Verbal Perambulation

The World Conference on Humanitarian Intervention will convene one final time tomorrow and hopefully sign a resolution determining the guidelines for humanitarian intervention and the steps that should be taken by the UN in times of genocide.  One issue they need to resolve is troops: who contributes forces, and how do we determine how many?  

            The World Conference on Humanitarian Intervention’s seminar on relief continued Thursday April 12^th.  Secretary General Joanna Griggs called for an open discussion on when humanitarian intervention should begin and said there was to be no time limit on discussing the issue.

            David Rieff started off the discussion expressing that intervention should occur upon the start of conflict.  While many members, particularly Rwanda and Kakuma agreed, China was quick to reiterate its main point: countries should let other governments deal with conflict in their own ways.  The question of US involvement in intervention was also debated as some members like Noam Chomsky expressed their view that the US should not run such programs. 

            Following debate on how to proceed with humanitarian intervention, Secretary General Griggs stated the need to define what justifies intervention.  An African Unity representative spoke passionately about the need for aid in his country, particularly with healthcare.  He feels that when Africa recovers they will be able to jump into the world scene, and then possibly give back later both to those countries that have helped his and to those who may need it the most. 

            China readily defended its position on non-intervention, stating that only in absolutely dire circumstances should it be considered.  When Kakuma refugee Victor Kirr pointed out circumstances in which the government is killing its own citizens, China responded with, “It is the government’s duty to handle a crisis on its own.  We will not ask for help…We will not support intervention on other countries’ part.” 

            After voting in favor of intervening during a health crisis, the members discussed and defined human rights as the Secretary General read aloud from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  More debate ensued in justifying human intervention.  The members voted in favor of creating an organization whose job it would be to determine when a conflict violates human rights and thus qualifies as genocide. 

            Griggs then asked the conference to shift gears and discuss the who and how of intervention.  Here China posed an interesting question: “What is the point of fighting violence with violence?”  Kirr pointed out that intervention does not necessarily mean violence and that, “We need to take care of basic human rights.”  Aiyetoro, a resident of Darfur, brought up peacekeeping and the need to focus on it.  NATO stated how peacekeeping efforts don’t usually solve the violence, which then prompted the idea of levels of intervention.  These levels indicate that military effort should be used only as a last resort. 

Griggs closed the day’s session with ideas the discussion had prompted, such as a UN force and how there are casualties on both sides during intervention. 

I apologize for not posting these ideas sooner. I have been battling the flu but in the last 10 hours seem to be triumphing. Huzzah.

Moderator Griggs left us on Thursday with many things to take into account as we pick up tomorrow on discussion. They are:

-Should there be private miltary groups for humanitarian intervention? Perhaps a UN force?

- Is there such thing as a good peacekeeper?

-Should there always be steps taken before military intervention?

-What can we do to prevent genocide?

-Should we aid in training a state’s police force?

-How is humanitarian intervention beneficial if there are casualties on both sides?

-Should intervention just be on a case by case basis?

-Darfur: broken agreements