What Price Will We Pay to Stop Genocide?

A wise man once said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- but when it comes to genocide, the world seems willfully reluctant to learn this lesson. As violence escalates, options for life-saving international responses become fewer, riskier, and more difficult to mobilize.

NATO bombing to avert full-scale ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians by Serbian army, who had a history of genocidal violence, in 1999 is a prime example of the controversy over armed international intervention to stop large scale civilian slaughter. Many critics argue that while the act of intervention was justifiable, the manner it which it was conducted is not. The question remains, however, if the NATO intervention was the lesser of two evils, should we overlook its non-ideal conditions?

At issue, in particular, is that the military intervention was conducted without UN Security Council backing, possibly before diplomatic means were exhausted, and the bombing campaign itself was conducted irresponsibly. Due to domestic political pressure, President Clinton insisted on higher-altitude aerial bombing that killed an estimated 2,000 civilians rather than risk Serbian anti-aircraft missiles --  and American lives -- with more targeted, low-flying assault. Although the intervention was seen as necessary, according to Richard Falk, it was essentially "impossible" because of "political unavailability of the appropriate means." According to some interpretations, Clinton's actions even amount to a violation of international humanitarian law, because the tactics used did not take into account unnecessary loss of civilian life.

But if the loss of civilian life at the hands of the Serbian forces would have been far greater than 2,000, was the intervention still worth it? Clinton displayed a measure of political cowardice by placing the burden of the intervention on the people supposedly being saved, but if this was the only way the intervention would take place -- if the only other option was leaving the Kosovars at the mercy of the Serbs -- is the loss life still justified? Is this an acceptable model for similar situations in the future?

And while the full support of the international community is nice, should the threat of vetoes at the UN Security Council prevent another intergovernmental organization, or even a national government, from taking decisive action to stop a genocidal massacre?

And who is in the best position to decide what trade-offs are acceptable? The people of Kosovo, for their part, unveiled a statue of President Clinton last month in honor of his decision to bomb Serbian forces.

December 9 marks the 61^st anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- this is part of a week of posts discussing the challenges of its implementation.

[Photo by Tadija: NATO bombing, 1999.]