NO MORE RWANDAS April 95
Marie is a schoolgirl. She has no family. She saw her parents, brothers and sisters killed with machetes. The militiamen took the infant sister she was carrying and clubbed the baby to death. When she was attacked, she survived by pretending to die. No help came. No one tried to stop it.
All of us watched, feeling sickened and powerless, as the same scene was acted out in Rwanda again and again. More than five hundred thousand people were murdered. When help came, such as it was, it came too late.
It wasn't the first time the world has watched from the sidelines while the innocent have died. Two thousand five hundred children have been murdered in cold blood in Sarajevo by Serb snipers and gunners. No one has arrested the murderers. The killing continues.
It doesn't have to be this way.
A high-level commission of 28 distinguished women and men called the Commission on Global Governance, co-chaired by Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson of Sweden and former Commonwealth Secretary-General Shridath Ramphal, has come forward with a plan that could prevent future Rwandas and Bosnias:
• The UN would have an early warning system to identify conflicts that could lead to bloodshed.
• Teams of UN mediators and "preventive diplomats" would be dispatched immediately to help find negotiated solutions before the killing begins.
• If negotiation fails, a UN armed force of 10,000 highly-trained volunteers would be ready for immediate deployment. Like any police force, they would have the power to arrest anyone engaged in violence, rape or murder.
• An International Criminal Court would issue arrest warrants and give a fair trial to anyone P including political leaders P responsible for genocide or war crimes.
• The UN Security Council, which is responsible for keeping the peace, would be reformed to make it more effective and representative, with the great-power veto phased out. Citizen groups would have a "Right of Petition" to bring issues directly to the security Council.
• A small levy on international currency transfers would generate funds to pay for these institutions, and to attack the poverty and environmental degradation that are so often the root causes of conflict.
Nice ideas, you may say to yourself, but it'll never happen. The Commission on Global Governance includes a number of experienced policy-makers who believe these proposals can be implemented.
But more important, if these proposals aren't put into practice, then before long, somewhere else in the world, Rwanda will happen again. And again we'll watch in horror, with no effective way to respond, while families are torn apart and children are butchered.
The proposals are now on the table. But, as always with new ideas, the bureaucratic resistance is already strong. Our governments will only act if they are pressed to do so by citizens, members of parliament and - not least - voices in the media.
PREVENTING GENOCIDE AND WAR
More than 20 million people have died in genocides and wars since 1945. Cambodia, Mozambique, the Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, Angola and many other countries can testify to the inadequacy of the system that we have today for preventing such catastrophes.
Today, early signs of dangerous conflict frequently go unnoticed and unheeded. Even once it is clear that a country is drifting towards violence, in most cases little or nothing is done by the international community.
When killing begins, national governments are reluctant to send their own soldiers into danger to solve someone else's problems, and the UN has no troops of its own to send. Even when a UN force is assembled from national contingents, it typically takes months to organize, and the UN is constantly short of funds to pay for it.
Decision-making is in the hands of a Security Council dominated by five countries that emerged victorious from the Second World War: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. If any of these Permanent Members of the Council or their friends are themselves engaged in aggression, the veto power of the Permanent Members ensures that the UN won't act.
Meanwhile, the world's leading murderers are seldom brought to justice. Pol Pot of Cambodia, responsible for more than a million deaths, lives comfortably near the border with Thailand with the support of Thai merchants and generals. Idi Amin of Uganda, who murdered hundreds of thousands of his people, resides in Saudi Arabia. "Baby Doc" Duvalier of Haiti lives in the south of France. The leaders responsible for the suffering in Bosnia and Rwanda are free to plan further atrocities. The list is long. In today's world, it is entirely possible to commit genocide and never be held personally accountable in a court of law.
This is no way to protect people's security.
The world needs a series of effective responses that it can take in ascending order, like steps on a ladder, to contain an escalating crisis and to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity.
• Early warning. It's usually possible to see the danger of an outbreak of violence long before blood has begun to flow. When opposing groups are trading threats, or arming themselves, it's clear that trouble is coming. The UN should have an efficient early warning system to identify dangerous conflict situations, using its own resources and drawing on information from national governments and NGOs.
• Preventive diplomacy. As soon as violence threatens, the UN should automatically send fact-finding missions, observers or mediators to help the parties find peaceful solutions to their conflicts. In some situations, the most effective people to play its role may be representatives of non-governmental agencies.
• UN forces to prevent violence and aggression. The best time to stop genocide or war is before it starts, or, if that isn't possible, as soon as the violence begins. If negotiation fails, then a standing UN armed force made up of volunteers from around the world should be ready for immediate deployment to protect people from aggression. To be effective, they would need the same powers as any policeman in a country where the rule of law is upheld: the power to arrest any individual engaged in violence.
In some cases, such as cross-border aggression by one nation against another, the UN force should be the trip-wire for the later deployment of national contingents. If governments contemplating aggression knew that they would be confronted immediately by UN soldiers, they would think again.
* Making individuals accountable for genocide and war crimes. An International Criminal Court is needed which can indict any individual responsible for genocide or war crimes, issue a warrant for their arrest, and give them a fair trial. If political leaders knew that, should they engage in genocide, they would face the risk of arrest, trial and imprisonment if they ever leave the territory of their own country, there would for the first time be a deterrent against such crimes.
In order for this system to work, two additional elements are needed:
* A reliable, representative Security Council. The UN Security Council, which has the responsibility for UN peacekeeping, cannot be at the mercy of a handful of large countries. Its membership should be reformed to make it more globally representative, and the great power veto should be phased out. Not only governments but citizen groups should have the right to bring to the attention of the Security Council any situation which massively endangers the security of people within states.
* A reliable source of revenue for global needs. Lack of funds is one of the biggest obstacles to a more effective system for protecting people's security. It's clear that national budgets aren't going to provide a lot more money: indeed, the signs are that the United States, already in arrears on peacekeeping contributions, will give even less in the future. International revenues are required to meet the pressing needs that are top priority for humanity but not high priorities for many national governments: keeping the peace, combating hunger and poverty, and protecting the global environment.
A number of proposals for international revenue have been put forward, ranging from a global tax on arms production to a global tax on fossil fuels to help prevent climate change. One of the most widely discussed is a proposal for a levy on international currency transfers, most of which are made by currency speculators. A small levy of 0.05% on each transaction would not only help to reduce disruptive fluctuations in currencies, but would generate in the order of US$150 billion a year P more than double the total amount of development assistance given today by Northern industrial nations.
All these proposals are now on the table. A draft statute for an International Criminal Court is under discussion at the UN. The idea of a tax on international currency transfers was discussed at the Social Summit in Copenhagen. It was supported by man developing countries, by the President of France, and by Australia, Canada and Denmark. Canada has indicated that it will put the idea on the agenda of the G7 Summit of major industrial powers to be hosted by Canada in June. And the Commission on Global Governance is promoting all these proposals as part of a comprehensive package of global reforms.
Inevitably there will be strong opposition from conservative national bureaucracies and from governments that prefer to flout international law P or brutalize their own people P as it suits them. But strong support from citizens, members of parliament an the media can and must overcome that opposition. If not, millions more will die.
THE COMMISSION ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
The Commission on Global Governance is co-chaired by Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and former Commonwealth Secretary-General Shridath Ramphal. Its 28 members represent every region of the world and varied professional backgrounds, ranging from senior statesmen to citizen activists. They include: Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica, Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe's Minister of Finance, Jacques Delors, former President of the European Commission, Enrique Iglesias, President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Frank Judd, former Director of Oxfam UK and Ireland, Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya, Sadako Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, I.G.Patel, former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Jan Pronk, Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, and Brian Urquhart, former UN Under Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs with responsibility for peacekeeping.
The Commission's report, entitled Our Global Neighbourhood (published by Oxford University Press), offers a wide-ranging set of proposals for global political and economic reform, of which the proposals for preventing genocide and war are just one part. he Commission draws on a set of universal ethical principles, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, integrity and respect for life, and emphasises that what ultimately matters is the security of people rather than the security of states.
Among the Commission's proposals:
• The UN Security Council should have an obligation to act in situations within states where the violation of the security of people is so gross and extreme that it requires an international response on humanitarian grounds.
• The UN's capacity for early warning and preventive diplomacy should be strengthened.
• Under a new "Right of Petition", non-state actors such as citizen groups should be able to bring situations massively endangering the security of people within states to the attention of the Security Council.
• A UN Volunteer Force with 10,000 personnel should be established which could be preventively deployed in crisis situations, ready if need be to take combat risks to stop aggression.
• Talks should be launched on a process to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear arsenals.
• A Demilitarization Fund should be set up to help countries reduce their military spending.
• A Convention on curtailment of the arms trade should be drawn up, including a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of government subsidies for arms exports.
• A 23-member Economic Security Council should be established in which (unlike the Group of 7 or the Bretton Woods institutions) all regions would be fairly represented. The Council would be a deliberative body whose purpose would be to provide a long-term policy framework in order to promote balanced and sustainable development.
• The debt of low-income countries should be radically reduced.
• Global taxation is needed to service the needs of the global neighbourhood. Among possible sources of global finance: a levy on international currency transactions; corporate taxation of multinational companies; a global carbon tax which would help prevent climate change; charges for use of the global commons P for example, on air travel or ocean fishing, or parking fees for geostationary satellites.
• The UN Trusteeship Council, which oversaw decolonization, should be given a new mandate over the global commons: the oceans, the atmosphere, Antarctica and outer space.
• The UN Security Council should be enlarged from 15 to 23, with five new "standing" members without a veto: two from industrialized countries, and one each from Africa, Asia and Latin America. This should be followed by a full review of the Council's membership, and a phase-out of the veto power.
• A Forum of Civil Society, in which 300-600 organizations would be represented, should be convened at the UN every year before each annual meeting of the General Assembly.
• The UN General Assembly should be revitalized, following which an assembly of national parliamentarians at the UN, elected by national parliaments, should pave the way for a directly elected people's assembly.
• All countries should recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court.
• The UN Secretary-General should have the right to refer legal aspects of international disputes to the World Court for advice.
• In those cases where a government refuses to abide by a World Court judgement, a reformed Security Council should use its powers under Article 94 of the UN Charter to take measures to ensure compliance with Court decisions.
• An International Criminal Court should be established for crimes against humanity, able to hold individuals P including political leaders, soldiers or international terrorists P accountable for their actions.
• A preparatory process should be set in motion for a World Conference on Governance to be held in 1998, with its decisions to be ratified and put into effect by 2000. Particularly urgent proposals, especially in the area of peace and security, should be implemented more rapidly than this.
Not everyone will agree with all of the Commission's ideas. In some parts of their report, it is clear that the members couldn't agree themselves and arrived at compromise language. But there's no question that the Commission on Global Governance has produced the most comprehensive and wide-ranging set of proposals for reform that are on the table in this 50th anniversary year of the United Nations.
Their ideas have been welcomed by world leaders including Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel. Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland has described the Commission's proposals as "a convincing path towards a better world."
The Commission concludes with an appeal to the public: "We call on international civil society, NGOs, the business sector, academia, the professions, and especially young people to join in a drive for change in the international system. Governments can e made to initiate change if people demand it."
"The collective power of people to shape the future is greater now than ever before," they say. "Mobilizing that power to make life in the twenty-first century more democratic, more secure, and more sustainable is the foremost challenge of this generation."