OneWorld.net (U.S.)

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None

© Refugees InternationalThe pattern repeats itself too often. Genocide or mass atrocities occur, but those countries most able to stop the violence will not intervene militarily. Too often we depend on bargain solutions to our gravest problems, such as relying on the well-meaning, but overwhelmed African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur. Not surprisingly, cheap solutions often turn out to be poor solutions. If the global community is truly determined to end genocide, it should help create a force that really has the ability to stop mass killing—to prevent the next Darfur.

The 2005 World Summit promoted an international responsibility to protect—that is, when a state is brutalizing its own people, the international community should act to stop that brutality regardless of that state’s claim to sovereignty. But the notion that there is a responsibility to stop genocide is empty rhetoric without an international capability to intervene with the force necessary to stop the violence and end the suffering.

Find out how you can get involved in stopping the genocide in Darfur. Watch a moving 10-minute documentary about the crisis there or send a letter to your senators asking them to increase funding for African Union peacekeepers.

What about UN peacekeepers? With the right mandate, resources, and will, ordinary peacekeepers can help a peace process move forward, such as in Mozambique, but genocide occurs when there is no peace to keep. Peacekeepers have failed to prevent mass killing and human rights abuses in Srebrenica, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. In crisis after crisis, we have seen all too clearly the limitations of ordinary peacekeeping when atrocities are occurring.

In short, the current UN system cannot provide what is needed to stop genocide. Troops of uneven quality from a multitude of countries—thrown together for possibly the first time—simply do not have the cohesion necessary for success. The UN does not have a proper command and control system, intelligence capabilities, or the logistical support system for an effective and coherent fighting force.

If diplomacy and less intrusive solutions fail, stopping genocide may require a military response. However, an intervention force has to have “military superiority,” or be capable of fighting better and more effectively than the enemy. NATO offers such a model. It maintains minimal permanent military capabilities, but has understandings, agreed standards, and well-tuned procedures in place to mobilize forces quickly following a political decision to act. Consequently, NATO can more easily create a coherent multilateral force out of earmarked national units.

Find out about specific ways you can help the many people displaced by conflict worldwide.

The NATO model for planning operations and mobilizing troops may be the right one for like-minded countries to use to create an international force that can mount effective interventions to stop genocide. Such a force would need permanent control of only small command and control, planning, and logistics networks in order to permit the quick mobilization of forces that meet common standards. Ultimately, the aim could be to have a new treaty-based alliance of nations that spans the globe, committed to providing forces to stop atrocities like genocide.

It is clear that the world is not ready for a standing UN army—at the very least there is no political will for it. It is equally clear that the current UN peacekeeping system fails miserably at preventing genocide and mass atrocities. It is time to think outside the box to create a capability to protect.

Peter H. Gantz, Peacekeeping Advocate Refugees International

© Refugees International

 NEXT “FRONTLINES” ARTICLE: Africa Action on Darfur

 PERSPECTIVES: PREVENTING GENOCIDE Homepage

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None