Isaiah Berlin once expressed his deep conviction that the abominations of World War II offered the most conclusive justification ever for a universal moral law and reinforced his view that the primary duty of politics was to avoid "extremes of suffering." This sage counsel has gone unheeded.

Six years ago this month the genocide in Rwanda began.

For Rwandans, it all too brutally exposed the enduring, darker side of human nature -- the reality of suspicion, destruction, hatred and unrestrained violence.

For each of us, I doubt any in this Chamber can look back at that time without remorse and great sadness at our abject failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need. The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of our pledge "never again."

For the United Nations, the Rwandan tragedy came close to extinguishing belief in our capacity to fulfill its founding purpose. The presence of UN peacekeepers on the ground created a perception among civilians that they would be secure from violence. That such confidence in the UN was ill-founded is a matter of great shame and disappointment to all who support the principles and ideals which underpin the Charter.

Still, the fact that those soldiers in blue berets, whose cries for support were so studiously ignored, still managed to save tens of thousands, is a source of pride and inspiration.

One peacekeeper, Canadian UNAMIR [UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda] Commander Lt.-General Roméo Dallaire, announced his retirement this week. As he put it simply, "I am a casualty of Rwanda -- an injured officer." His moral integrity, vision, insight and leadership under unimaginable circumstances shine as an example. Individual acts of courage like his give some hope for realizing the goals of this Organization.

The Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide chronicles the lapses, the blunders and the shortcomings. It also draws lessons to which we should all pay close attention.

We owe our gratitude to Mr. Carlsson and his colleagues for their work. We commend Secretary-General Annan for making certain we did not forget and for publicly acknowledging this Organization's failure in this tragedy.

The Security Council fully shares this responsibility. The best way to honour the victims now is through a firm commitment never to turn away from civilians victimized by armed conflict, but instead to focus energy and attention to protect them -- in both word and deed.

The Inquiry's recommendations make clear what needs to be done.

The culture of impunity must end. There is an undeniable, growing international consensus that those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity be held to account. The establishment by the Council of the tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda moved this forward. The adoption of the statute of the International Criminal Court is its clearest expression yet.

Council members have a special responsibility to ensure that the statute of the Court is ratified rapidly and to make sure it works effectively. This will help deter future abuse. Let the message be unambiguous and clearly understood: violators will be prosecuted and punished.

Information flow must be improved. The Inquiry leaves no doubt that the Council must enhance its ability to analyze and monitor volatile situations, and improve information-sharing and communications within the UN system, especially between the Security Council and UN departments, as well as between member states.

To that end, we welcome the efforts by the UN Secretariat and UN humanitarian agencies to develop a framework for co-ordination with an emphasis on prevention and preparedness.

For its part, the Security Council needs to continue to broaden its range of interlocutors and sources of information. The more varied its channels of communication, the greater chance it will hear the signals of looming dangers.

We have nothing to fear from allowing the voices of suffering and oppression to be heard early, often and openly. This does not undermine the Council's legitimacy or its capacity to act. On the contrary, it serves to strengthen it.

Rapid and resolute response is essential. Yet at a time when requests for troops to help protect civilians are growing, the capacity of the UN itself to manage complex missions is under great strain.

Enhancing the UN's stand-by arrangements, including a Rapidly Deployable Mission HQ capacity, is vital to reversing this trend. So is a co-ordinated, integrated approach to identify, mobilize and commit the necessary military -- and increasingly civilian -- resources. Yet efforts to implement these forward-looking approaches are, quite frankly, left to languish.

The Security Council is on the front line here. It is not enough just to authorize peace operations. It is high time for the Council to become more actively engaged in making sure the capacity is there to carry out these missions quickly and effectively.

The Council also needs to ensure that UN operations be given adequate finances, the necessary resources, suitably robust mandates and clear rules of engagement to carry out the tasks assigned to them.

There are signs the Council is taking this lesson to heart. Missions in Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic and East Timor have the mandates and personnel commitments to adequately protect people and to address the realities on the ground. But the Council's response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo suggests that there is still room for improvement.

Together, these measures -- if followed through -- will allow us to better resolve conflict, promote peace, enhance human security and help prevent humanitarian disasters.

But if we are honest with ourselves, there is no certainty that the most severe abuse, as in Rwanda, will not happen again. Indeed, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Preventive efforts will not always succeed. The spiral into extremes of human suffering cannot always be constrained.

In these most exceptional situations the protection of civilians requires strengthening our disposition to intervene with force if necessary.

Let me be very clear. Military intervention is called for only in the most severe cases: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and massive and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law causing widespread suffering and loss of life. The test we have in mind is very high.

And the goal of intervention is not to threaten the territorial integrity of the state, but to bring an end to widespread suffering. Indeed, outside intervention to protect people is only conceivable when those who control the state are unable or patently unwilling to fulfill this basic trust.

In our view, any discussion about the use of force to alleviate extremes of suffering -- and the Council's role in such action -- needs to address these three considerations:

Justification for action. The cumulative weight of international human rights and humanitarian law, the global trend against impunity, and the precedents set by the Council itself all justify action.

Guidelines for action. Once the determination has been made that the violence, real or anticipated, meets the test, there are other factors with which to guide a decision to intervene -- or not to intervene -- including: whether time has fully run out on other peaceful means to resolve the threat; whether there is a danger that the threat, if left alone, jeopardizes regional or international security; and whether not being able to intervene everywhere means we must not intervene anywhere.

A framework for action. This should be permissive enough to stop massive and systematic violations, but clearly balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that it is not misused.

To this end, we need to be certain that: the severity of the crisis is fully corroborated; military force can and will contribute to ending widespread suffering and loss of life; the level of force employed is appropriate to the circumstances; and the use of force is multilateral and widely supported and that it is part of a longer-term strategy to build and sustain peace.

These three considerations -- the justification, the guidelines and the framework for action -- are by no means definitive. They are, however, elements that we believe should be addressed in any examination about the use of force for humanitarian purposes.

Many have suggested that this is a debate the Council is not yet ready to engage in. However, it is a discussion we cannot and should not avoid having -- the sooner the better. The price of inaction has simply been too high -- for the victims of the Rwandan genocide, for others subject to extreme abuse, for the security of people generally, and for the credibility of this Organization.

Perhaps if we had grappled with this subject earlier, worked to arrive at some common agreement on it, we might have done more to avoid the Rwandan genocide or to stop it once it began.

Second chances are rare. We have one now. Perhaps the most important proposal contained in the Inquiry is for a system-wide action plan to prevent genocide -- to which I would add all crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Millennium Assembly offers an occasion to work towards this goal, as the Secretary-General suggests, "to reassert the centrality of international humanitarian and human rights law."

To that end, the legacy of the Rwandan genocide is not just tragic but also hopeful. In his account of that time, Peter Gourevitch tells of how young, defenceless Hutu girls in a convent school refused to leave the side of their Tutsi friends, even though ordered to do so by the genocidaires. Their courage and sacrifice should now be our guide and inspiration.

The development of a UN action plan to protect people from the most egregious forms of abuse and from the most serious violators would be too late for past victims -- but hopefully not too late for us and for future generations.

Thank you.

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices