The United Nations Office, Geneva, Switzerland
March 7 2014
Human Rights Council Discusses The Prevention Of Genocide
GENEVA
The United Nations Office at Geneva issued the following news release:
The Human Rights Council today discussed the prevention of genocide,
holding a high-level panel discussion dedicated to the sixty-fifth
anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, followed by an interactive dialogue with Adama
Dieng, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of
Genocide.
Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened
the panel discussion, saying that genocide and other mass atrocities
were never unleashed without warning but were the culmination of a
long period of human rights violations. She stressed the importance of
accountability and deterrence and called on States to take measures to
investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of genocide.
Also in opening remarks, Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Armenia, recalled the three pillars of genocide prevention:
early warning, human rights protection and public campaign of
education and awareness. Denial and impunity paved the way for new
crimes against humanity and all must stand together in the
recognition, condemnation and punishment of past genocides.
Panellists in today’s discussion were Esther Mujawayo, Sociologist,
author and a Rwanda Genocide survivor; Adama Dieng, Special Adviser of
the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide; and Jonathan
Sisson, Senior Advisor, Task force for dealing with the past and
prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
Ms. Mujawayo recalled the tragic events of 7 April 1994 and the 100
days of killing in Rwanda in which one million Tutsis perished. She
shared the tragic testimony of a survivor, the guilt and sorrow. For
the genocide to be made possible and to kill one million people in 100
days meant that all societal values must be done with and that
everyone must kill, men, women and children.
Mr. Dieng said that genocide and crimes against humanity were not
single events that happened overnight but processes that required
planning and underwent different stages. The current lack of a
dedicated monitoring body for the implementation of the provisions of
the Convention might encourage some States to ignore the
responsibilities they had assumed under the Convention, including the
responsibility to prevent.
Mr. Sisson said that although the Convention provided an important
framework for accountability after genocide, the challenges were the
difficulty to prove genocidal intent and the lack of timely political
decisions to prevent genocide. Dealing with the past was a
pre-requisite for prevention and concerted efforts to deal with the
past could serve to address fundamental grievances and build trust in
public institutions.
In the ensuing discussion speakers stressed that the Convention
provided a clear definition of genocide. This anniversary was an
opportunity to reflect steps ahead in the fight against impunity and
also how to further prevent the crime of genocide. A speaker suggested
that a clear distinction between prevention and response would
strengthen the elimination of genocide, while others stressed that
raising awareness and sharing lessons learned were key to the success
of both national and international efforts designed to prevent and
punish this crime. Several delegations said that the specificity of
genocide was that there were detective signals before, which presented
a chance of timely response.
Speaking in the panel discussion were Sierra Leone, European Union,
Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Cuba (on behalf of the
Like-Minded Group), Argentina, Estonia, Chile, Turkey, Brazil,
Australia, Montenegro, Portugal, Costa Rica (on behalf of the
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), New Zealand, Egypt,
Rwanda, Morocco, Azerbaijan, International Committee of the Red Cross,
Poland, Venezuela, Slovenia, Netherlands, Spain, Algeria, United
States, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Sudan, Madagascar and Hungary.
The following non-governmental organizations also addressed the
Council: Indian Council of South America, World Environment Council,
European Union of Public Relations, National Association of Jewish
Lawyers and Jurists and the International Organization for the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination.
The Human Rights Council then opened its agenda item on the promotion
and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social
and cultural rights, including the right to development, and held an
interactive dialogue with Adama Dieng, Special Adviser to the
Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.
In his opening remarks Mr. Dieng said his mandate had been established
10 years ago as a result of the failure to prevent genocides in Rwanda
and Srebrenica. Since then, there had been increased emphasis on the
importance of prevention of atrocity crimes, but remaining challenges
were significant. Efforts must be focused on early prevention and not
only on responding to situations where the risk of genocide was
imminent like in the Central African Republic, or where atrocity
crimes were ongoing such as in Syria. Once situations were placed on
the agenda of the Security Council, like Syria, the world had failed
in its duty to prevent and had already failed the Syrian people.
In the ensuing interactive dialogue with Mr. Dieng, speakers stressed
that preventing mass atrocities was not limited to the implementation
of the Convention, but also required using tools to identify early
warning signs and indicators. A speaker said that the “responsibility
to protect” had been the most important development in the efforts to
prevent genocide, stressing that the main challenge was how to put
this principle into practice and ensure its realization. Delegations
warned that currently there were several situations in the world that
could descend into genocide if important measures were not taken by
the international community.
Taking the floor in the interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser
on the Prevention of Genocide were the European Union, Morocco,
Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), United States, China,
Australia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Armenia, Ireland, Ecuador and Turkey.
Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations:
Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation, France Libertes and the International
Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
At the end of the meeting, Iraq spoke in a right of reply.
The Human Rights Council will meet on Monday, 10 March at 9 a.m., when
it is scheduled to hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on human rights
defenders.
High-level Panel Discussion Marking the Sixty-fifth Anniversary of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Opening Statements
NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide was the first human rights treaty adopted by the United
Nations, in 1948. It remained a sombre and urgent document, Ms. Pillay
said, encouraging States that had not yet done so to become party to
it and ensure its universal implementation. The prohibition of
genocide was not an ordinary rule in international law, it was jus
cogens, a fundamental principle. Every State must ensure that its
agencies and officials did not commit acts of genocide. They also had
a legal obligation to take all measures within their power to prevent
genocide. Concerning root causes, Ms. Pillay said genocide and other
mass atrocities were never unleased without warning but were the
culmination of a long period of human rights violations, whether
civil, cultural, economic, political or social. Discrimination laid
the ground for violence and persecution, de-humanisation of entire
communities and ultimately genocide. The Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination had identified key factors that may lead to
genocide and which needed to be acted upon immediately.
Human rights mechanisms and United Nations entities may play a role in
monitoring signs that indicated discrimination and violence were
sweeping into society, and by focusing the international community’s
attention. The High Commissioner said the Secretary-General’s ‘Rights
Up Front’ initiative, if fully implemented, could assist the
international community in its solemn duty to prevent genocide and
other mass atrocity crimes. Concerning the fight against impunity and
its role in the prevention of genocide, Ms. Pillay said accountability
was vital to assuring victims’ right to effective remedy and that
international and hybrid tribunals had been created to ensure
accountability and deterrence, notably the International Court of
Justice. International justice, however, should be the last resort and
avoid politicization, States should take measures to investigate,
prosecute and punish perpetrators of genocide. Genocide was the
ultimate crime and the international community should protect human
rights, democracy and the rule of law in order to prevent it.
EDWARD NALBANDIAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, said
Armenia, as the nation that survived the first genocide of the
twentieth century, felt a great moral responsibility to contribute to
international efforts in prevention of crimes against humanity.
Despite the fact that the Convention on Genocide was adopted in 1948,
new genocides and new crimes against humanity were being committed.
>From Cambodia to Rwanda to Darfur the terrible phenomenon of genocide
continued. Genocide was a complex phenomenon. Its prevention must be
based on an accurate understanding of the history of genocide and the
readiness to learn from past failures. Genocide prevention required
the development of both enforcement and preventive measures.
Perpetrators of genocide must be held responsible. The Human Rights
Council Resolution of 22 March 2013 envisaged preventive measures, all
of which were unanimous on the three pillars of genocide prevention,
which were early warning, human rights protection, and public
education and awareness campaigns. The acknowledgement and
condemnation of committed genocides were one of the most effective
tools for their prevention in the future. Denial and impunity paved
the way for new crimes against humanity. The international community
must stand together in the recognition, condemnation and punishment of
past genocides.
Statements by the Panellists
ESTHER MUJAWAYO, sociologist, author and survivor of the Rwanda
Genocide, said this April would mark 20 years since the Rwandan
genocide, which had started on Easter Sunday. In a moving testimony
Ms. Mujawayo recalled the lead-up to the genocide, saying that
tensions were felt months before it happened, with radio stations
playing catchy songs that called for the extermination of the Tutsis.
On 7 April the killings started everywhere; nowhere was safe for
Tutsis. Ms. Mujawayo held up a photo of her extended family, only
herself and her niece had survived, all the others were killed. She
said she survived, but asked how you could survive when you had lost
everyone. Ms. Mujawayo said the photos of her family that she had
managed to keep were a reminder that she was the only person who had
survived. She continued to live in a vacuum; she had survived but was
not alive. Ms. Mujawayo said she suffered from survivor’s guilt which
was compounded by not being able to bury the bodies of her loved ones.
Genocide was made possible when all societal values were dispensed
with. Killing one million people in 100 days meant that everyone had
been involved and everyone killed, not only men but women and children
too. Even the churches, traditional sanctuaries, became
slaughterhouses. God had abandoned them. The Rwandan society was
completely blown apart and everything had changed. Forty five years
after the Convention came into force, the genocide in Rwanda had
happened. Ms. Mujawayo asked the Council what was being done to
restore justice.
ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the
Prevention of Genocide, said 65 years after the adoption of the
Convention it was unfortunate to see how essential it still was. The
question of how to better prevent genocide and other atrocities was at
the core of the lessons-learned exercises conducted after the failure
to prevent or halt the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica. In 2004 the
Secretary General presented an Action Plan to Prevent Genocide and
appointed a Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide to act as an
early warning mechanism. In 2005, Member States had made a landmark
commitment at the United Nations World Summit, affirming their
responsibility to protect populations by preventing genocide war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The Human Rights
Council had an important role to play in prevention. The Council
should endeavour to anticipate the risk of atrocity crimes and engage
at an early stage to pre-empt the escalation of tensions into
potentially genocidal violence. Mr. Dieng invited the Council to adopt
the Framework of Analysis developed by his Office to assess the risk
of atrocity crimes. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity
were not single events that happened overnight but processes that
required planning, resources and underwent different stages. The
Framework identified risk factors relevant to assess the risk of
genocide and other atrocity crimes, providing opportunities to develop
effective prevention strategies. Mr. Dieng also encouraged the Council
to discuss how the implementation of the Genocide Convention could be
better monitored. There was no dedicated body to monitor
implementation of the Genocide Convention, which may encourage some
States to ignore the responsibilities they had assumed under it,
including the responsibility to prevent genocide.
JONATHAN SISSON, Senior Advisor, task force for dealing with the past
and prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign
Affairs, said the adoption of the Genocide Convention marked a
historical milestone in the path towards prevention and
accountability. Nevertheless two outstanding challenges were faced.
The Convention provided an important framework for accountability
after genocide but national and international courts had found it
difficult to prove genocidal intent. The knowledge and experience
accumulated by the community of practitioners and policy makers in the
field of genocide prevention since 1948 was considerable. In general,
however, that knowledge was not followed by consequent and timely
political decisions to prevent genocide. Everyone was familiar with
the promise of ‘never again’. Yet, it was known that it would happen
again, unless there was a vigorous response to transform the perverse
dynamics of mass atrocity. Dealing with the past was a pre-requisite
for prevention. Concerted efforts to deal with past could serve to
address fundamental grievances and build trust in public institutions.
Without such efforts, prevention policies would lack credibility.
Interactive Discussion
Estonia said the Convention on Genocide and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights were the cornerstones of human rights and the basis of
international law. Turkey said the Convention provided a clear
definition of genocide, was the main and most legitimate instrument at
our disposal and had to remain as the general framework for our
efforts. Sierra Leone said that raising awareness and sharing lessons
learned were key to the success of both national and international
efforts designed to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, a
fundamental aim of the international community. European Union said
the Convention had marked a milestone. Another landmark was the 2005
summit where States recognized the Responsibility to Protect, the
European Union said, asking to what extent African regional mechanisms
could contribute to the implementation of the Responsibility to
Protect.
Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that a number
of conflicts around the world today carried the traits of escalation
to genocide. Since the Rwandan Genocide, the African Union had
enshrined a number of actions and principles to prevent genocide on
the continent. Argentina said that the role that it played in the
prevention of genocide could not be understood without an
understanding of the fight against impunity in the country. Regional
fora had been held with countries from different regions of the world,
to raise regional and international awareness. Chile said that the
wretched shared history of a large number of Latin American countries
that suffered systematic massive violations of human rights during the
1970s and 1980s was a factor that pushed for the establishment of the
Latin American Network for the Prevention of Genocide. Cuba, speaking
on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said that the right to life was
one of the non-derogable rights. Only if all countries respected truth
and history and learned from the past would such atrocities be
prevented in the future.
Brazil said a clear distinction between prevention and response would
strengthen the elimination of genocide. Education in the field of
human rights, gender equality and combatting torture and other
ill-treatments would be an effective way to prevent hatred that could
lead to international crimes. Australia supported the responsibility
to protect, as well as efforts to protect victims and ensure
reparation. Australia also underlined the importance of regional
cooperation. Montenegro said it believed in the importance of
propagating information on the Convention against Genocide, to
identify root causes and early signs of genocide and to address
impunity. Montenegro strongly supported the “Rights Up Front”
initiative, as well as other similar regional level initiatives.
Portugal said that the Convention on Genocide’s implementation was
crucial to eradicate genocide. Each individual State had the
responsibility to protect its population from genocide. The United
Nations had the ability to work on the prevention of genocide and
should use all means it could to do that.
Indian Council of South America underlined the vulnerability of
indigenous peoples, and demanded that States’ sovereignty was not used
to prevent accountability. World Environment Council regretted the
inability of the United Nations to prevent some past genocides, adding
that genocide resulted from long-term and deliberate processes.
European Union of Public Relations said genocide was always born of a
failure to understand that all humans were brothers. The deliberate
distortion of education and public information that could fuel hatred
and lead to genocide. It was important to involve local charities in
genocide prevention.
ESTHER MUJAWAYO, sociologist, author and survivor of the Rwanda
Genocide, said society and civil society could make enormous
contributions to preventing genocide, particularly in raising
awareness and early warnings. The imperative was for the political
will to be in place and act on those warnings. States parties to the
1948 Convention had an obligation to fulfil their responsibilities but
currently there were no consequences for non-respect of its
provisions. The consequences of genocide and crimes against humanity
were long reaching and echoed through generations
ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary General on the
Prevention of Genocide, spoke about what the Human Rights Council
could do to prevent genocide, and suggested the Council use a tool
developed by his Office, the Framework for Analysis of Genocide, which
was applicable to all worrying situations. The establishment of
Commissions of Inquiry was another important consideration.
Strengthening of the preventative process was important too, for
example through dialogues and exchanges on the margins of the Council.
It was also important to fight impunity and ensure accountability.
JONATHAN SISSON, Senior Advisor, Task force for dealing with the past
and prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign
Affairs, spoke about the role of the Human Rights Council and existing
mechanisms for prevention, particularly in the area of early warning,
such as reporting to treaty bodies. The field presence of the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in many countries was an
important element. Collaboration with civil society, such as through
civil society forums, could be useful. Civil society was important in
advocating and promoting the search for missing persons, and also in
the area of justice where it took part in trial monitoring.
Costa Rica, on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States, said the international community had made progress in
preventing and sanctioning genocide. All available mechanisms had to
be used to prevent that crime from occurring and to prevent impunity.
Future cases of genocide could be avoided by identifying early
warnings and preventing conflicts, and through education. New Zealand
said prevention was an essential pillar of the global response. New
Zealand asked in which institutional areas improvements were the most
needed. The responsibility to engage in prevention work had to be
shared throughout the United Nations system. New Zealand underlined
the critical role civil society organisations and journalists could
play. Egypt said that States had the responsibility to protect their
citizens and to ensure that perpetrators were held accountable. Egypt
encouraged Member States to develop national expertise to enhance the
prevention of genocide.
Rwanda said 2014 marked the twentieth anniversary of the genocide
against the Tutsis. It was resolved to ensure that what happened in
Rwanda, including the absence of a response by the international
community, did not happen again. Rwanda asked what measures could be
undertaken to address the issue of genocide denial. Morocco said that
the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide was a pillar
of the United Nations human rights system, and had to be placed at the
heart of the work of the Council. Accountability of perpetrators was
essential. Morocco regretted that the international community
sometimes lacked the will to intervene. Public awareness-raising on
the issues of racism and xenophobia was a mean of prevention.
Azerbaijan denounced the extermination of Azerbaijani by Armenia,
which suited the definition of the crime of genocide. Azerbaijan urged
Armenia to recognise officially that genocide had been perpetrated by
them.
International Committee of the Red Cross said that efforts were still
needed to enable the full implementation of the Convention on the
Prevention of Genocide. States had to ensure that perpetrators were
held accountable, which included military officers being held
personally accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
Sudan said the United Nations General Assembly had already announced
that genocide was a clear violation of the right of all peoples to
life and to freely exist. Genocide remained one of the most odious and
serious crimes that existed and Sudan reiterated the need to respect
human dignity. Madagascar said that Convention contributed to recall
and enhance the human dignity of human beings and respect for human
lives. Slovenia said that the Convention on Genocide remained as valid
today as it was 65 years ago. The adopted threshold of the Convention
had proven to be very severe in a number of situations.
Spain said that the anniversary was an opportunity to reflect not just
on the need to press ahead on the fight against impunity but on how
prevention of the crime of genocide could be pressed on with.
Venezuela said that 65 years ago the United Nations had committed
itself to preventing genocide. However it was seen that such
atrocities continued to be committed in the twenty-first century with
utter impunity, such as those suffered by the Palestinian people.
Algeria said that the Convention had become a reference for all States
to protect their people and right to life. Despite achievements, there
were a number of conflicts today that could lead to violation of the
provisions of the Convention.
Hungary said that the specificity of genocide was that there were
detective signals before it and there was a chance of timely response.
Netherlands said that the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity were first and foremost a national
responsibility. How could the Council be more involved in ending
impunity towards the responsibility to protect at the national level?
Poland said that the crime of genocide was one of the most horrific
crimes known to humanity and the international community should not
spare any effort to eliminate it. Genocide did not occur out of the
blue and had root causes of a political, economic and social nature.
Liechtenstein said that more had to be done to implement the
Convention. Tribute was paid to the victims of the Rwandan genocide,
one of the worst failures of the international community. The
international system had to be changed to improve response. Belgium
said that it had been one of the first States to ratify the Rome
Statute. It encouraged all states to designate a national focal point
for the responsibility to protect. United States said the reality of
the looming risk of mass atrocities around the world continued to be
faced such as in Syria, the Central African Republic, and in the
world’s newest nation, South Sudan. There were reasons to be sober and
humble about those challenges.
National Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, said that
reviewing the last 65 years, not much had changed and two genocidal
events had been witnessed in Rwanda and Srebrenica. International
Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination said
that some populations were highly exposed to situations of genocide
and the situation in Iraq was a good example of that. It regretted
that Permanent Members of the Security Council were sending weapons to
Iraq.
Concluding Remarks
EDWARD NALBANDIAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, called on
Turkey to respect the agreement concerning those who had recognised
the genocide committed by the Ottoman authorities against the Armenian
people, and highlighted the importance of all provisions of the
Convention concerning reparations for victims. Concerning the Armenian
genocide, Mr. Nalbandian noted that several generations of Armenians
were still suffering the consequences and had been waiting for
reparations and redress. Concerning the massacres perpetrated by the
Azerbaijani forces with political motivations, Mr. Nalbandian said
that Baku had to stop using that tragedy as a propaganda tool and for
spreading racist ideas. In conclusion, Mr. Nalbandian said it was
clear that there was still work to be done on genocide prevention and
that the international community needed efficient solutions.
ESTHER MUJAWAYO, sociologist, author and survivor of the Rwanda
Genocide, thanked the Council for the invitation to participate in the
panel and to share her experience. Ms. Mujawayo said that delegations
sitting in this room were representatives of States and had decision
making power. She urged them not to forget that there were human
beings, just like the ones in the photos she had shown, whose lives
depended on the right interventions. Reflecting on the history of the
Rwandan genocide, Ms. Mujawayo said 20 years after the genocide, the
survivors should not be abandoned. Sharing some of her writing, Ms.
Mujawayo evoked memories of the victims and the importance of
understanding their experience on the basis of a shared sense of
humanity. Nothing should deprive individuals of their humanity, she
said, even when they were working in political decision-making.
ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary General on the
Prevention of Genocide, reminded the Council that building resilience
was key to preventing genocide. The rule of law should be respected
and human rights should be protected without discrimination.
Accountable and credible institutions, at the service of the
population, should be created. Work had to be done to eliminate
corruption, which constituted a serious obstacle for the enjoyment of
economic, social and cultural rights. It was also important to help
manage diversity in a constructive manner and to support a strong and
diverse civil society. Mr. Dieng reiterated the value of the framework
developed by his office as a tool to assess risk and to build
capacity. Concerning the responsibility to protect, he said it was
important to remind States about their responsibilities as well as
building capacities for preventing violations.
JONATHAN SISSON, Senior Advisor, task force for dealing with the past
and prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign
Affairs, stressed the important role of survivors in providing memory
and truth. He referred to a positive example concerning sites of
conscience in Bangladesh and Argentina on the basis of documentation
gathered during and after the conflicts. It was important to promote
memories from the point of view of the victims. He also warned that
memorials could be divisive and a legal framework at a national level
should ensure that memorials promoted cohesion rather than an
ethicized conflict.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General
on the Prevention of Genocide
Statement by the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the
Prevention of Genocide
ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the
Prevention of Genocide, said that the establishment of his mandate 10
years ago had been a direct result of the failure of the United
Nations system to prevent genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica and one
of the most important accomplishments of the past 10 years had been
the increased emphasis on the importance of prevention of atrocity
crimes, which included genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity. The challenges of the mandate were significant. One was the
title of the mandate itself. No Member State would say it was not
interested in preventing genocide. Genocide was a strong word and a
horrendous crime; it did not happen often but when it did happen it
had devastating consequences for families, societies, States and
regions and global peace and security.
Prevention started at home and was the responsibility of States; it
implied building the resilience of societies to atrocity crimes and
ensuring respect for the rule of law and human rights, without
discrimination. Genocide was the result of a series of events that
developed over time and required planning and resources and this meant
there were multiple opportunities to take preventive action. Efforts
must be focused on early prevention and not only on responding to
situations where the risk of genocide was imminent like in the Central
African Republic, or where atrocity crimes were ongoing such as in
Syria. The international community must act well before the violence
reached such levels; when situations reached a level of crisis that
they were placed on the agenda of the Security Council, like Syria,
the world had failed in its duty to prevent.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union said that the “responsibility to protect” had been the
most important development in the efforts to prevent genocide. The
main question was how to ensure the realization of the “responsibility
to protect” and prevention in peaceful times; how to put the principle
into practice. Morocco said that despite legal and normative work
carried out, more ambition was needed in collective efforts to address
the issue. There were several situations in the world that could
descend into genocide if important measures were not taken by the
international community.
Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the
capacity building and technical assistance activities of the High
Commissioner in the field of genocide prevention. The African Group
called on further partnerships between the Special Adviser of the
Secretary-General and regional and local organizations. The United
States said that preventing mass atrocities was not limited to the
implementation of the Convention, but also required using tools to
identify early warning signs and indicators. The United States asked
how United Nations agencies were working together to implement the
framework on genocide prevention. China called on all States to
enhance international cooperation to prevent genocide, with the
support of the United Nations. Protecting the right to life as well as
social harmony would reduce the risks of hatred to develop and
therefore would limit the chances of genocide to occur. Australia said
it continued to support international and regional efforts to
prosecute perpetrators of mass atrocities, particularly in the Pacific
region. Australia asked how prevention tools could be adapted to other
international crimes. Mexico reiterated that States had the
responsibility to protect and prevent genocide, and to exercise
universal jurisdiction for this crime, and insisted that tackling
impunity for this crime was vital. Mexico underlined the importance of
avoiding systematic discrimination targeting certain groups, which
could be one of the root causes of genocide. Bangladesh underlined the
importance of holding perpetrators of genocide responsible, and would
be happy to share its experience prosecuting the perpetrators of mass
atrocities that had occurred there.
Armenia said that the Office of the Special Adviser had become an
important part of preventive diplomacy within the United Nations
system and Governments’ political will remained an important factor in
prevention; the work of the Office of the Special Adviser would
greatly benefit from the establishment of durable cooperation
mechanisms. Ireland said that the prevention of genocide was central
to all three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” and preventive
policies would be necessary to succeed in the fulfilment of the goals
of the Charter. Ireland stressed that incidents of genocide started
with hate speech, discrimination and marginalisation. Ecuador
expressed support for proposals for the creation of spaces for
dialogue and the exchange of experiences; the prevention and
punishment should be based on mechanisms that prevented impunity; an
important part of the solution should be understanding the root causes
on the basis of capacity building and education. Turkey said that in
the long run creating an environment that fostered mutual respect and
tolerance was an important aspect of prevention; the Special Adviser’s
timely statements on situations of concern played a positive work in
promoting awareness.
Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation noted that in many parts civilian
populations continued to suffer from crimes against humanity and
possible genocide and the international community lacked the political
will to take action; the Foundation called on the Council to establish
an international commission of inquiry on Sri Lanka. France Libertes
said that genocide was rightly defined as the most hideous crime
against humanity but such crimes did not happen overnight; moving from
a reactive to a preventive approach was necessary. How was this
possible if civil society warnings were not heeded? International
Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
said that despite progress made, recent events in Iraq showed that
there was still a road ahead. The situation had been described as
degenerating into genocide, with military operations predicated on the
need to combat terrorism and sectarian rhetoric which showed the
intent to eliminate a religious group. The International Organization
called on the Council to address this situation.
Concluding Remarks
ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the
Prevention of Genocide, said in his closing remarks that this type of
dialogue with Member States was extremely helpful. He was pleased that
several delegations mentioned the reference tool his Office had
developed to fight hate speech and incitement to hatred. Quoting past
experiences in Rwanda and Libya, Mr. Dieng stressed the real need to
closely monitor hate speech. His Office was working closely to see how
to engage the discussions on the responsibility to protect within
Africa. Regarding the role of the Human Rights Council in
implementation of the “right to protection”, Mr. Dieng stressed its
early warning function, reminding States of their responsibilities,
including the Universal Periodic Review process. Concerning the
Analysis Framework, it covered the crimes of genocide, war crimes and
crime against humanity, which in the framework were defined using
their legal definitions, and Mr. Dieng encouraged States and regional
organizations to use it. It was clear that without a vibrant civil
society, it would be extremely hard to mobilize action and their
involvement was crucial in ensuring accountability and including all
sectors of society in decision-making processes. Kenya was an example
where civil society was playing an important role, together with the
national committee of genocide prevention.
Right of Reply
Iraq, speaking in a right of reply, said that Iraqi armed forces were
more than capable of gaining victory over terrorists, but the
Government was reluctant to put the lives and property of civilians at
risk; accusations of indiscriminate firing were therefore unfounded.
Iraq had joined the war on terrorism together with the whole world and
this was a bloody war which had to be won.