By Marty Logan
MONTREAL, Jul 19 2004 (IPS)

The United Nations first special adviser on the prevention of genocide says he will not be bound by a narrow definition of international law in carrying out his duty to alert the world to situations that could evolve into the extermination of peoples.

Argentine lawyer Juan Mendez, a former political prisoner and survivor of torture, was appointed as the international community is focussing on the massive humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region caused by the targeting of the area’s ethnic African groups by government-linked militias.

The campaign has been labelled “ethnic cleansing” by some players in the human rights community but most have shied away from calling it genocide.

In an interview with IPS from Oxford, where he was teaching at a summer law programme, Mendez, who retains his post as president of the New York-based International Centre for Transitional Justice, discusses the debate over the “genocide” label.

He opened the conversation by describing his plan to begin his new job with a brainstorming session – to include U.N. officials, academics and members of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – and a description of his mandate.

“It is basically to track conflict situations around the world, to try to understand in real time what is going on – not six months later – and to try to determine whether the situation is evolving dangerously towards becoming a situation of genocide; obviously the next step is first to provide early warning and then advice about initiatives to the (U.N.) secretary-general and the Security Council.”

It is fairly clear now that something dangerous is happening in Sudan’s Darfur region. How can you help turn that realisation into action?

“There’s an important U.N. presence in Sudan already but my sense, the more I look at it, is that preventing genocide in Sudan will take a sustained effort over a number of months and perhaps even years … on the other hand my challenge is going to be to add value to what the United Nations is already doing …”

“Finding a proper role and a proper voice on Sudan is what I have to think through in the next few days …”

“It could be a variety of things, like suggesting that we enter into some form of dialogue or negotiations with the actors on the ground, or with the government of Sudan; or involving other governments or involving decisions by the Security Council itself.. A priori, I obviously cannot say what’s the best solution.”

Do you have a position on the debate over whether a situation must have reached a point where it fits the legal definition of “genocide” before action can be taken?

“My mandate is that I should be guided by the international definition of genocide, but at the same time, my mandate is not to qualify situations as having reached the level of genocide or not, but precisely to give advanced warning before they get to that point.”

“My role, at least, is not going to be straitjacketed by the definition. Obviously some reference to the definition is necessary, because a conflict may be very violent and fought in the violation of the laws of war and it may or may not degenerate into genocide. What factors indicate that it might degenerate into genocide is what I have to look for, and not (to) qualify it as the events are unfolding.”

“I agree that there is an international law definition and for some reason the international community … it seems like we are hung-up on qualifying a conflict before we decide to act. In other words, it’s true that the definition triggers certain responses by the international community, but the worst thing we can do is use the definition to sit around and decide whether the definition has been triggered or not.”

“That basically is a recipe for paralysis, and I think the idea for creating my office is precisely to escape the straitjacket of the definition. I have to say quite frankly that in terms of the international community reacting, I don’t agree that unless we reach the level of genocide there is nothing we can do.”

“There’s all kinds of things that the Security Council can order … they do require a threat to international peace and stability but they don’t require genocide. So I think we need to look at the present state of international law, and do what’s necessary to save lives.”

Will the creation of this post help to provide a forum for voices that were not previously heard?

“My instinct … is to make sure that my office gives voice to those who don’t have a voice – particularly the victims themselves or the potential victims or the communities that can be victimised by genocide.”

“My doors are going to be open, my telephone ringing, to anyone who wants to tell me about situations that may deteriorate into genocide.”

“In terms of my own voice, I am bound by my own sense of duty, I would say, to give my counsel first to the secretary-general and to the Security Council, but then I’m also assured that it’s not going to be confidential, that after it’s given to them, I can decide how public I want to go with it.”

How would you react to a situation where an issue, Darfur for example, goes to the Security Council and then gets caught up in all sorts of arguments, pro and con? Is that political arena beyond the scope of your job?

“It’s not beyond the scope of my job to suggest to the Security Council what action to take. But of course it’s going to their decision; I’m not an executive operator. I’m an adviser, and as an adviser I give my counsel, and then of course I reserve judgement as to whether it’s being fulfilled or not, but the decision is (made) by the Security Council.”

Are you afraid that you will find yourself frustrated at the response to your recommendations?

“No, I’m not afraid; I’m very optimistic. But obviously, time will tell if I am listened to or not. If I’m not listened to, then I’ll have to see if it’s because I am wrong or because somebody else is wrong. I’ll be humble enough to recognise if I’ve been wrong, but I’ll also be very vocal about whether I think my counsel has been heeded or not.”

Are there any other particular situations in the world that you think will require attention?

“Sure. The risk here is also to be distracted by the one that is really catching everyone’s attention and losing sight of one that is festering. If that happens, that is primarily my responsibility because nobody else has a mandate of giving early warning to the Security Council. So I have to be sure that I do all I can about Darfur without neglecting potential situations.”

“At the same time, until I get back to New York, I really don’t have a catalogue of countries or situations.”

Many people argue that the treatment of indigenous peoples around the world is genocide. Do you have a reaction to that?

“(The international definition of genocide) obviously covers indigenous peoples when they are subject to some kind of extermination by one way or the other. That is a factual question more than anything, and a question of intent as well.”

“There is no such thing recognised in international law as cultural genocide or economic genocide. That doesn’t mean of course that I’m not going to be open to interpretations of the Genocide Convention that are a little innovative or outside the mainstream interpretations … not only with indigenous peoples but also with massive and systematic extermination of people for their political orientation or their ideology.”

“People call that genocide and I’m very self-conscious about that. I don’t want to antagonise anybody in the human rights movement, but that is not recognised by international law as genocide.”

But you’re not stepping into this position with the goal of broadening the (genocide) law?

“No, I’m not, but I’m also open to be persuaded that there are interpretations of the law that encompass situations that at first blush don’t seem to (fit the accepted definition).”

Excerpt: