Print

Mail

wiki links

'Never again' ringing hollow

ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE

Never again," declared the world in the wake of the Holocaust. Yet, the motto of the half-century since, at least insofar as the world's response to genocide is concerned, might better be stated as "Again and again." Or, at any rate: "Never mind."

Indeed, whenever genocide begins, the world's usual response especially that of Western leaders -- is to turn away. From Hitler's attempted eradication of Europe's Jews to the Rwandan Hutus' extermination of the Tutsi in 1994, policymakers balked at intervening politically, economically, or militarily to obstruct such targeted destructions of minorities. For the most part, they have even refrained from denouncing the perpetrators, clinging to a sham neutrality or taking shelter in the fog of "imperfect information." Millions of innocent Bengalis, Cambodians, Kurds, Bosnians and Rwandans paid the price for this inaction, as did millions of Jews and Armenians earlier in the 20th century. That price, however, is also exacted from the rest of us, because when extremists are allowed to wipe out their neighbors, the victimized often become radicalized and militarized; they look to settle old scores not only against the perpetrators of genocide, but against those who abetted them.

`Those who fault the US, say, for its non-intervention in Rwanda and its intervention in Kosovo have not reckoned with the inconsistency of their own position.'

Many in the Islamic world today cite years of European and US inaction in Bosnia as one root of their resentment. Would-be killers themselves learn that hate and mass murder are legitimate, or at least effective, tools of statecraft. Western governments winked at Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds of northern Iraq in 1987 to 1988, but his agents may yet turn the chemicals he tested there on targets in Berlin, London, or Washington.

Even when genocide remains contained within borders, the violence eventually tends to spill over into neighboring states, igniting regional wars, undermining global stability, and eventually costing billions as the world starts to tend to the humanitarian byproducts of slaughter.

With genocide a real looming possibility in Burundi, Chechnya, Indonesia, Sudan, and elsewhere, what is to be done? To start, Western leaders should stop pointing fingers and take responsibility for their moral and strategic failings. Countries avoid action by claiming that it is someone else's job to lead. The US pleads over-extension, that it can't be "the world's policeman." Europe faults the "world's sole superpower" for standing idly by and then does nothing itself.

Both claims are partly right. The US probably lacks the capacity -- and the will -- to intervene militarily wherever the threat of genocide arises. The US record is marred by denial and absence of leadership, except when American strategic interests (Kosovo) or a president's domestic political concerns (eventually, Bosnia) become imperiled.

In their criticisms of the US, however, European leaders often speak as if they have done better. Wrong. Indeed, while Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurds, European governments were selling him weapons. If not for US resistance, John Major and Francois Mitterrand would likely have handed Bosnia over to the Serbs in 1993.

Moreover, Dutch peacekeepers failed to put up a fight or even sound a meaningful alarm when the Serbs stormed the town of Srebrenica, when some seven thousand Muslim men and boys might have been saved. In Rwanda, France armed the genocidal Hutu regime, and Belgium pulled out its peacekeepers though they were reporting corpses piling up like cordwood in Kigali.

In the few instances where the US took steps to alter the behavior of repressive states, Europe's governments and peoples expressed open skepticism about the sincerity of the US' humanitarian motives. But critics of the US can't have it both ways. Those who fault the US, say, for its non-intervention in Rwanda and its intervention in Kosovo have not reckoned with the inconsistency of their own position, which is highlighted by a grim counter-factual.

Had the US deployed troops to Rwanda early in that genocide, as innumerable critics (themselves silent at the time) argue retrospectively, dozens, maybe even hundreds, of Rwandans would likely have perished as the US intervened. Would these critics have accepted this or, instead, would they have condemned the US? The latter, more likely. General Dallaire, the UN commander in Rwanda who appealed for authority to confront the genocidaires, would also now likely be known as a trigger-happy alarmist. And we would never know about the 800,000 Rwandans that had been saved. Similarly, imperfect though NATO's bombing in Kosovo was, can anyone imagine how many Kosovar lives would have been lost had NATO remained on the sidelines?

Why focus on the prospect of further genocides now, when the threat of genocide seems secondary, say, to the War on Terror? Because, alas, if history is any predictor, another eruption of the genocidal impulse will not be long in coming. So the brief surcease we are enjoying is precisely the time when everyone (not just Americans and Europeans, but Japanese, Australians, South Africans-and Latin Americans and Asians and Africans generally) need to steel ourselves for the moment when that eruption occurs. Specifically, we must steel ourselves against our tendency to evade and shift responsibility.

Genocide prevention is a burden that will not be carried unless it is shared. The world's leaders need to declare prevention of genocide not only in the interest of mankind in general, but in their own national interests. They must ready their publics and undertake the coordinated contingency military planning to ensure that "Never again" no longer simply means, say, "Never again will Hutus be permitted to kill Tutsis in Rwanda between April and July 1994."

Samantha Power, Executive Director of Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, is author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Copyright: Project Syndicate
This story has been viewed 2158 times.