Can Genocide Be Prevented?

In seeking answers to this question, this writer has been inspired by the words of Vaclav Havel: "We must not be afraid of dreaming the impossible if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality." The years since the Second World War have seen a steady growth and strengthening of international law and institutions designed to prevent gross abuses of human rights. While these could only be as effective as political realities would allow, their mission has gained increasing legitimacy over the last few decades.

And at the same time, there has been a remarkable growth in the number and level of activism of private human rights organizations, which has reflected public outrage and revulsion at senseless acts of brutality that some Governments have inflicted on their own citizens. Looked at in these terms, the picture is one of continuous progress. But what we have not seen is a corresponding decrease in the incidence of such crimes.

The record of the nineties has been especially disheartening. While the root causes of violence are unique to each country experiencing it, news reports of murder, rape, torture, disappearances and expulsion have become depressingly familiar.

What more can the international community do to prevent these tragedies? New agreements or institutions are unlikely to accomplish much when existing international law and human decency are already being cynically violated.

It may never be possible to prevent aggressive leaders from using violence to intimidate their citizens, at least at all times and in all places. There are, however, some strategies which this writer believes can help (no claim is made for originality here; many of these ideas have been around for some time, though they are not always applied).

Foreknowledge. Often, the intent of a Government to eliminate its opponents or specific classes of individuals can be discerned: punitive measures against a target group, propaganda singling out the group as outsiders or enemies, and increased government control of the media are among the signs of impending disaster. The international community should act at an early stage when it is still possible to avert the tragedy. The continuing attention of the world press and human rights organizations can be very valuable here.

Consistency. States and international organizations should always be dear that genocide and other acts of violence against civilians are intolerable, even when they are not prepared to respond with force in all situations.

When broader interests dictate that friendly relations with Governments engaged in human rights violations should continue, such Governments should never be left to assume that these violations are a matter of indifference.

Justice. If genocide cannot be prevented, the responsible must be brought to justice. This will deter other "leaders" from feeling that they can act as they choose and discourage the injured from taking justice into their own hands, continuing the violence.

Dissent. Internal dissent to aggressive actions should be encouraged. When condemning a rogue Government, it is important that condemnation not be extended indiscriminately. If all members of a given nationality are branded as aggressors, potential dissenters may feel they have no recourse but to go along with their Government, even if they find that distasteful.

Incentives. When a new Government comes to office on a promise to make life better for the people, the international community should be prepared to help it make good on that promise. In addition to providing appropriate development and humanitarian assistance, this should include encouraging and assisting in a broad devolution of political power to all classes and ethnic groups in the community. In short, there should be rewards in the form of development resources and recognition for doing things, not only opprobrium for actions which violate basic human rights if the latter are to be avoided.

Respect for legitimate national aspirations. When nationalism takes the form of pride in a nation or ethnic group's people, culture, arts and genuine accomplishments, it can support the building of a cohesive society. When it takes the form of resentment, xenophobia and bigotry, it can lead to discord and aggression against others. Recognizing a national or ethnic identity based on positive values, especially in newly-emerging countries, can serve as an antidote to attempts to exploit the negative forms of nationalism.

But, ultimately, prevention of genocide must come from within. True, outsiders can help by supporting democratization and building civil institutions, the rule of law and economic growth, but that should not, by carelessness, ignorance or intent, intervene in ways that make volatile situations worse--the obligation to "first do no harm" should find an echo here. Essential respect for human life must be found within the cultural mores of the society, whose leaders have a particular obligation to hold their Governments to a high standard of responsibility to their people.

Ms. Lincoln is a retired Foreign Service Officer of the United States, who has worked on economic development issues in a number of countries, including Liberia and El Salvador.