Introduction

My appointment as the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide in May 2007 follows an almost equally daunting mandate as Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, which I carried out for 12 years from 1992 to 2004. Someone recently asked me why the United Nations (UN) assigns me such difficult mandates. My response was that they know I will modestly play the role of a catalyst for others with the requisite capacities to step in and do what needs to be done. I see this catalytic role as primarily comprising three functions: raising awareness about the generic nature and root causes of genocide and related atrocities; acting as a mechanism for early warning by collecting, analysing and disseminating relevant information on situations of potential genocide or its precursors; and advocating and mobilising for timely and effective action to prevent or halt genocide and mass atrocities.

Understanding the Nature and Root Causes of Genocide

Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as any of the specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. These acts include: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As defined, genocide is one of the most heinous crimes on which humanity is expected to unite to prevent and punish. For the same reason, however, it is a crime which by its very horrific nature evokes great sensitivity, emotionalism and denial from both the perpetrators and those who would be called upon to intervene to prevent or stop it. Known historical cases of genocide have nearly always been acknowledged after the fact, when the perpetrators have themselves been defeated or have otherwise vanished and the situation has been radically transformed or reformed. It then becomes a judgement of the victor over the vanquished.