Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Charles Godfrey. I'm the director of the Martha School.
And welcome to the Martin School. The Martin School was set up nearly 20 years ago now by a very generous donation by Jim Martin.
And I'm delighted to say that Jim's widow, Lilian, and her daughter Jaron, are in the audience with us this afternoon.
So on behalf of all of us, Lillian, thank you. And it is wonderful today to welcome Adomah Day and to the Martin School,
who will be talking with Andrew Thompson on the subject of the United Nations and the prevention of mass atrocities in the 21st century.
Some challenges and opportunities. Adomah has the most distinguished career as an international jurist.
He was registrar of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and was UN Under-Secretary-General
and Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and did many,
many other things in the in addition to that and the Thomas in the country at the
moment to launch the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking,
which is being chaired by Theresa may, and Adam is the Deputy Chairman and the Donald will be in conversation with Andrew Thomson.
Andy is a professor of global and imperial history here in the Oxford, very distinguished career as well.
He's a fellow of Nuffield and I'm delighted to say that he's copied on the Oxford Martin School programme on changing global orders.
And then at the end we'll have a comment and vote of thanks from Valerie.
Baroness Amos. Valerie was Secretary of State in the Labour Government.
The Secretary of State for Overseas Development has also been an Under Secretary General at the UN for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief,
Coordination, coordination. And at the moment Valerie is master of Unit for the University College here.
So with no further ado, let me hand over to Andrew. Okay.
So Adam, I think I'm going to give you a talk first and I'm going to.
Thank you very much, Andrew. First of what I would like to say how delighted time to see my good friend and sister,
Valerie Amos, who, despite her busy schedules, decided to come and join us this evening.
But the greatest surprise is this gentleman just in front of me, Steve Roth, who, as you may know, he's the one who prosecuted the trial.
And Steve was with me and I was the deputy prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
So what a surprise to you. Thank you very much for joining us.
So, colleagues, friends, members of the academic community, it is really, I would say,
an honour and a great privilege for me to reflect with you this evening on this important topic.
On the role of the United Nations in the prevention of genocide in the 21st century.
I believe that there is no better place to discuss these issues than at the stellar institution with a rich
history where both students and academics continue to engage in cutting edge research and scholarship,
which has immensely contributed to the work of the United Nations in the prevention of mass atrocities.
And I'm proud of what academic institutions like Oxford are doing to contribute to a more peaceful and prosperous world through academic work.
Yes, recently there was a very important report which was launched from New York and was co-authored by Andrew,
which I share immediately with Secretary Gutierrez,
but also with the chairperson of the African Union,
as well as with the president of synagogue where I come from, because it was a very challenging report.
But it is not the subject of our discussion today. But I just mentioned it for you to make sure that you read that report.
But now coming to the topic, let me just remind that the involvement of the United Nations in genocide prevention
can be traced way back to efforts undertaken in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Mindful of the tragic failure of the League of Nations to stop the Second World War.
The UN was therefore created to ensure that atrocious events witnessed during the war do not happen again.
You are all very familiar with the motto Never again, but unfortunately never again turn to become time and again.
Time and again.
And it was in fulfilment of this commitment that one day before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the 9th of December,
the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
And while this decision may be symbolic of adopting it just ahead of the 10th of December,
it reaffirmed the gravity of the crime and the commitment of the international community to ensure its prevention and punishment.
The importance of this convention is to promote.
Firstly, it designates genocide as a crime against international law, whether committed in times of war or in times of peace.
And secondly, the convention defines what constitutes genocide.
However, unlike any other human rights treaty, the Genocide Convention did not establish a specific monitoring body or expert committee.
It is this letter aspect which has challenged the international commitment to effectively implement this convention since its adoption.
And it was not until the early nineties, four decades after its adoption,
that the Genocide Convention was invoked to address the aftermath of the bloodshed in Rwanda and in the Balkans.
Through Resolution 820 7/1993 and 9559 1894,
the UN Security Council invoked the Genocide Convention to set up the ICC Y and the ICC are
to punish those who bear greatest responsibilities for crimes committed in these territories.
This invocation was significant, mainly because it reaffirmed the inherent duty of states to punish the crime of genocide.
Even in the Balkans and the implosion. Of Rwanda are constant reminders to the international community that catastrophic
failure to intervene to protect civilians from atrocities entailed high costs,
often paid for in the currency of lives lost and nation destroyed,
that the international community failed to intervene to prevent genocide in both countries,
yet managed to set up judicial institutions to punish those responsible.
This reaffirms the relevance and importance of this convention decades after its adoption.
For those who have been keen to follow the work of ICI, t, r and ICI too closely.
You all know that the ICG. I had the privilege, of course,
to serve as the Registrar will agree with me that these two ad hoc tribunals during that existence ran the ground breaking
decisions and contributed to a jurisprudence which used implication on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.
I would say that all the judicial institutions, of course,
were set up focusing on punishing the perpetrators of crimes of genocide and other atrocity crimes.
And to my point, I would mention by way of example, the establishment of the extraordinary,
extraordinary chambers in the court of Cambodia, the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone,
Special Court for Lebanon, and the Permanent International Criminal Court,
all reaffirm unwavering commitment of the international community to fight impunity in all its full.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,
while it is worthwhile to acknowledge that the existence of an international or regional framework on genocide prevention is crucial,
it is equally important to recognise that we can effectively address genocide by adopting preventive measures to prevent it from taking place.
Indeed, since the Rwanda and the Balkans tragedy,
and I should even say I should be saying since the crimes committed in Rwanda and in Srebrenica, because this is not a tragedy, it is a crime.
And I think that should be really underline.
Since that time, the international community has focussed its effort on preventive measures.
And in the wake of the 1999 report of the independent inquiry into the United Nations, failure to prevent or halt the Rwanda genocide,
the report was generally critical of the role of the UN and the international community at large.
The overall conclusion of the report noted that the failure of the United Nations to prevent and
subsequently to stop the genocide in Rwanda was a failure by the United Nations as a whole.
Clearly, this was an indictment of the international community in its entirety, which required an international response.
As a response to this failure.
In 2004, the secretary general proposed the creation of the Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide,
the key function of the special adviser,
where envisaged to include the collection of existing information on massive and serious violations of human rights,
which, if not prevented or halted, might lead to genocide.
Acting as a catalyst of early warning to the Secretary-General and the Security Council on potential situations that could result into genocide,
making recommendations on action to prevent or halt genocide and lies with the United Nations system and activities for the prevention of genocide.
However, the role of the Special Adviser is not to make a determination whether genocide has occurred or not.
Rather, his or her role is to enable the international community to act in a timely manner, and thus NFP,
after months of genocide and following up this initiative of the Secretary General at that time.
Kofi Annan in 2005, the international community brought through the World Summit outcome document reaffirming
the role of the international community to protect civilians at risk of genocide.
This recognition concretised the belief that while states have an inherent duty to protect their citizens,
not all states are capable and willing to offer protection to their people.
It was therefore essential for the international community to create a framework for greater involvement in protecting populations at risk.
The aforementioned framework represent what is collectively known as the responsibility to protect the ATA P,
which is an evolving concept that addresses the failure of states where the unwilling or unable to protect their citizens.
That what is novel about r t is that it challenges the primacy of state sovereignty
by shifting focus from rights of states towards the rights of victims of atrocities,
and by endorsing the responsibility of states to protect civilians at risk.
It is evident that the international community was reaffirming the fact that sovereignty is responsibility.
It entails the state obligation towards its people.
But despite ongoing recognition of this responsibility to protect populations from atrocities,
we must acknowledge that conflict dynamics and I mentioned are evolving into a rather complex and unpredictable situations.
Today, states are no longer an exclusive source of authorities and political power.
Today. Armed groups are increasingly capable of unleashing brutal violence on a scale before unimaginable.
Today, we are seeing conflict in remote parts of the world in influence and supply with weapon from far away actors.
Reality is the UN must evolve and adapt to these new developments.
The United Nations must send an unmistakeable message to all parties involved in
conflict that violence of any kind as a tool to resolve differences is unacceptable.
Those who instigate support or indeed bankroll violence will be punished.
It is regrettable that state representative often interpret meetings with especially the special adviser
on the prevention of genocide as suggesting that genocide is present or imminent in their countries,
which result in defensive behaviour.
And that is my good friend.
Mendez was reminding that while early warning is an essential part of the work of the special adviser on the prevention of genocide,
it could also be interpreted as prematurely alarmist and raised concern about
interference in the internal affairs of by by the international community.
And he said it radically and I quote. Because Mendez was the first half time special advisor at the rank of ASG.
If I wait until all the elements of genocide are in place according to international law, then by definition I have not prevented.
This also relates to which states the special advisers highlight in their early warning.
There have also been differences of opinion between different special advisers on this issue.
I'm saying advisers because and I'll come back later to the special adviser
on the prevention of genocide and the one on the responsibility to protect.
And while some prefer maybe to be more cautious and act in line with the rest of the UN system,
following the imperative to speak with one voice, others feel that it is incumbent on their mandate to air on the side of caution.
I don't know where I was place, but I can I call on Valerie Amos here who witness it at a time, even in her office.
Also, as some of her staff were very, let's say, reluctant to engage with my staff because they felt that that may undermine their work.
But when I raised that issue with Valerie at the end of one of our senior management group, immediately upon her return to her office,
she instructed her staff to work closely with the staff of the special adviser on the prevention of genocide.
Thank you very much. Again, because you up and at that time really thought which was close.
So this is simply to say that we have a long way to go.
And what I said about this, my friend Francis Deng, who was the first, I would say, special advisers at the rank of USG and the secretary general,
he also had to complain because he was saying that even some colleagues within the U.N. system,
when he comes in with his title, Genocide Prevention, would think that he is complicating their lives.
And therefore, he had seen in a number of situations the first line of resistance, which is coming from our own people,
from people of the U.N. system, this that, as they say, someone like Valerie, really easy move that that obstacle as far as I was concerned.
And the last example I would give was about at lack may his soul rest in peace and lack was the special adviser on RTP.
And he noted that during his term of office, he frequently experienced that warnings from U.N. headquarters to parties in a
conflict about behaviour that was troubling from an atrocity prevention perspective.
We are sometimes seen by Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the field and official at the Department of Political Affairs in New York,
as too pointed or untimely,
and in many such a situation,
the Department of Political Affairs take the lead and or the U.N. bodies have to fall in line so that the U.N. can speak with one voice.
So unfortunately, prioritising impartiality and humanitarian access often translate into maintaining good
relations with government that may be appropriating mass atrocities against their population.
And this was seen in the U.N. secretariat response to the increased violence
against civilians in the final stage of the civil war in Sri Lanka in 2008 2009.
Despite early warning by the special advisers, a decision was taken to frame the situation as a humanitarian emergency,
with the Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also put in charge.
And we see that I argued before we are moving decisively towards a new age of sovereignty as a responsibility.
We are slowly but resolutely heading towards an era where those who commit atrocities,
those who violate human rights of their people, will be held accountable.
While accountability may take time, the growing voices of civil societies, independent actors, unmatched technology advancement, among other factors,
will continue to contribute to the collection and preservation of critical information to hold to account those who commit these atrocities.
While it is evident that accountability for the sake of it will not prevent genocide and atrocity crime immediately,
it is no less true that the possibility that any perpetrators of such crimes,
regardless of who they are, will be held to account, significantly influences their actions.
So with the various tragedies unfolding before our eyes,
the obvious question that stands out is how are we prepared to respond to events such as those in Sudan?
Clearly, Sudan isn't the litmus test for the international community, but most importantly to the Security Council and indeed the African Union.
And till today, the Security Council has failed to speak with one unequivocal voice against the actions of both parties to the conflict.
But more crucial to take decisive steps to protect civilians who continue to face the brutal nature of this senseless conflict.
When I met with General Abraham and General Hemmati, I made it very clear.
I said, Where is Al Bashir? He is today in the darkness.
And is it that future you want for yourself?
This was before the war started between those two factions last April.
So I think the council must provide a moral and political leadership to stop ongoing violence in Sudan today.
And this is because within the ambit of the current charter,
it is only the Security Council which wields ultimate power and indeed political duty and
moral responsibility to address challenges with international peace and security dimension.
And as such, the message coming from the Security Council more than anything else,
will continue to determine the extent to which we can save and protect lives of vulnerable populations at risk of genocide.
I do believe that we have adequate international legal framework to address events such as those unfolding in Sudan and elsewhere.
What is urgently required,
but which is critically lacking is the political courage and leadership of the Security Council to overcome divisions in its ranks,
to fulfil its role and perform its duty as enshrined in the UN Charter.
In my concluding remark, allow me to note that the failure of the Council should not be equated with the failure of the concept of responsibility
to protect or the commitment of the United Nations and the Secretary General in particular to address these challenges.
Rather, these failures should be seen and address within the ongoing debate of the United Nations reforms and especially the Security Council.
As events in Libya demonstrated when the Council is united and willing to overcome these differences.
It is more likely to forge a consensus to protect population likely to fall prey to genocide.
It is therefore, in recognition of these political realities that the United Nations must continue to evolve and adapt to the new realities.
Multiplications of actors competing for legitimacy and power will certainly continue to challenge and
influence how and in what context the UN responds to the prevention and punishment of mass atrocities,
especially when the UN itself lacks unity among its ranks on how to address such challenges.
I also believe that considering the importance of growing role of technology in our today world,
the United Nations must continue to make full use of global technology to prevent how to benefit our preventive efforts,
especially in the collection and preservation of key information for future accountability.
I thank you for your time. Attention. Adam, thank you very much.
Characteristically, for those of us who know you eloquent and forthright in equal measure,
the audience is going to have some opportunity to ask you questions in a few minutes.
But I have the opportunity to ask you some questions before that.
And I thought I would ask you some sort of biographical questions to give the room a sense of you as a person,
because I think probably the audience is going to ask some questions by way of a follow up to your talk.
So I want to take you back to that young Senegalese lawyer who would eventually become registrar of the Supreme Court of Senegal for six years,
I think in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
What drew you to a legal career and specifically what drew you to human rights law?
Well, I would say that I thank my father.
My father was a concierge at the harbour.
He never went to school. But he was very much attached to justice.
And as a concierge, he came to know our first chief justice is that Foster, who later become, as you know, at the International Court of Justice.
And he's three. My dad was that I'd become a judge.
That was his dream. So that is what really took me in that field.
May his soul rest in peace. I'm sure that if he was still alive, he would have been so pleased to see that, though I did not become a judge.
But I fought for what he strongly.
Believe. Justice. I fought for what he strongly believe that we cannot remain passive when perpetrators of serious crimes are walking free.
So fighting against impunity was really what took me in that area.
But then, of course, later, when it related to human rights, I was privy, working with the then chief justice, KIPP Bombay, who's well known.
He was the one who conceived to develop the concept of the right to development.
You know, because at the end of the day, coming from the Global South cap and what I called his disciple,
we came to the conclusion that the politic civil political rights are important.
The economic social rights are also important. These rights are independent, inseparable, indivisible.
But on top of that, we felt that there was solid solidarity of rights which needed to be reflected.
And that is how the African Charter on Human and People's Rights was the first instrument to
recognise the right to development as a human rights and to recognise also the right to peace.
So this is more or less what put me in that area.
And so many people in the room will know if your work through what you did at the United Nations.
But of course when you moved out of Senegal, it wasn't straight to the UN, it was to an organisation that you mentioned in your talk,
and I think I very rarely heard you talk and not mention this organisation,
so I know it's important to you as you joined the International Commission of Jurists
and eventually came to serve as its Secretary-General for a decade in the 1990s.
And I think you are awarded a prestigious and the ICJ human rights prize at that time.
And I wonder if you could just tell us why that prize was important, but I think more broadly.
How formative that decade was leading the ICJ for what you went on to do.
How did it shape you as a as a diplomat and prepare you for then what came next to the UN?
Well, being here in the UK, I cannot but really pay tribute to my predecessor at the ICJ, the late Neil McDermott.
My grandmother was a former minister in the UK government at that time when he succeeded MacBride as a regional special commission jury.
It was a very difficult time and I was definitely trained by Neil McDermott.
But like I said, I cannot really pay tribute to this great man.
But the nineties, the period during those ten years, the ICJ was, as you know, instrument to develop many instrument.
And I was reminded recently to a young people, young people in Dakar,
that when we had the Vienna Congress in human Rights, I was trumpeting along the walls of the Vienna Congress.
That time has come ready to establish a permanent international criminal court to bring to an end impunity.
Before, I just organise it and collect them on. No to infinity.
Yes to justice. It was very difficult to convince at that time the delegates in Vienna.
Finally, they accepted a small reference to the call I was making, and I was late in the night.
But also most importantly during that period was a convention to fight corruption in Africa.
Why in Africa? Because I came to get something at the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Although at the subcommittee, the members accepted the proposal I made.
It was a resolution on the fraudulent infringement of state official detrimental to the public interest, meaning simply corruption.
That was the time that many people like the late Mobutu, to, you know, spoiling the resources.
But let's remember. Where you have corrupt people, you have corrupt.
Also the characters from the North, the corrupt from the South.
So if you have, you have to address that issue.
The subcommittee then forwarded the resolution to the Human Rights Commission, but then it was defeated by the United States and Japan.
They felt that this is not the human rights issue and should be dealt with by the U.N. crime branch in Vietnam.
So out of frustration, I spoke with as the legal counsel of the World Bank at that time.
But I shot back with the legal council and vice president said, Well, Adam, I sympathise with you, but the banks don't deal with these issues.
And that is the late Babacan, who was president of the African Development Bank, who said, No,
I have no problem, because basically I was saying I don't need a pen, I just need to have the bank's name.
Because the idea was to show that corruption was the major obstacle to the enjoyment of economic and social rights,
because the billions which are being stolen,
you know, could be used to make sure that people have access to education, access to health, access to water, etc., etc.
So finally, we had that meeting in Abidjan, and that is where comes the resolution in 1998.
Abdi cannot force this summit of the way you follow in which Dr. Salim Ahmed Salim was then the secretary general asking me to.
Prepared a study on corruption in Africa legal economic implication and put draft to submit a first draft convention to fight corruption.
So this to me, was one of the greatest achievement.
Yet we are still facing corruption, but at least the issue is no longer top.
So probably just one more question for me and we'll open up to the audience.
But fast forward to 2001. I think you're about oh, had just been appointed about to be appointed as the Senegalese ambassador to Paris.
And then Kofi Annan approaches you to ask you to be the registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
You're immediately faced with a whole raft of challenges. You've got nine international judges that you've got to weld together as a team.
You've got to make sure Rwandan people have your confidence and that justice is really going to be delivered.
You had the acquitted people sometimes forget those and finding a home for those and I suppose a whole raft of other things besides.
What was it that you know, how did you rise to that challenge and what did that challenge involve of putting the tribunal on a stable
footing in those first couple of years in which people could have confidence in and which had legitimacy?
Well, it was on the eve of Christmas in 2000 when Hans Corell, the then legal counsel of the United Nations, called me and said,
Well, I remember and I want you to be the registrar of the ICC, are at the level of assistant secretary general.
And as you said, I said, Well, I'm sorry, Hans, I'm about to pop and to take my position as ambassador.
And Hans said to me, Look, Adam, you can become ambassador at any time.
That's Sector has been searching for someone.
And everywhere he goes, everyone asks, your name was coming.
So I said, okay, give me time. So I said, No, no, it's and the situation is right now in Beijing waiting for it.
And I said, No, I can't. So we agreed that 48 hours later I will come back to.
And then when I called Justice Bombay, I said, Well, what should I do?
He said, Well, you have to, but it's your life to fight impunity for your life for human rights.
As the young people say in Paris, your future.
And this is an expression that is no, you have to accept.
That's how I came. I came at a time I don't know. I don't know if you had that.
At the time. The tribunal was facing many challenges, and particularly, as you say, difficult relationship between the president and the registrar,
but may be, thank God, as I had the experience working with judges, I think that helped me a lot.
My predecessor did a tremendous work. Justice O'Connor but maybe he did not have that same advantage I had.
And from day one I established a very smooth relationship with the President.
I made sure that once a week we sit in, have room.
At the time, that was my assistant, Navi Pillay, who later became High Commissioner for Human Rights.
We will see, even if there is no problem, we'll have our cup of tea and and so that helped a lot.
And that was also many challenges because that was there was a time the victims in Rwanda decided to boycott the tribunal,
but also the defence launch was also movement.
But that was a time really where both sides were suspicious about this tribunal.
First of all, you know, the government of Rwanda was not very pleased with the fact that the tribunal was located in Abuja.
They wanted the tribunal to be in Kigali. Another problem they had also at the time was that our book did not include death penalty.
And they wanted, of course, death penalty, but.
The tribunal managed. Starting from the first conviction of a young commander who was the then prime minister of the genocide regime,
followed by many or important decision.
And I referred to the accused to decision detriment, which in fact equated rape committed under certain circumstances as genocide.
And also, I would say another important one was the immediate trial, which my friend Steve prosecuted.
And I always mentioned,
even these days that we have to go back to the media judgement because this was the first time that journalist was put in the dock,
because in Nuremberg we had of course, but this was not the same that.
And when we see the rise of hate speech today around the world, it started from the United States,
particularly during the Trump days with Steve Bannon and caused and in fact,
I was saying that while the U.N. principles were enjoying the summer before the the conference on the migrant,
those people were fuelling through the media all type of discourse.
And that led even some European government to back, you know, on this issue of the migrant.
I remember in Belgium, I think that led even to the resignation and in Switzerland thought that we the rapporteur.
So this is to say the danger of hate speech and we need to do something.
And that's when Secretary General of terrorists asked me to lead a process which
ended with the adoption of a strategy and a plan of action to address hate speech.
We have to do more. More. We have seen during the COVID 19 pandemic the rise of hate speech when people are being used as scapegoat.
So I think that is something we have to. Thank you very much. I think this is our cue to let the audience have a go.
So, okay, there's a hand straight up at the back. So can we go for that one where I come from?
Yeah. Sorry. Could you put your hand? Thank you so much.
And thank you so much for sharing insights from your amazing work on material.
Doctor Students researching the protection of civilians at University College.
And with the events unfolding in Gaza and Tel Aviv, I thought it was suitable to ask you what is currently happening inside your office at the moment.
Are there and if mass atrocities are detected?
What tools does your office have available to deal with the situation that we see unfolding in Gaza if the political promises are being delivered on?
Thank you so much. Well, first of all, let me say that what is happening and to our eyes now in Gaza, in Israel, is very, very sad.
I mean, we are counting hours after hours, innocent people who are being killed.
And the lives of innocent people can be take like that the life of an innocent Palestinian, the life of an innocent Israeli are equal.
And we need to make every effort to bring to an end the situation.
But if you look the situation. This is a time for me to remind how important it is to build a strong peace.
And I remember discussing with President Jemmy Carter that was in Minnesota during the Nobel Peace Prize forum and discussing with
him something I just mentioned and was my when of my visit in Gaza those days when I saw the Palestinian workers going back to Gaza.
I mean, and it was very sad.
And that reminded me those days, what I call the apartheid system in South Africa, when the black workers were leaving Johannesburg,
going back to Soweto, the then Israeli ambassador in Geneva was not happy and said, well, how can you listen to me?
But Harris Publishers, you know, they didn't put it in the context.
And what I have said, I repeated again, that is what came to my mind immediately.
But now what is happening today? Is it?
Are we witnessing crimes against humanity? Are we missing war crimes?
Are we can we speak about even some talking about genocide?
I think what is important is first and foremost to give every chance to ensure that the civilian population are not being used as.
Seems, you know, we have to ensure also that the disease,
which has been apparently declared a disease of Gaza, be lifted because there are innocent people.
I was just reading that this court is one of the Scottish ministers of Westminster family law travelled there to visit one of them and they met.
They are now in this trouble. Who knows?
I hope they will not die. I could have been there also because I'm.
I'm planning to travel to. I was planning to travel early next year to the east.
I am in my capacity as another the chair of the International Association for the Defence of Religious Freedom.
But with this situation happens, I may certainly think twice before because I think time has come to put more pressure.
That is why I do believe that the position taken by so far by some government,
including President Biden, including the European saying, stating publicly that we are backing Israel.
I mean, this is very complicated, but to me, I leave aside the political aspect, but let's focus.
What can we do? To ensure that the innocent people, Israeli innocent people, Palestinian innocent people are not front and killed in this war.
Let's make sure that those in Gaza have access to humanitarian assistance.
It's very difficult that the bottom, of course, is we it is time to come to a solution to bring to an end this long ongoing crisis and violations.
In. But it's coming. We need to see a solution.
And there was a solution proposed the two state solution.
And that is possible. Why not to do it?
So there are many other certain interests which are. Pre-empting a solution.
This time of what we have seen so far.
Apparently there are even more victims on the sides of the Israeli.
I remember the first day when I was seeing it was very sad to be counting 200 victims on this side, 212 on the other side.
Something which never happened.
So let's avoid let's avoid dramatising further this situation, because already there are people referring to Iran backing.
So let's not internationalise this.
Let's make sure that these two parties I mean, Palestine, Israel, get a get around the table.
Peace. There is nothing more precious than peace.
You know, so we have a question right at the front here.
But just before that, some asked, just to be clear for everyone in the room that Adam is step down as the special
adviser and under-secretary-general for the Prevention of Genocide in 2020.
So he's not speaking in that capacity. Next question, please.
Adam, good to see you again. You can keep in my mind up right up to mass.
I would like to ask you whether.
Every affluent country in this world is currently being irresponsible with regard to the climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse,
and that in fact every war is likely to be.
A fight over ecological resources.
And until we end, perhaps we need to redefine peace negotiations and make sure that Mother Nature has a seat at the table.
Otherwise, the normal meaning of peace is to go back to business as usual.
But business as usual is ecocide at the moment.
But thank you very much for raising this issue.
And as you may know, if there is one continent which sees polluting the less that is Africa.
Who are the those who are polluting the most?
United States of America, China, etc.
Top End. You can well in European if you want, you could do that.
If we had to put a ranking and who are suffering the most.
That's the African. They have been suffering.
From the time of the slavery, from the time of the trade.
Then they went had their independence.
But yet there are many of them. The independence is just like this.
I never condone coup d'etat, but there has been simply many coups.
Frustration of the people. What we need.
When it comes to the climate, We have seen what happened in 27 Sharm el Sheikh.
They had finally given to extend by one day because they could not reach an agreement because of money.
And those who are polluting, refusing to put money.
So they decided finally they reached an agreement.
Let's see what's going to happen at 28.
As a matter of fact, I'm facilitating a meeting of religious leaders on sixth and seventh November in Abu Dhabi,
being organised by the Vatican Muslim Council of Elders, the 28th Presidency and Unit.
Because the voice of the religious leaders, the good faith organisation, is very important.
This is a matter for everyone and we, as I said, African.
We are victims. And what happening these days?
Many conflicts, I believe very early about what is happening in Sudan.
Africa is the richest continent without foreign oil and the cobalt we are finding in DRC, we will not be able to use today these mobile phone.
But yet. But yet we have seen leaders, Western leaders.
Being engaged in corruption with African leaders I mentioned earlier Libya.
But once the situation I had about Libya is when the Security Council authorised the
native forces to bomb Libya so as to say to prevent protect the civilian population.
What happened after? Nothing.
And that's why at that time I advised visited the bank to make sure that in the next report we mentioned that the Security Council,
whenever they decide to authorise the use of force in a particular country, invoking ought to be.
They have also to think about what next after the intervention,
because not having provided any room, we saw weapons moving all the way in the same region.
And today, the same region is dominated by all these Islamist groups have even that is now present in that region.
And who is benefiting of the wealth of Africa today?
Mostly those in the Western world as the ones who are mostly benefiting rather than the Africans himself.
Thank you. Now, we had a question about half way back just there.
Okay. You do? Yeah. Yeah.
Hi. Yeah. Firstly, you know, this is a question for you about the UN not using an individual.
Your your work in in Rwanda is undeniable.
Firstly, it's.
It's more about the creation of UNWRA and the way that the majority of the Palestinian refugees are classified under UNWRA as opposed to the UNHCR.
And I'm wondering if that's potentially another barrier and the denial of the right of return.
And secondly,
going back to 1948 and the end of the British mandate and actually the UN complicity with the UN partition plan and the events perpetuated since then,
you know, the massacres, the building of the national forests of Israel over, you know, multiple villages,
you could constitute it's been a very slow genocide, certainly system of apartheid.
How do you think that the UN's silence makes them complicit in one of the very things that they're sort of, you know, working to stand up for?
Well, I would say that I always I'm very I'm always very reluctant to use the G word.
It is so serious that he would than one cannot use it lightly.
And that I write, is focussed most of the time I do on crimes against humanity.
It's already something very serious. And this, of course, does not exclude to.
Continue investigating so as to find whether there is in a specific situation
the intent to exterminate in part or total a group because of its identity.
You know, genocide is a process. It doesn't happen overnight.
It requires time, planning, etc. So it may have the physical element, but then to have the evidence of the intent element is another story.
And Steve Rapp, who's a prosecutor, knows how hard it is, you know, and that's why And you know, the guiding, of course.
I mean, it's very sad because this should not have been to break into existence.
In other words, the situation should have been resolved long time ago.
You have had the Oslo Accord. You have had. But any time we lose, we have seen even a prime minister being killed because championing peace.
And the thing, too, is that Rabin, you know, and let's give a chance to peace at some time.
I just wonder if that's not those people, those merchants of death,
those people selling their weapon who have the problems, those who are making profit from the blood of innocent people.
And this has to come to an end. And I think it is time for Israeli and Palestinian to get together.
There was a time when I travel to Gaza, having to travel to Israel.
The civil society of both countries were working.
But in recent years, what have we seen? We have seen a degradation even in that type of relationship.
What's wrong? What's wrong? So we end with an issue of leadership.
I think there is a problem of leadership in this world today.
So to be even handed, I'm going to look back to this and I said, I think we should let someone else set and.
Clara, we've got someone in the middle just here and just that.
Yep. Thanks very much. Hello. Thank you so much for this great presentation.
I'm a visiting scholar from China. I really appreciate that you mention about our two key principles.
I think it's so important for preventing the genocide.
But my question is, because that, you know, there are some states, especially in Labour, that Democratic states,
they are very cautious about this principle because they worry about whether it could be abused or other issues beyond this extreme crime or genocide.
So so my question is what your attitude and opinion, how to how to make get to a broader consensus around the way,
especially for the big countries in the UN's council Security Council.
Thank you. But I hope I am the same.
But thinking about you, there is a feeling to opt to.
Is it? Globalised use because atopy is oriented around the prevention of genocide.
But nowadays many in some countries could be very cautious about it because especially they are worried about where they could be used.
No, no, no, definitely. Of course, we have been facing this debate particularly since after the the Libyan scenario,
and that led even further taking the first one who expressed remorse for having voted.
Was President Zuma of South Africa. But later on, even President Obama expressed it the same.
And then Tony Blair is basically saying the one I have not yet heard expressing actually most is former President Sarkozy.
And he's the one, as you may know, who was very much close with Gadhafi.
And there is even a case, a criminal case pending of a corruption of Gadhafi.
It is alleged that Gadhafi provided him with funds for his electoral campaign.
So it is true that after he was, let's say, perceived by some as a tool for, let's say, the Western world to interfere in the affairs of the others.
But as I said, when it comes to active duty, it is implemented properly.
That means simply. There is a wide avenue for intervention to protect civilians, but this has to go through a process.
The council will have the five permanent members, you know, and of course, all of them in 2005 accepted the after being.
But I want 39, but I want 40 of the World Summit outcome document because the three pillars of the are to be the first.
Peter is the state responsibility.
The primary responsibility lies with the state. Now, when the state doesn't have the means because not every state have.
I mean, the state can ask the international community to help and then to provide the
necessary tools to protect the population and to facing the risk of atrocity crimes.
And the 10th pillar is when you have no order avenue then intervening militarily to protect the population.
So that means this is the ultimate recourse.
The use of force will be the ultimate, because we have seen a situation where I can say.
We were able to prevent.
Atrocity crimes to occur thanks to early involvement of the UN.
I was giving them the example of Kenya, you know, and I was saying, But let's be humble.
If Kenya in 2013 escape.
A situation where ethnic group would kill each other.
That is because the Kenyan people themselves too their destiny in their hand.
The civil society was mobilised. We only provided them with resources to do work.
And then the other dimension was also the accountability dimension.
We all remember the famous Ocampo six. You know, when following 2000 and 7008 events, the case thank to Kofi Annan was referred to the ICC.
So the only thing my view is for those people in the Western world to provide reassurance to the people of the global South to show that.
It is not about interfering as an imperialist force to interfere in this affair, but is about saving lives.
It's about saving lives. But unfortunately, what we are seeing today doesn't help the R2 team to grow in a very healthy way.
At this stage, I'm aware, painfully aware of two things just how many people there are in the room that would like to ask a
question alongside just how strict Professor Godfrey is with his Swiss standards of timekeeping.
So unless you want to break your own rule and ask an unknown question, I've got a vigorous no.
Then could we invite Valerie Amos to come and give the vote of thanks?
Adama, my friend, my colleague.
It's a particular pleasure to have been asked to give the vote of thanks.
And I wanted to start with two thank you's to you.
Really the first for your courage in speaking up and speaking out about the continued atrocities that we're seeing around the world.
And secondly, that you continue to shine a spotlight on those atrocities and you're not afraid to do that.
If I may, I wanted to just pick up a couple of things that you said in your presentation,
which and in the Q&A, which were incredibly, incredibly important.
You alluded to the importance of recognising, as it were, the intersectionality in terms of work on human rights, the humanitarian work,
but also on development issues, and that the way that very often the UN addresses these issues is not in a holistic way,
but much of what we see by way of atrocity we could identify in advance if we think about the conditions that lead to these situations,
the breakdown of the rule of law, for example, the breakdown in terms of the protection of civilians.
And we see this being played out time and time again without intervention.
Crucially, you talked about the importance of words and definition, words and definition really to matter.
But I do think it's important that we are careful that in the noise around these definitions of genocide,
crimes against humanity and so on, that these are not used as a mechanism for preventing action.
And we have sometimes seen that when governments have got worked up about is this a genocide or not, is this a crime against humanity?
There's an important legal track. I think we all recognise that.
But there is important work on the ground which we need to really be able to key into and which informs that legal track.
And it links very firmly to the points you made around accountability, monitoring and reporting,
particularly if we are going to challenge this concept of sovereignty,
which very often states use as a mechanism to ensure that there is no discussion
or to try to prevent discussion about what is happening in their countries.
And we saw this when you and I worked together when Syria was very high on the agenda and indeed when what happened
with Libya in relation to RTP was actually used against us when we tried to use our trip in relation to Syria.
So coming to your conclusion.
Thank you.
Very clearly identified the way in which political differences between the permanent members of the Security Council does not just stifle action,
it actually works against it sometimes because we see them engaged in proxy wars.
So what does that mean for all of us in this room and for you?
It means that we have to continue our efforts despite the Security Council.
We need to find allies and stakeholders that we can work with.
We are not necessarily seeing the leadership from the Security Council that we would like to see.
So that leadership needs to come from all of us. And crucially, it comes from you.
So thank you very, very much indeed for coming tonight and for sharing your thoughts with us.
Thank you. Thank you.