How can the events of the holocaust be used to avoid genocide in the modern world?

hen the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, “Never again.”

But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that “never again” became “again and again.”  The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined.

Why?  Why are there still genocides?  Why are there genocidal massacres going on right now in southern Sudan by the Sudanese government against Dinka, Nuer, and Nuba; in eastern Burma by the Burmese government against the Karen; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by both government and rebel forces against Tutsis, Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu?  Why has ethnic and religious hatred again reached the boiling point in Israel and Palestine; Côte d’Ivoire, and Burundi?                                                     

There are two reasons why genocide is still committed in the world:

1.        The world has not developed the international institutions needed to predict and prevent it.

2.        The world’s leaders do not have the political will to stop it.

In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it.  We must study and compare genocides and develop a working theory about the genocidal process.  There are many Centers for the Study of Genocide that are doing that vital work – in Australia, Brussels, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Montreal, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Haven, Nottingham, and elsewhere.

But studying genocide is not enough.  Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to prevent it.  Four institutions are needed: centers for early warning, programs for conflict transformation, standing forces for rapid intervention, and international courts for effective punishment.

1.  The U.N. Security Council and key governments need strong, independent Early Warning systems to predict where and when ethnic conflict and genocide are going to occur, and to present policy options on prevention and intervention.  The Brahimi report made by the special commission on U.N. Peace-keeping makes just such a recommendation, and it should be implemented.  Selected country desk officers and top officials of the U.N. system now hold monthly “Framework for Coordination” to discuss current crises, but inadequate staffing prevents long-range strategic planning.  There is not a single person at the United Nations whose responsible for genocide early warning and prevention.  Who do you call? Ghostbusters.

The International Campaign to End Genocide advocates creation of a Genocide Prevention Focal Point at the United Nations.

It would be most effective in New York in the Secretary General’s Office of Policy Planning.  The important thing is that it be adequately staffed with full-time genocide early warning specialists with direct access to top U.N. officials.

Meanwhile, NGO’s and Genocide Studies Centers should establish our own independent Early Warning networks that can provide daily reports and regular policy options papers. The open secret of the new information age is that policy-makers would get better intelligence if they read the New York Times or London Times daily, the Economist weekly, and used the Internet, than if they counted on their embassies’ classified cables.  In fact, there are plenty of open source reporting services, including the U.N.’s.  But none of them focus on the early warning signs of genocide. Too much information results in confusion and inaction.

the war in the pacific

explanation:

the first historical instance of china engaging in internationalism was during the han dynasty.[1] at the start of the han dynasty, the huns in the north were attacking the frontiers of han and trying to obtain riches. emperor wu of han wanted to gain an alliance with a country called dayuezhi so the two countries could join together and fight against the huns.[2] to obtain this alliance, emperor wu sent zhang qian to the west to establish economic and cultural connections.[2] history records that during the han dynasty there were four primary avenues of contact between china and europe. they included the northern land route, the central land route, the southern sea route, and the far southern sea route.[1] the most famous of these routes is the central land route, or the classical silk road, comprising a network of roads stretching from northwest china to the ports of syria and the black sea, which passed through the oasis of the turkestans and northern persia.[1] the silk road was significant for chinese emperors because it provided dominance over central asia by developing resources and provided new markets for the export of china's most valuable resources.[1]