Stephen Smith     Vision

"A world without genocide would be a very different world to the one we live in now.

The way in which individuals think, and behave, and respond to what’s happening around them politically, culturally, socially-- would be different. The way in which national governments think, and behave, would have to be different. The way in which international bodies think, and behave, and make decisions would have to be different. So a world without genocide would be a changed world.

I’d see it top down and bottom up. Bottom up, individuals have to be very clear about their demands, and those demands have to be that--as an individual that lives in the world today, I want to take responsibility for other individuals that live in the world today, and to use my voice, and to speak out on their behalf.

If I do that, particularly if I live in a democracy, and use the freedom of speech that is available to me, I am prepared to do that to make a difference. Because if I was in the position of someone else who is effected by genocide, I would want someone to speak out on behalf of me, as an individual. That’s bottom up.

Coming up a level--non-governmental organizations, aid agencies, organizations that draw off the grassroots should use their collective voice more effectively. Sometimes I think we fight shy. We say, we’ll leave that to the people who do human rights, or we’ll leave that to the ones who do genocide, or we’ll leave that one to the people who do humanitarian aid; and yet actually we are all actors in that.

So if we could use our collective voice, one level up from the individual, we could perhaps be more effective in influencing those that do hold decision making powers.

From the top down, we need leadership. We need a change of heart in leadership that’s not afraid to make big decisions, not afraid to say it is actually worth doing this because people lives are at stake. Not because our political powers are at stake, or our economic interests are at stake, or because our geopolitical interests are at stake; but because peoples’ lives are at stake.

If I was a person in that situation, I would want to see leadership that is decisive. So from the top down we need to see leadership happening. If the leadership happens from the top, then governments can act more decisively. That is a vision that is possible.

I think our reliance on legal structures and political interventions has proven to be a very weak tool to prevent genocide. I think what there needs to be is kind-of an ethical code that we all buy into--whether one calls that moral or spiritual, I don’t know what you would call it--but saying, as a member of the human race, I have a role to play alongside my other human beings because when one of us suffers, we all suffer. Is there a role for that? Absolutely there is.

I think we all know. We have these conventions that are in place, like the convention of human rights, where we know what our duty is towards each other, but it’s about how we act on that. It’s how we--as a community of people--buy into an ethical responsibility, and do something about it. I think there’s this kind-of, for each of us, there is almost this pushing back by which we rely upon our authorities, and we rely upon structures.

We rely upon legal structures and political structures, and actually when we need it, don’t use our voice. If we could buy into this with a kind-of, almost a pledge, by which we say-- this is my responsibility, and I pledge myself to act and use my voice.

If we all do that, then it doesn’t mean to say that genocide will come to an end, but there will always be a voice for those who otherwise are voiceless. That, for me, is an important part of this whole thing."