The United Nothing

One of my Rwandese friends angrily referred to the UN as the "United Nothing" when we talked about the world's response to the 1994 genocide. In yesterday's Opinion Journal, Paul Rusesabagina, newly an author and of Hotel Rwanda fame, sounds off on the same note:

When modern genocide has loomed, the United Nations has shown more concern for not offending the sovereignty of one of its member nations, even as monstrosities take place within its borders. Yet "national sovereignty" is often a euphemism for the pride of dictators. Darfur is just such a case. The world cannot afford this kind of appeasement any longer.

The real lesson here is that the United Nations is in need of not only reform but also a basic rethinking of its peacekeeping philosophy. World governments must agree that the extinction of a race is a crime worth stopping at any cost, and back up this sentiment with action. And the U.N. Security Council must create a tool that it has lacked for far too long--a small multinational "rapid response" force which can quickly airlift tanks, jeeps, helicopters and troops to spots where the evidence of genocide is overwhelming.

History offers us another lesson about genocides: The apologies, recriminations and resolutions of Never Again usually begin after the genocide is safely finished and it becomes safe once more to mourn the lack of action. That should not happen this time. The proposed extinction of an entire race should now be considered an override clause to the rule of national sovereignty. Rwanda is over and everybody mourns it comfortably. We ought not to wait until Darfur is over to start saying Never Again yet again.

Indeed! But would a UN-headed force really stop the "dickering"? Impossible: the Permanent Five would have to agree to deploy any such force, and that's no easy task. In Yugoslavia, Russia would have blocked it. In Sudan, China and Russia might. In Rwanda, possibly France. The evidence is worse than Rusesabagina alleges: not only does the UN as a whole fail to react, but usually some of its powerful members are opposed to action.