Parliamentarians and atrocity prevention
Tags: Human Rights, Genocide Prevention, Government, Justice, Foreign Policy

This article is part of a publication by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA and published in the Zeitschrift zur Aussenpolitik “Politorbis” (Politorbis Nr. 68–1 / 2020). This magazine on Swiss foreign policy publishes articles written by experts.

Kyle Matthews[1] and Daniel Twijuke[2]

Mass atrocity crimes, notably genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, continue to plague numerous countries and remain a serious threat to human rights today. While the international community has come together to endorse the 1948 Genocide Convention, the creation of the International Criminal Court, as well as adopt the Responsibility to Protect principles, more needs to be done.

Important new institutions to prevent atrocities have been created at the multilateral level, including the United Nations office for the Prevention of Genocide and the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes initiative. Globally, new civil society organizations have emerged to advocate and propose public policies to prevent atrocity crimes. These include the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and the Coalition for Genocide Response.

Despite all these developments, preventing atrocity crimes and holding the perpetrators accountable continues to be an elusive target. The historically high numbers of refugees and internally displaced across the globe is a testament to this fact. Civilians in Syria, the Rohingya from Myanmar, the Yezidis in Iraq, and the Uyghurs in China are examples of situations where people face constant persecution.

As such, it is imperative that the atrocity prevention community continues to work to improve transnational mechanisms to prevent the large scale human rights abuses that we have seen splashed across the front pages of newspapers and media channels over the past decade. As a complement to new resources being dedicated to mass atrocity prevention, new focus must be applied in engaging and supporting parliamentarians as key allies, who have thus far been under-utilized.

Engaging Elected Officials

Over the past decade there has been a substantial push by civil society groups and international organizations to engage and empower parliamentarians as key actors in the atrocity prevention community.

In fact, while significant work on atrocity prevention is done by diplomats in their respective Foreign Ministries, as well as civil society activists, parliamentarians have not been used to their fullest capacity. These are elected officials and legislators whose responsibility is to use their legislative power and hold the executive branch of government accountable, while ensuring the implementation of all international treaties and human rights laws.

At the 128th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Quito, Ecuador in 2013, the inter-governmental body designed to foster parliamentary diplomacy, with the goal of promoting global peace and security, approved a resolution to prevent atrocity crimes. The resolution entitled, “Enforcing the responsibility to protect: The role of parliament in safeguarding civilians’ lives,” contains over 30 action points that were identified as realistic steps individual parliamentarians could push for in their respective legislatures.[3] Some of the policy prescriptions called for targeted action, such as public education and awareness of mass atrocities situations, as well as strengthening oversight mechanisms to combat terrorism by non-state actors. Others included reaffirming existing commitments such as the need to protect citizens, especially vulnerable populations such as women and children, as well as continued adherence to international human rights laws. The resolutions marked the importance of elected officials in upholding the Responsibility to Protect, and the need for them to take coordinated action on both the domestic and international levels to ensure accountability in preventing large scale human rights abuses.

In April 2017, the Stanley Foundation, the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation, the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect and the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies convened a meeting in The Hague, Netherlands. Called “Global Parliamentarians: The Role of the Legislative Branch in Building National Mechanisms for Atrocity Prevention”, the meeting’s thematic focus was to discuss how parliamentary bodies can best leverage their frameworks to facilitate mass atrocity prevention. This important discussion was designed to facilitate discussions between lawmakers from various jurisdictions, and was an opportunity to exchange information and best practices on atrocity prevention.

Following the meeting, the Stanley Foundation published a policy memorandum that explicitly recognized that parliamentarians have a unique “special speaking privileges and public profiles”.[4] The memo called for elected officials to use a combination of legislative, advocacy, education, and oversight capacities to boost support of atrocity prevention efforts. The underlying linkage with the three aforementioned examples is the explicit recognition that legislative bodies can play a larger role in mass atrocity prevention.

Given the rise of non-state actors such as ISIS/Daesh in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria and West Africa, and al-Shabaab in Somalia, many elected officials have expressed concern that these groups not only opposed democracies and the rule of law, but were also deliberately targeting civilians with deadly violence. In response Parliamentarians for Global Action, the Stanley Foundation and the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies convened over 100 parliamentarians and subject matter experts under the umbrella of the Milan Forum for Parliamentary Action in Preventing Violent Extremism and Mass Atrocities.

The first of three outcome documents produced at the meeting was the, “Milan Plan of Action on Preventing Violent Extremism and Mass Atrocities.” Endorsed by all lawmakers who were present, the plan of action went a step further in strengthening parliamentary collaboration through a commitment to address the root causes of mass atrocity through action directed toward 1) eliminating the causes of mass atrocity in accordance with the 2nd pillar of R2P, 2) addressing the proliferation of weapons to mass extremists and 3) ending impunity for violent extremists 4) addressing violent repression which can lead to mass atrocity and 5) promoting strong and healthy civil societies.[5]

The second outcome was the draft resolution which condemned the violence of ISIS/ Daesh, a group which disproportionately targeted the vulnerable Yazidi minority in Iraq.[6] The resolution calls for Iraq to ratify the Rome Statute as to provide the International Criminal Court the necessary jurisdiction to prosecute the people responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity in Iraq, fair and impartial trials for ISIS members, as well as reparations for all victims.

The third document, “Preventing violent extremism and mass atrocities — A handbook for parliamentarians”[7], provides the necessary criteria to individuals in legislative bodies to understand the growing link between countering violent extremism and atrocity prevention. The handbook elaborates on themes such as radicalization/ mobilization, community engagement as a preventative strategy, the role of justice as a preventative tool, as well as the unique role Parliamentarians have in global efforts to halt mass atrocities committed by non-state actors.

Legislative Leadership: Atrocity Prevention Focal Points

Since the Responsibility to Protect was endorsed by all UN member states during the Global Outcome Summit in 2005, we have seen national governments appoint individuals with the explicit task of preventing mass atrocity crimes. Known as “R2P focal points” and totalling more than 60 government representatives, they meet annually under the leadership of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the official secretariat. The secretariat helps facilitate joint advocacy, capacity building initiatives, and the exchange of best practices between states.

No efforts, however, have been made to appoint similar focal points in national legislatures. Given the public profile parliamentarians have compared to civil servants and diplomats, such as holding the executive branch to account via media interviews, writing an opinion piece in a newspaper and/or holding parliamentary hearings, this appears to be logical next step in enabling leadership in the fight to prevent atrocity crimes. Lawmakers can apply pressure on both legislative and executive members of governments to maintain adherence to international human rights law, mobilize additional financial resources for civil society organizations, and support the United Nations in countries where there is a risk of violence against civilians.

Most legislative bodies across the world have at least one individual who has an interest in human rights. With the support of civil society, these lawmakers can be mobilized to become atrocity prevention focal points. Most legislatures have a network of members in parliament who are associated with Parliamentarians for Global Action, an organization that works extensively on atrocity prevention and supports the International Criminal Court.

Building National Networks: Emulating Canada

Parliamentarians might build national networks, learning from the Canadian All Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity.[8] Established in 2006 by then Senator Romeo Dallaire, the group is composed of Members of Parliament and Senators from various political parties. They work to ensure that Canadian parliamentarians have the support and knowledge of experts to ensure that Canada is taking timely and effective action to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.

Supported by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Studies, the parliamentary group hosts experts from the United Nations, foreign governments, and think tanks. The group also creates vital links with Canadian organizations and diaspora groups seeking justice and accountability, essentially forming a domestic constituency for atrocity prevention.

The group also compiles reports that are shared with its members and the wider Canadian government, and organizes press conferences to shine a light on situations of concern. Last but not least, the group also convenes stakeholders and conducts studies into Canadian foreign policy and atrocity prevention. Recent reports have focused on the role of emerging technologies, including social media, as a new tool in the atrocity prevention toolkit.

Mapping New Policy Tools for Parliamentarians in Legislating Atrocity Prevention

Over the past decade, parliamentarians have taken action to develop new policy tools to protect human rights, with some focusing directly on the prevention of mass atrocity crimes. In the United States in particular, several important initiatives are worthy of discussion and emulation.

The first is the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, written by Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin, and cosponsored by 20 Republican and Democrat senators. The act functions as a general mechanism for mass atrocity prevention.

The Elie Wiesel Act has four functions including: declaring the critically important nature of atrocity prevention and inter-agency coordination, connecting national interest and mass atrocity prevention, additional training requirements for Foreign Service Officers, and designating the President’s responsibility to transmit reports on current efforts targeted towards atrocity prevention. Senator Cardin stated that, “Our values and national security interests require us to ensure that the United States utilizes the full arsenal of diplomatic, economic, and legal tools to take meaningful action before atrocities occur.”[9] Lawmakers in other countries should study the Elie Wiesel Act and work with their fellow parliamentarians to introduce a similar act. This would ensure atrocity prevention mechanisms are created and institutionalized prevention occurs in their respective countries.

From Law to Action: Magnitsky Sanctions

One of the most important developments has been the adoption of “Magnitsky” sanctions. In the United States, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Global Magnitsky Act) provides a framework that can be used by parliamentarians in their efforts to prevent and interdict mass atrocities. This framework originated from the “Russia and Moldova Jackson — Vanik Repeal and Sergey Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act in 2012”, which was designed to impose sanctions on Russian officials responsible for the death of Sergey Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who was believed to have been tortured to death in prison.[10]

The scope of the Sergey Magnitsky bill was expanded in 2016 to cover all individuals responsible for atrocities and human rights violations, culminating into what is now the Global Magnitsky Act. Passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, the act sets out the legal criteria that the U.S. President and the Secretary of State use, vis-à-vis the U.S. congress, in deciding whether to impose sanctions on individuals complicit in the violation of human rights and corruption. The official preamble calls for “… sanctions with respect to foreign persons responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and for other purposes.” [11]

The Act was strengthened by President Donald Trump through Executive Order 13818, which expanded on the “corruption” threshold scope and added “status based responsibility,” in which an individual can be sanctioned simply for his or her status as an official or leader in an entity that is engaged in serious human rights abuse, corruption, or the transfer of the proceeds of corruption.[12]

Due to political pressure by the U.S Congress, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is situated in the Treasury Department, has applied Magnitsky sanction against Jammeh Yahyah (former President of Gambia), Joseph Kabila (former President of the Democratic Republic of Congo), and Maung Maung Soe (Myanmar military official) amongst others.[13]

Further demonstrating the potential of the Global Magnitsky Framework, other countries including Canada and the United Kingdom have adopted similar legislation. Furthermore, a resolution was passed by the European Parliament requiring all member states to adopt their own respective forms of Global Magnitsky legislation.[14]

The Global Magnitsky Act is also shaping new legislation with regards to holding Chinese officials accountable for the large-scale persecution of more than one million Uyghur Muslims. Drafted by Senator Marco Rubio, with bipartisan support from over 50 co-sponsors from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act authorizes financial and mobility sanctions against Chinese government officials complicit in the oppression of their minority Muslim population.

Moving Forward

The global struggle to prevent mass atrocities will continue well beyond this decade and well into the future. It is imperative that democratic states, civil society organizations, and international bodies increase their cooperation in upholding the responsibility to protect principles and in enforcing the Genocide convention. A key path forward is for parliamentarians to become much more engaged in these issues, and complement and support the work of others to make “never again” a reality. From targeted sanctions to mobilizing political will, parliamentarians have an increasingly important role to place in protecting civilians across the globe.

[1] Executive Director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies MIGS at Concordia University

[2] Youth Fellow at MIGS

[3] Inter-Parliamentary Union “Enforcing the responsibility to protect: The role of parliament in safeguarding civilians’ lives” http://archive.ipu.org/conf-e/128/Res-1.htm

[4] Policy Memo, Preventing Mass Atrocities: A Road Map for Legislators, Stanley Foundation, July 11 2017 https://stanleycenter.org/publications/policy_memo/PreventingMassAtrocitiesRoadMapPM718.pdf

[5] Milan Plan of Action on Preventing Violent Extremism and Mass Atrocities, 39th Annual Forum of Parliamentarians for Global Action, 27–28 November 2017 http://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/research/migs/docs/Milan-Plan-of-Action.pdf

[6] Draft Model Parliamentary Resolution http://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/research/migs/docs/Model%20Parliamentary%20resolution%20on%20returnees%20(ISIL-ISIS-Daesh).pdf

[7] Preventing violent extremism and mass atrocities — A handbook for parliamentarians, Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, 28 May 2018 https://issuu.com/migsinstitute/docs/380461454-preventing-violent-extrem

[8]http://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/research/migs/docs/Model%20Parliamentary%20resolution%20on%20returnees%20(ISIL-ISIS-Daesh).pdf

[9] S.1158 — Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1158

[10] S.1039 — Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1039

[11] H.R. 624 — The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/624?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S.+1463%22%5D%7D

[12] Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

[13] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0243

[14] European Parliament Press Releases. MEPs call for EU Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions on human rights abusers. 2019.

Kyle Matthews is the Executive Director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies MIGS at Concordia University

Daniel Twijuke is Youth Fellow at MIGS