Why Has The International Community Failed to Prevent Mass Killing and Genocide?

I felt strong inspiration around Syria my heart leading me to focus on Aleppo. What prompted this blog was my watching of an ABC Four Corners documentary highlighting the rebel situation in Aleppo, Syria.  My instinct definitely urges me to write this blog as I absolutely know the lack of action by the international community reveals deep weaknesses and is counter productive to World Peace.  I feel moved to look into this.  Thoughts that have arisen within and connect to this for me concern the Second World War and the indecision of Neville Chamberlain (UK Prime Minister) and his misreading of Hitler and paralysis to act in a situation that required immediate action. I then see Rwanda in my mind and the failure of the international community to act even when they knew the genocide was going to happen. I am interested in deeply exploring this weakness. The word weakness feels accurate, as all involved know they are acting against what is intrinsically humane. I want to know what is the barrier to accessing their own humanity? what are the arguments that they espouse as rationale that stall or immobilise action in the face of this moment of truth in Syria?

Gareth Evans (former Australian Foreign Minister) advocacy of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine proposed to the United Nations, in my view, is centre stage, given responsibility is abrogated. What causes indifference, it is often masked by words like ‘neutrality’ or ‘sovereignty’ or ‘civil war’.

Let’s first look at what indifference means by wikipedia. Interestingly when I look this up it links to apathy. So let’s start there and then I will post a paper exploring the international community and what is going wrong.

Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical and/or physical life.

They may lack a sense of purpose or meaning in their life. He or she may also exhibit insensibility or sluggishness. In positive psychology, apathy is described as a result of the individual feeling they do not possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge (i.e. “Flow”). It may also be a result of perceiving no challenge at all (e.g. the challenge is irrelevant to them, or conversely, they have learned helplessness). In light of the insurmountable certainty of universal doom, apathy is the default mode of existential nihilism, and, as such, is not considered to be a pathological state by those who experience it. (See the works of Arthur Schopenhauer).

Example: “Ryan was very apathetic when he was informed about the slaughter of orphans in Africa. When asked about the barbaric attacks, he simply shrugged and said ‘It’s not my problem.'”

It is not my problem, feels accurate. The inability to confront the challenge is also interesting, I feel ‘won’t win’ coming to mind, ‘self interest’, ‘don’t rock the boat (politically)’, ‘don’t get bogged down’ (fatigue), ‘expense’ and of course ‘re-election’. All these words filter through my mind.

Even the concept of a Department of Defence has a different energy to the concept of a Department of Conflict Resolution. Inherent with the name Conflict Resolution is a responsibility to intervene in conflict as a neutral third party. The word ‘defence’ immediately brings up national interest and the fear of attack. Thus preparing for future attacks rather than future peace. The concept of a Department of Peace evokes the feeling of harmony, keeping of the peace and again, a sense of responsibility to ensure peace. This does not have to be forced it can be the foundation to a Culture of Peace worldwide where cooperation and shared concern become the modus operandi of international relationships (not relations). Trust must be a first priority, sharing (the cake) a second and a new philosophy of ‘what we do to another we do to ourselves’. For example to allow the bullying behaviour gives the green light to those who favour domination and control. To evoke a global civil democratic viewpoint would ensure the greater good. Similar to a school community the bullying behaviour would be stopped and the community would be educated to intervene to create a culture that doesn’t support violence. Of course the dilemma internationally is that violence has been used for a long time to ensure power rather than democracy. I hear an increasing acceptance of assassination in order to punish those deemed ‘wrong’ rather than words that promote ‘international justice’ and ‘nonviolence’. Thus the universal commitment to peace is not there is my inner feeling. Self interest is so strong (national interest) that countries become polarised by aliances and sensitivities which render them immobile when real threats to World Peace arise. There is no moral authority or benchmark to say this is not appropriate. It is all negotiated given national interest or perceived lack of strength by countries that deem themselves small on the world stage. No-one is small, Samson and Goliath is real today. You just have to look at the Taliban (poorest country) defeating the US and its allies, bigger is not better, but commitment, sheer will and the courage of convictions is the edge that wins wars.

In truth nonviolence is the force more powerful, as Gandhi stated. This is the supernatural power that is not understood. I would say do not underestimate the power of thought and unified action. My hope would be that this is projected with positive intentions not hatred. That is the challenge for fostering peace in this world, not to hate the ‘other’ but to find creative ways to resolve conflict and acting from the heart not the head. Yet in our current power configuration the heart is seen as weakness, yet I would assert it is the cognitive strategic thinking that is the weakness in humanitarian cases as the people are not emotionally connected or tuned in to act on what would be a natural response, to intervene to help others. We see soldiers do this impulsively with comrads they love, they will die for them. It is more natural to save someone, you have to be trained to kill, it is unnatural. Moreover, it is a weakness in male conditioning displayed in their upbringing and social stereotypes (not their fault). The emotional suppression is a reality that they have to face if they wish for peace in the world, they have been suppressed emotionally and this affects decision making when it comes to humanitarian challenges and maintenance of genuine Global Peace. Moreover, this type of thinking rather than feeling and intuition is institutionalised and called professional and generates the air of impassive control and logic. Yet the feeling part of our nature would know to act. This is my feeling and viewpoint.

I will post this poem first and then a link to an excellent paper entitled ‘Still Standing By: Why America and the International Community Fail to Prevent Genocide and Mass Killing’. The paper will not be speaking of the fluffy stuff that I have raised as it is not accepted in academic or intellectual discourse, however the paper is an excellent analysis of the paralysis of the international community in acting in humanitarian situations whereby the responsibility to protect is evident through early intervention.

First an excerpt of my poem ‘The 7 Steps of Peace’

The first step is Dialogue,

The second step is Understanding,

The third step is Recognition,
That is to recognise myself in you.

The fourth step is Empathy,
For when I stand in your shoes,
I leave my world behind,
There are elements of truth in perspectives,
It is to focus on the truth not the failure.

The fifth step is Truth and Reconciliation,
For it is the truth that sets us free from revolving door conflicts,
The truth is a transforming power,
For the truth is true always just as rain falls from the sky not the soil,
It is not a half truth or negotiated settlement,
For the art of diplomacy is to persuade,
Not to resolve underlying needs with interest,
For a new world paradigm asks –
Is it better to be right or happy?

The sixth step is Harmonisation,
We seek to find common ground that we can share,
There is no loss only a changing mosaic,
For the philosophy of harmony is blending,
As differences expand into acceptance.

The seventh step or seal is Integration,
The sum of the parts encompasses the whole,
There is no separation in the world family,
Each gains more through the shared process,
For this is not a crumb or a carrot to reward or punish,
It is the smiling face of peace in contentment,
For peace is not a treaty document,
It is not the absence of wars of abuse,
It is recognising that world peace starts within every family,
In every relationship,
In every school,
For the school without walls is open to all.

The steps are a simple pathway,
It is a middle path that looks neither east nor west but starts in the middle,
It has no ideology to follow,
It has no religious mantra to repeat,
It shines brightest in the eyes of all children,
For they are the torch bearers,
That will hold a light to the future,
And together they will find their way home.

So be at peace,
Like a fool on the edge of a cliff,
Take a step and the others will appear,
For the fool continues to offer the olive branch no matter the perceived conditions,
The fool will be rejected,
The fool will be ostracised,
For always in great transitions there is fear,
Those who are peace makers will be feared,
Yet fear not those at the vanguard,
The truth will always set you free.

The essay below gives very good insights into the failure of the international community in the case of Rwanda. I feel it has the same message for the situation in Syria. I await the day when words are not just superficial words but values driving the way we truly live. If we are to shape an international community, let’s base it on universal values that serve the greater good rather than vested interests that will only lead us down the path of more violence. Each person makes the decision for the world they want, by your actions or indeed inaction you give your vote.

‘Still Standing By: Why America and the International Community Fail to Prevent Genocide and Mass Killing’

http://www.students.sbc.edu/ostrow06/stillstandingbyP.pdf