The Nevada Sagebrush

Carolina Chacon

How many people must die before an outside country takes action to stop genocide?

The answer is simple: Enough that the outside state believes that it possesses an interest in intervening. It’s a stark, difficult and disturbing reality. But there it is. The United States, China and whole regional blocs as well (the European Union and the African Union) will not step in and stop violence in Sudan until they perceive it’s in their interest.

I would argue that it is, but few agree. At a symposium on international justice that the University of Nevada, Reno chapter of STAND hosted last week, UNR professors Robert Ostergard and Richard Siegel reiterated the same idea: Until nations see material benefits — not just humanitarian — in quelling human rights violations, they will not act. It undoubtedly explains why the majority of the international community (not least of all the United Nations) watched in silence as 400,000 were murdered in Darfur and why millions more throughout the world continue to suffer mass atrocities.

But Ostergard also raised an interesting point that I desperately wish more people would consider. He said that as the international order evolves from state-based organization to a more transnational system, such benefits should (and will) begin to be defined not as state interests, but human ones.

The argument has been made before. At the 60th anniversary World Summit in 2005, the United Nations adopted the groundbreaking Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The doctrine recognized that states are responsible for the well-being of their citizens, but placed responsibility on the international community to protect civilians if their own government failed to do so.

This means states are responsible for providing such protection regardless of their own interests. R2P contends that states that commit grave abuses against their citizens have violated their sovereign duties and thus forfeit their right to sovereignty. Though some claim this infringes on state sovereignty, it actually vies to uphold its purity.

No state has implemented R2P, though a few have tried to invoke it regarding the genocide in Darfur. Still, the doctrine’s establishment demonstrates an international willingness to acknowledge the human (or moral or ethical or whatever you wish to call it) imperative to protect fellow humans from the worst violations possible. And though the international community can rarely be trusted to uphold such commitments — especially when the commitments are founded on humanitarian premises — it’s a hopeful sign.

It especially gives me hope that one day I might be able to stop trying to explain to my peers how our national security, economy, reputation and, I would add, our humanity, will be affected by our indecision or unwillingness to act in the face of genocide and mass atrocities. After the Holocaust, after Rwanda, we pledged “Never Again” repeatedly, but since then have repeated our mistakes and stood by as fellow humans were systematically slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. Were we to stop searching for material benefits, or “state interests,” for preventing and ending such atrocities, we might actually learn from history.

These should not be state issues. They should be human issues. If we could only begin to recognize that, we could make this world a better place.

Carolina Chacon is a member of UNR STAND, a student organization on campus. Reach her at perspectives@nevadasagebrush.com.

Related Posts:

• Women’s rights issues deserve more attention, activism
• United States would be wise to intervene in Sudan
• STAND simulates refugee camp to protest genocide
• Electronics’ components fund Congo’s violent conflict
• Skip your next frappuccino to help out others who are in need