OPPOSITION
This house supports the narrative that the international community has a responsibility
to protect populations of developing countries at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity from their own state.
My team and I advocate for the narrative that the international community has a responsibility to
protect populations of developing countries at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing,
and crimes against humanity from their own state. In a world that champions human rights and
universal values, it is imperative that we acknowledge and embrace our collective responsibility
to safeguard vulnerable populations.
Firstly, the atrocities we speak of—genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity—are among the most egregious violations of human rights. They undermine the very
fabric of our shared humanity. The universal principles enshrined in international law, such as
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention, establish a moral and
legal foundation that transcends national borders. By endorsing the responsibility to protect, we
affirm our commitment to these principles and recognize that the protection of individuals
transcends sovereign boundaries, after all, it is natural that the larger, more capable nations
look out for the smaller ones.
Secondly, it is vital to acknowledge the disproportionate power dynamics at play between states
and their populations, especially in cases of broken up unions. In such situations, the
international community must step in to ensure that those at risk are shielded from harm. If we
remain silent and inactive, we become complicit in the suffering and loss of innocent lives. The
prime example that supports this claim- the cruel and unjust Bosnian war during the 1990s. The
conflict arose as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, with Bosnia and Herzegovina declaring
independence in 1992. The ensuing war involved ethnic tensions and widespread violence,
particularly targeting Bosnian Muslims and Croatians. The international community, represented
by the United Nations, initially attempted to mediate the conflict through diplomatic means.
However, as the violence escalated and atrocities such as the Srebrenica massacre occurred, it
became evident that more robust action was necessary to protect civilians and prevent further
bloodshed. In response, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) launched a series of military
interventions starting in 1995. These interventions, along with diplomatic efforts, eventually led
to the signing of the Dayton Agreement in December 1995. The agreement ended the war,
established a framework for a unified Bosnia and Herzegovina, and provided a path for postconflict stabilization. The external intervention by NATO forces played a crucial role in saving
Bosnia and Herzegovina from further devastation and potential disintegration. It helped halt the
ethnic cleansing and violence perpetrated against the civilian population, providing a window for
negotiations and a political solution to be reached.
Let me be clear on the fact that the responsibility to protect is not an imposition of foreign values
but a reflection of shared values upheld by the international community. The United Nations,
with its Charter as its guiding framework, declares the fundamental importance of human dignity
and the protection of human rights. The responsibility to protect builds upon these principles and
recognizes that when states fail to protect their populations, it becomes the duty of the
international community to intervene. If we do not uphold this narrative, we can be truly
considered hypocrites as we do not abide the set of principles WE established.
Critics argue that external intervention may be impractical or ineffective, exacerbating conflicts
instead of resolving them. While these concerns should not be dismissed lightly, they do not
negate the moral imperative to act. It is true that interventions must be carefully planned,
tailored to specific contexts, and implemented with due regard for the complexities of each
situation. However, the failures of some interventions like the intervention of the US in Iraq in
2003 should not overshadow the successes and the lives that have been saved.
Critics also argue that external intervention undermines state sovereignty. While sovereignty is
an essential principle, it is not absolute. State sovereignty carries with it the responsibility to
protect and promote the welfare of one's own citizens. When states fail to fulfill this responsibility
and engage in grave violations of human rights, they forfeit their claim to absolute sovereignty.
In such cases, the international community has a moral duty to step in and protect those who
are suffering at the hands of their own state.
In conclusion, advocating for the responsibility to protect populations at risk of genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity is an imperative that aligns with our
shared values and universal principles of human rights. The international community must
recognize that the protection of individuals transcends national borders, and larger, more
capable nations have a moral obligation to look out for smaller and vulnerable ones. Embracing
the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations is an essential step towards building a more
just and humane world. By acknowledging the universal principles of human rights and the
disproportionate power dynamics at play, we can work towards safeguarding the lives and
dignity of individuals, regardless of their geographic location or national origin. Let us continue
to advocate for the narrative that prioritizes the protection of the most vulnerable among us and
strive to create a world where no one is left behind.