As As the world lurches through a murderous summer, we need to redefine national interest. This week my office released an expert analysis of casualty figures in Syria: At least 191,000 named and listed individuals were killed in the country between March 2011 and April 2014. Many were civilians. It is likely that an uncountable number of unknown people are also among the fallen.
Like so many other current conflicts, the crisis in Syria built up over decades, fed by numerous human rights grievances: deficient or corrupt governance and judicial institutions; discrimination and exclusion; denial of economic and social rights; repression of civil society and public freedoms.
And as with other conflicts, these long-standing shortfalls were repeatedly flagged. These festering grievances could — and should — have been addressed.
Conflict prevention is complex, but it can be achieved. In many states, democratic institutions de-escalate disputes long before they reach boiling point.
Even after violent conflict has broken out, international actors can help broker and enforce peace. In my own country, South Africa, intervention by the UN helped end 300 years of apartheid and installed democratic institutions to resolve future disputes. There are many examples of countries where the UN has assisted in resolving conflict.
Yet today, the conflict in Syria is metastasising outwards in an uncontrollable process whose limits we cannot predict. Other conflicts are under way in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Libya, Mali, the occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Ukraine. These crises hammer home the full cost of the international community’s failure to prevent conflict.
The processes that can help prevent conflict are as numerous and varied as the conflicts they seek to resolve. But human rights are always central. Patterns of rights violations, including sexual violence, provide early warning of the escalation of crises.
The human rights agenda is also a detailed road map for ways to resolve disputes. Strengthening civil society, increasing participation by women in decision-making, and addressing institutional and individual accountability for past violations address both proximate triggers of conflict and underlying root causes.
Tragic paralysis of international community
In the case of Syria, neighbouring countries, regional organisations, the international community and, indeed, the Syrian authorities themselves could have sought to apply a number of tactics to reduce the threat of violence.
Instead, the killers and torturers in Syria have been fuelled by inflows of weapons and fighters from foreign countries. And they have been emboldened by the tragic paralysis of the international community.
When the failure of governments to protect their people generates a threat to international peace and security, it is the responsibility of the UN — and particularly the security council — to defuse the triggers of conflict. Instead, actions intended to prevent suffering have been blocked by short-term geopolitical considerations. The council has been unable to take firm, principled and united action, not even referring likely war crimes to the International Criminal Court.
A broader conception of national interest would be more appropriate to a century in which humanity faces a growing number of challenges. The collective interest, defined clearly by the UN charter, is surely in the interest of every state.
As the world’s attention swerves from one crisis to another in this murderous summer of 2014, we must recognise that preventing human rights violations is not only a moral obligation — it is in all our interests. There may no longer be such a thing as a small, faraway conflict. The spillover ultimately affects the security of us all.
—Guardian News & Media Ltd
Navi Pillay is UN high commissioner for human rights.
