60 years after the UN Convention - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

eport from the panel debate on ‘what is genocide?’ 295
On the issue of contemporary armed confl ict and genocide, Obote
Odora held that the Genocide Convention implies legal consequences
regarding prevention and intervention. As many people die, one
begins to wonder where civil war/internal armed confl ict end and
genocide begins, he stated.
Discussing restitution and prevention, Robert Ndaka claimed that the
Rwanda genocide was clearly preventable. The UN is hiding some
crimes, such as those of America and China. But since the so-called
superpowers are the owners of the legal framework, they are apparently
not accountable to anybody, he continued.
Professor Ingrid Eide, Oslo, identifi ed three serious dilemmas: there
are increasing numbers of civilian deaths in confl ict, regardless of what
the confl ict is called; freedom of expression is also used to incite violence
– for example in the cultural industries violence is entertainment;
and lastly, in our concern for our common humanity we must fi nd a
balance between the need to look back back – dealing with past crimes,
naming and shaming, and so on – and the need to move forward.
The panel’s response to the fl oor included Apsel’s appeal that we need
to move from rhetoric to reality, and come up with concrete type of
proposal; Juma’s pointing to the need for better education in this fi eld,
which he labelled ‘weapons of mass salvation’; and Jallow’s view that
democratic processes sometimes throw up demagogues and others
who abuse their power, for example by planning and implementing
genocide. Freedom of expression cannot become so absolute that it
is used to incite violence. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights is a good starting point, as it recognises rights with responsibilities,
Jallow concluded. Discussing reconciliation, Sikazwe
noted that even if one says that Africans can forgive, it should also be
said that ‘we cannot forget’. Bendaña still believed that there is a clear
North-South divide in approaching the issue of genocide. The fi rst
step towards universality in our action is to recognise that such a divide
exists. There is an overestimation of the power of the North, at
least in the North. Yet there is also an underestimation of the power
of the South by the South itself. ‘In the North we see a preoccupation
with discourse,’ Bendana claimed. ‘Terms, notions, mechanisms, formulas
which are policy- or project-oriented, are more than political.’
But the North should recognise that many crises cannot be prevented,
and that many confl icts should not be prevented. ‘Sometimes confl ict
is necessary to promote progressive change,’ Bendana ended.