14 Mar Collective Action Problems: The AU, U.N. and ICC Play Pass the Buck
There are lots of benefits to multilateral military intervention, but quick and decisive action is not one of them. Darfur is a case study. The game of pass the buck between the U.N. and Sudan has led to an underfunded relatively ineffective peacekeeping force combined with delays over further deployments of U.N. forces. Meanwhile, the ICC, a year after its much vaunted Security Council referral, is doing… not all that much.
The problem here is that no one has any actual responsibility for stopping the crisis in Darfur. The U.N. wants the A.U. to do something, the A.U. is looking around for the U.N. or perhaps NATO to intervene (or at least pony up more money). The U.N. can conveniently point to its ICC referral as a “doing something”, but that referral may result in an indictment sometime by the end of the decade and a trial by the end of the next one. Small comfort for those suffering in Darfur.
In regards to responsibility, Professor Ku, what about the Genocide Convention? As you well know, under Article VIII signatories are required to prevent and punish genocide. They also have express permission to call on the UN “to take such action under the Charter […] as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”. Note that contracted parties include the P-5 and Egypt. (Alas, the AU president, the Republic of Congo is not.) Defining genocide has been a hurdle and has served as a convenient method of stalling intervention. Perhaps Darfur will define when the signatories and the UN will bypass failed regional peacekeeping efforts and take the initiative?
The Africa Problem
Just as disturbing is the general lack of media coverage in the US. Our government has called the Janjaweed campaign genocide. One would think that genocide deserves a little news coverage. Thank God for the BBC.
Julian:
I’m actually not so sure that this is a collective action problem. A collective action problem implies an interest in action that is outweighed by the problems of coordination. I’m not so sure that there’s much interest at all in getting involved. Of course, most states would prefer that the people of Darfur not be killed or expelled from their homes. But I question whether states truly care about such tragedies. The dichotomous reactions of the international community, and of the US and Europe in particular, are displayed in comparing Rwanda with Kosovo. While Rwanda was much worse than Kosovo, in the latter, NATO decided to act. Of course, Kosovo was of much greater strategic importance to NATO. If the US or Europe really cared about what was going on in Darfur, the problem of responsibility wouldn’t stop them from taking action.
Seth, that’s a fair point. I should be more precise. But assume states do want to stop the killing in Darfur (certainly groups within the states and the international agencies want to do so). Doesn’t the multiple lines of international authority complicate the ability of a combination of states to intervene? Or of the ability of any single state to intervene?
Also, as the first comment, the Genocide Convention doesn’t give the U.N. any authority it doesn’t already have, at least not the U.N. Security Council, which already has the power to intervene under Chapter VII, I’m pretty sure. The Genocide Convention might be cited as an authorization for a particular state to intervene, although that seems a sketchy reading of the treaty.