Do something to stop ISIL
“Is it better to not call a genocide ‘ genocide’ and do nothing, or is it better to call a genocide ‘genocide’ and still do nothing?” – Payam Akhavan, former UN war crimes prosecutor.
Remarkably, last week’s parliamentary debate over whether to recognize that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is committing genocide skirted one key question: how will declaring genocide affect what Canada is doing to prevent it?
Perhaps this was an oversight. Perhaps the Tories really believed that calling a thing by its proper name is a triumph in its own right. If so, they were mistaken. Canada’s recognition of this atrocity changes nothing on the ground. However, as the Liberals were right to note, genocide is a legal term. And it’s one that triggers significant responsibilities. Now that the government has accepted that ISIL is trying to wipe out the Yazidi population, it should make clear how it intends to make good on its obligations.
Specifically, under the Genocide Convention, Canada is now obliged to “prevent and punish” the perpetrators of this crime. This is not as pie- in- the- sky as it sounds. Canada is obviously not expected to solve this gargantuan problem alone. Rather, the obligation rests on all signatories to the convention, but to differing degrees, depending on each state’s capacity to influence the perpetrators’ actions, its geographical distance from the events and the strength of its political ties.
So the bar for Canada is not that high. But however low it may be, there can be no question that Canada has not yet crossed it. The Liberals will, of course, tell a different story. They will note that they have put in calls for the United Nations to take “urgent action” to investigate and prosecute ISIL. But we must be honest about where such efforts will lead, or more precisely, not lead.
At present, there is almost no chance of ISIL being prosecuted for its crimes. Leaving aside that the group’s leaders are unlikely to be captured alive, there is the additional problem that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks the jurisdiction to put out warrants for their arrest. In 2014, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to refer ISIL’s crimes to the ICC and the Security Council has made no subsequent attempts to do so. As such, there are serious roadblocks to prosecuting ISIL members in an international court. The Liberals’ call for the ICC to prosecute ISIL is meaningless, as they likely well know.
The other way the UN could theoretically act would be to launch a Chapter VII mission, which is where an UN- sanctioned coalition invades a country with the aim of restoring peace and security. Yet there is little chance of this occurring either, because of Russia and China’s veto powers.
Sensitive to this concern, France is leading an initiative to have the Security Council’s permanent members “voluntarily and collectively undertake not to use the veto where a mass atrocity is ascertained,” which Canada is backing. While you can’t fault them for trying, it is fanciful to think that the permanent members — which are fond of using their veto, particularly when it pertains to mass atrocities — would voluntarily limit their powers.
Evidently, international criminal and humanitarian law are imperfect tools for responding to this crisis. Canada must avoid convincing itself that participation in the UN is the only way for it to contribute. As retired Lt.Gen. Roméo Dallaire noted in his reflections on the Rwandan genocide, “Canada and other peacekeeping nations have become accustomed to acting if, and only if, international public opinion will support them — a dangerous path that leads to moral relativism.” Canada may well want to play along in multilateral institutions, but it can also act alone outside them.
In addition to reconsidering the extent of its contribution to the American- led fight against ISIL in Iraq, there several ways Canada could meaningfully contribute on its own. It could, for example, open its doors far wider to Yazidi refugees and other persecuted people. In May, One Free World International proposed bringing 1,600 Yazidi families living in displaced persons’ camps to Canada. The group says the government has so far ignored its proposal.
We could also make other non-military contributions abroad. The Kurdistan regional government has asked Payam Akhavan, a McGill law professor and former UN war crimes prosecutor, to help establish a truth commission that would investigate and document ISIL’s crimes, provide support for its victims and educate locals about the terrorist organization. Akhavan believes Canada has the resources and expertise to help with this kind of project, as well as other tasks, like safeguarding and exhuming mass graves to allow proper burials and preservation of evidence.
In other words, there is much that Canada could do. We must not pretend, though, that we have begun to do anything by throwing a hefty word around.
HOW WILL DECLARING GENOCIDE AFFECT WHAT CANADA IS DOING TO PREVENT IT?