Failing Forward: The Possibility of Genocide Prevention

Savo Heleta posted a provocative response to Dan Glickman's piece on the Huffington Post, Preventing Genocide. (I'm provoked.)

Glickman, in reference to the final report of the Genocide Prevention Task Force, argues that the U.S. must work to prevent genocide:

"As Americans consider our country's role in the world in the years to come, we can and must do more to prevent genocide, a crime that threatens not only our values but our national interests. We have a duty to find the answer before the vow of 'never again' is once again betrayed."

Heleta, however, is incredulous, arguing that the realpolitik of international relations, whereby nations only engage in matters directly affecting their national interests, keeps the U.S. and others from taking meaningful action to prevent genocide:

"Realism influences states to pursue national interests even if they are contrary to the interests of other people and states. Morals, ethics, and legality are the least important principles for realists. That’s why countries like the United States and France don’t care when almost a million people get slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994 in only 100 days. If there is no interest, then people don’t matter."

Given our spectacular failure to prevent genocide, it's easy to see where Heleta is coming from. However, a few counterpoints:

1. Genocide activists have gathered significant evidence to show that preventing genocide, wherever it may be, is in our national security and economic interest, and politicians are finally starting to wake up to this. The national interest issue is featured prominently in the Genocide Prevention Task Force report that Heleta is criticizing. Even more, the Sudan Divestment Task Force gathered evidence to show that private companies who divest from Sudan outperform those who do not. And there's nothing more self-interested than that which hits the wallet.
2. Self-interest may be the driving force in international politics, but I disagree that it's the only one. President-Elect Barack Obama and key members of his foreign policy team have expressed a real commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur, and the incredibly active Save Darfur movement--which succeeded in, among other things, making Darfur an issue in the presidential elections--is positioning itself to hold the new administration to these commitments. These conversations currently do not question whether or not Obama and his team want to end the genocide--there is general acceptance that the desire is there, and is genuine--but focus on how to keep Darfur a foreign policy priority in the face of the many other challenges Obama will face once in office.

Heleta also notes that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the chair of the Task Force, herself failed to end the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This is true--but it's also true that human beings can regret past actions, learn from their mistakes, and change their positions. I attended a talk by Albright a few years ago, where she referred to Rwanda as her deepest regret. I believe that she was genuine.

But more importantly, my question to Heleta: What, then, would you have us do? Just give up, say it's hopeless, and let the genocides continue?

We strive for ideals knowing that we will likely never fully achieve them, but seek to get as close as possible. More often than not, this is a long and arduous process of "failing forward," a constant struggle of tiny steps forward, occasional leaps backwards, but progress over time.

The Genocide Prevention Task Force report is an example of a step forward--a real, feasible policy blueprint that considers, for the first time, what structures and practices are necessary within the U.S. government for us to stand a real chance of preventing genocide. Implementing this policy will not be easy, but the issue isn't if it's possible, but rather, whether we can exert enough pressure to make it happen.

The possibility is always there. What we do with it, remains to be seen.