OneWorld.net (U.S.)

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None

Ariela Blätter directs Amnesty International USA’s crisis prevention and response efforts. With a strong background in humanitarian law, Blätter has also lobbied the UN for the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

What is Amnesty International’s role in preventing conflict/genocide?

A fundamental part of Amnesty International’s work is to address the causes of violent conflict and work to prevent its occurrence. Much of this work involves warning the international community about conflicts that are likely to get worse. In the case of the Darfur conflict in western Sudan, for example, Amnesty was the first of several prominent human rights groups to warn the international community of the coming crisis. We cited a pattern of violence between nomadic and sedentary groups, the large scale destruction of lives and property, and the Sudanese government’s failure to acknowledge the problem as a grave prediction of the atrocities to come.

Amnesty has also joined with other groups in a Control Arms campaign, which addresses the need to stop the transfer of small lethal military arms and whose proliferation can cause continuing cycles of violence.

Overall, our aim is to strengthen work on conflict and genocide prevention by highlighting the risks for human rights caused by the prevalence of armed conflict, by promoting the use of early warning information, and by encouraging the use of conflict management tools by civil society organizations, international institutions, and states. Above all, we want to develop partnerships of organizations that can promote conflict prevention and educate the public about its importance.

What are some of the problems with using the term “genocide”? [For some definitions of genocide, see the article on “Stopping Genocide” in the in-depth section.]

Genocide is not a term used lightly by the international community. Often, governments fear that merely uttering the word gives them the responsibility to respond militarily to stop the conflict. In addition, the legal definition is very specific. To categorize a conflict as genocide, one must be certain that the nature of the groups attacked, the prohibited acts that have taken place, and the intent behind the acts all conform to the elements of the crime of genocide.

The application of the legal definition of genocide has been particularly problematic in the case of the current conflict in Darfur, for example. Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and the UN have stated that the acts of violence being perpetrated there may be acts of genocide, but claim that there has not been enough evidence on the intent behind the crime as “genocidal” to label them as such.

Concentrating on whether or not crimes constitute genocide can, however, lead policy leaders to become “bogged down” in technical debates instead of taking action. The international community must prevent and prosecute all of the major international crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—no matter what their label.

What is it going to take to gain the political will to deal with mass atrocities?

Change is necessary on several levels. First, there is an urgent need for collaboration between NGOs. (See below.) Second, the general public and the media need to play a role in influencing state policies. Elected officials are much more likely to act on an issue if their constituents are concerned about it. The real challenge is when people are unaware of what is happening in the world around them. That’s where the media come in. Once a story about a human rights crisis airs on CNN it becomes much easier to convince viewers to care about a country they could not previously locate on a map. The international media must, however, be more responsible in its coverage of global affairs. Violence and bloodshed no doubt improve ratings, but it is also important to educate the public about regions on the verge of crisis.

Third, institutions at the national and supranational levels need to be developed to be more effective in a number of areas, including in receiving and interpreting data from those in the field, in formulating strategies for the most effective way to address the crisis, and in coordinating an international response. To be frank, a successful example of a genocide stopped in its tracks is also needed. One success is all that it will take to prove that prevention is possible. Ultimately, this will be the most effective way to win support for conflict prevention.

Finally, and most importantly, there must be a dramatic shift in the way we look at conflict in the world. Governments are far too likely to only pay attention to events in regions they regard as “strategically important” and disregard crises in disadvantaged countries. We must put every effort into changing this mindset. Mass atrocities happening anywhere in the world threaten international peace and security everywhere.

The international community seems to be paying more attention to preventing conflict before it occurs. Is this, in part, borne out of frustration over failures to stop it?

Yes, the international community is frustrated over its apparent inability to effectively prevent conflict. Several of the most violent conflicts of the 1990s occurred after the negotiation of peace agreements. Approximately half of all countries that emerge from war return to violence within five years. The UN has undertaken five peace interventions in Haiti alone from 1994 to 2004. And, despite the presence of large peacekeeping missions during the last decade in both Liberia and Somalia, peace agreements collapsed as soon as these countries were out of the international spotlight. Ironically, the grievous atrocities being committed in Darfur were occurring during the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. All of these factors illustrate our failure to sufficiently learn from the failures of the past.

The development of a United Nations Peacebuilding Commission has, however, been one recent, positive development. In his September 2005 report, In Larger Freedom, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on member states to create this body to help countries make the transition from war to peace and to prevent the recurrence of violence. The General Assembly and the Security Council have since adopted this proposal and are working to provide reliable funding for the Commission and to devise strategies for post-conflict recovery. © Amnesty International

What role does “early warning” play?

NGOs have been on the forefront of trying to predict violent conflict and bringing these issues to the attention of the UN and national governments. The increasing availability of commercial satellite photography, for example, has greatly enhanced the potential for humanitarian and human rights NGOs to use satellite imagery to detect, publicize, and ultimately to prevent human rights crises. AI analysis of satellite images in western Sudan, for example, documented ethnic cleansing there months before organizations like ours were granted access to the region. They revealed that villages and crops had been burned and showed clear evidence of mass refugee displacement.

The problem is not always a lack of information, but in convincing those with the power to act to prevent crises. Amnesty International did warn the international community of the impending conflict in Darfur two years before the UN and US government were convinced of the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately, the international community did not act, until the human rights violations had reached near catastrophic levels.

How can civil society work together more effectively?

Individually, civic groups have the unique ability to see where tensions are escalating in societies, to gather research on the possible outcomes of a conflict, and to take action to prevent it at the grassroots level. In addition, through their lobbying capabilities, the strength of their membership, and the credibility of their opinions, NGOs have the capability to influence the public, the media, and ultimately states and international organizations. This influence would be magnified ten-fold if NGOs would work together, share their research, and formulate unified strategies to promote the importance of conflict prevention.

By joining thousands of others around the world involved with Amnesty International, you can challenge impunity for violence. Check out all the things you can do at Amnesty USA’s action center, or join their Urgent Action network, where rapid, global responses can prevent life-threatening human rights violations.

While NGOs have been active in researching and monitoring potential crisis areas, their approach to date has often been scattered and inconsistent. If organizations worked together to share the resources and data at their disposal and to create a more effective early warning system, the international community would find it very difficult to ignore and to refuse engagement.

At my office, we are aware of the need for greater NGO collaboration and a better system for obtaining hard and fast evidence of human rights abuses. As such, we are sponsoring a Conflict Prevention Forum in September 2006—in collaboration with One World U.S. and others—that will specifically address these issues. It is our hope that through this event and other ones like it, a unified approach to early warning will be created and that the international community will begin to commit the necessary resources to making an impact.

 NEXT “FRONTLINES” ARTICLE: Refugees International on Our 'Capability to Protect'

 PERSPECTIVES HOMEPAGE: PREVENTING GENOCIDE

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None