In May 2021 the European Union’s representative to the United Nations took the microphone at a session of its general assembly in New York and delivered a speech.
The debate was about the “responsibility to protect”: the principle that bystander countries have the duty to step in to protect people in other countries from atrocities, in particular genocide, when their own states fail to do so.
“The European Union, born, like the United Nations, from the ashes of the second World War, has the protection of people from such atrocities as its raison d’être,” first secretary Thisvi Ekmektzoglou-Newson told the assembly.
The principle originated in the post-second world War Genocide Convention, in which all signatories agreed to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
RM Block
In the following decades, particularly during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the idea became increasingly prominent that countries should prevent genocides beyond their borders.
Major powers were often cautious of any legally binding iteration: China and Russia because they feared western meddling; the United States because it didn’t want to be obliged to intervene.
But the EU was always a fan, and successfully advocated for the idea at a 2005 World Summit, in which the UN member states unanimously backed the idea.
Getting that unanimity meant building loopholes into the language, however, like “as appropriate”, and “on a case-by-case basis”. Which states had the responsibility to act? What should they do? What would happen if they didn’t?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave some answers in a ruling on the Bosnian genocide in 2007.
[ EU’s credibility on line unless concrete action taken against Israel - HarrisOpens in new window ]
From the moment that countries learn of “the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”, they have a responsibility “to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible”. Those with the most influence have the most responsibility to act.
The EU’s diplomatic arm, the EEAS, developed a “toolkit” that laid out what such action by the EU might look like. The document, issued with “cut out and keep” checklists to help its overseas delegations, spelled out early warning signs of atrocities and what should be done to prevent them.
“If the EU wants to uphold its values, it cannot remain inactive or neutral,” the document reads.
Imminent warning signs listed include: “ideologies based on the supremacy of a certain group”, “widespread impunity”, “incitement in the political discourse/on social media to discrimination or/and atrocity crimes against certain groups”, “discriminatory legislation that increasingly obstructs the basic rights of certain groups”, “attacks against or destruction of homes, farms, businesses or other livelihoods of certain groups and/or of their cultural and/or religious symbols and property”.
All rather familiar, you would think, to the EU diplomats working in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
On the list of actions to prevent atrocities: “invoke the ‘human rights clause’ in EU co-operation and assessment agreements”, “the involvement of the International Criminal Court”, “the adoption of an EU travel ban, a trade or arms embargo or/and the freezing of assets”, and “the imposing of diplomatic sanctions”.
[ Mary Robinson urges states to act decisively to stop Gaza’s ‘unfolding genocide’Opens in new window ]
The ICJ warned of a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza in January 2024. On Monday, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution stating that “Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide”.
If the ICJ’s 2007 ruling is taken seriously, as Israel’s biggest trading partner and the source of over a third of its imports, many argue that the EU has a particular responsibility to act.
But, as the months roll by, the EU has still not agreed to even the most modest action. Partially suspending Israel from the Horizon Europe research programme – which would only exclude future applicants from EIC grants, a small part of Horizon – does not have the required majority.
An increasing number of EU states support suspending Israel’s advantageous trade agreement. According to the EU’s foreign policy chief, “Israel has been breaching Article Two”, which makes the EU-Israel Association Agreement conditional upon Israel’s respect for human rights.
But it appears that for a blocking minority, the normal rules do not apply to Israel.
In the circumstances, a group of 209 former EU ambassadors and senior staff have begun pressuring member states to take national action.
[ Gaza postwar plan envisages ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire populationOpens in new window ]
They have urged the suspension of export licenses for any arms or technology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, like semiconductors. Signatories to the UN Arms Trade Treaty in 2013 committed not to allow any exports “if it has knowledge at the time of authorisation that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide”.
Countries can impose national sanctions, like asset freezes and visa bans; can divest from entities involved in illegal settlements; ban Israeli vessels from using ports or airports; and prosecute individuals for war crimes where legislation allows.
Particularly relevant for Ireland was the final recommendation made by the officials in a letter this August: “Prohibiting data centres and platforms based in Europe from receiving, storing or treating data originating from Israeli government or commercial sources relating to the Israeli government’s presence and activities in Gaza and elsewhere in the occupied territories.”
