ABSTRACT
Time and again, the United Nations has been blamed for either not acting, acting too slowly, or acting inadequately when a situation is either possibly heading towards genocide or has already descended into such. In one sense, this is understandable—especially in light of the fact that the United Nations is the body that is mandated, under its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to act to prevent and/or intervene in the case of genocide, threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. More specifically, under Chapter VII, the UN Security Council is empowered to take measures to enforce its decisions; and in doing so, it can impose sanctions, embargoes, or authorize the use of force to ensure that such mandates are met. On the other hand, it is not a little ironic, and hypocritical, that certain member states disparage the inaction of the United Nations when, in many cases, it is those states, themselves, that are responsible for deterring, if not outrightly preventing, in one way or another, the United Nations from acting in a timely and/or adequate fashion. This is particularly true of the members of the UN Security Council—which basically control what the United Nations does and does not do in the way of intervention and prevention of genocide. When member states vote against UN action to intervene or prevent genocide and then turn around and 114criticize the UN for being weak in the face of genocide, what they really need to do is look at themselves (and their actions) in the proverbial mirror.
