the discussion.
"How can an outsider going to a sovereign nation talk to them about their power structures," one gentleman asked.
"We need to create an environment where nations are actually interested in being helped," Dr Deng responded.
This can be achieved by adopting a "regional and individual" approach to talks, he claimed.
Another questioner was interested to know how Deng's work could be applied to the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where up to six million lives have been claimed in a conflict that does not fit the "technical definition" of genocide.
Deng said that he has a broad remit which allows him to deal with the precursors of genocide and cases such as this.
An investigative journalist caused something of a stir when she criticised "secret talks" held by the UN Security Council during the Rwandan crisis.
Lord Hannay, a former ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations and chair of the UN Association in the UK, defended the institution.
"The security council cannot adopt a resolution or presidential statement without a public meeting," he said.
"Informal consultations cannot make those decisions and never do."
Dr Deng was more sympathetic.
He admitted relations between his office and the UN Security Council could be precarious.
To overcome this he has been taking a long-term and incremental approach to establishing ongoing and open communication channels, he said.
Article Comments
Great article Shelley on a subject that never recieves the political attention it deserves when compared to the moral outrage the concept of Genocide causes most people. However, I do have to disagree with Dr Deng when referring to his apparent rejection of the 'commonly held beliefs' with regards to Genocide. The potential for Genocide, as he correctly pointed out, is not exclusive to developing countries. However, the political system necessary for genocide is one in which dictatorship is more prevalent than western democracy. By western democracy (which I recognise has alot of faults and blood on its hands) I mean the situation where a political party can be potentially removed from power if the voters percieve that party to be morally corupt. What this produces is in Western democracies is most believing genocide to be an absolute moral violation, and so any party either embarking upon or moving towards genocide can be removed from power.For me, this type of political system is not necessary prevalent in developing countries, but is currently exclusive to developing nations. For Dr Deng to assert otherwise I believe is quite a naive world view with regards to the conditions necessary for genocide to occur and overly cautious in offending developing countries of being capable of genocide. It is clear to me that at present, genocide is seriously unlikely in any developed nation (Most countries need trade ties with the US and recognise Genocide would severly damage those ties? - just a thought) and to say that it is confinded to developed nations is not a slur on them as a race but a slur on the balance of power between those in power and those not- and of course the ethics of those in charge.
19th Nov 2009 at 2:06 pm by Richard Gunning
