Ambassador Prosper Speech Summary

Nearly 22 years ago, the African nation of Rwanda underwent civil conflict which claimed the lives of millions. Despite clear indications of genocide, the international community avoided intervention for 100 days. During the Hinkley Institute forum, “Rwanda: The Pursuit of International Justice, Then and Now,” Ambassador Prosper argued that nations must intervene globally, as war crimes violate international law, evade UN tribunals, and disallow citizens from reshaping domestic policy. Yet, despite his inspirational claim that individuals affect international affairs, the Ambassador oversimplified the process of prompting action. This weakened Prosper’s underlying message, which asserted that citizens form the foundation of intervention.
Throughout the forum, Ambassador Prosper repeatedly emphasized the importance of upholding UN covenants prohibiting war crimes. He argued that whenever evidence of genocide exists, the United Nations is required to intervene, based upon its responsibility to protect—otherwise known as “R2P.” This is outlined in UN law, which states, “The international community…has the responsibility to help to protect populations from genocide…and crimes against humanity.” However, despite genocide in Rwanda, the UN chose to withdraw its 4,500 peacekeepers to prevent any loss of soldiers. Therefore, Prosper used logos to assert that the UN must act in accordance with its own international laws when considering intervention. Ambassador Prosper then shifted his focus upon UN tribunals, which prosecuted the leaders of the Rwandan genocide.
Unlike other international bodies, these courts hold jurisdiction within each UN nation. Prosper, who served as lead counsel in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, recounted how the case used a dormant convention from 1948. According to BBC, “it became the first international court to pass a judgment on genocide.” However, despite acknowledging the power of UN tribunals, Prosper questioned their capacity to effectively prevent war crimes. Often, it takes years to gather evidence, and the court cannot convict every individual involved. Therefore, the Ambassador used logos to insist that powerful nations are vital in dealing with genocide in a timely
manner. Lastly, Ambassador Prosper used the story of a Rwandan woman to discuss the positive benefits of intervention for oppressed individuals. During the genocide, thousands of women were held as sex slaves. According to the Survivors Fund, “Between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the 100 days of genocide.” Yet, despite the thousands subjected to assault, Prosper explained, “Often, these women were too afraid to speak out, fearing shame and humiliation.” Thus, his case relied heavily on the testimony of “Witness JJ,” who was a female survivor of the incident. Although initially timid, her testimony was pivotal in the conviction of Jean Kambanda, the former Rwandan Prime Minster. Prosper used this story as an appeal to pathos, correlating intervention to the empowerment of disenfranchised citizens. Throughout his speech, Ambassador Prosper used legal warrants to form a compelling argument in support of interventions.
The Ambassador’s knowledge of international tribunals established ethos, allowing him to speak authoritatively. If he had focused solely upon R2P and UN tribunals, it would be difficult to refute that nations should intervene. However, when Ambassador Prosper discussed the role of individuals, his argument became significantly weakened. When asked for details about international activism, Prosper ambiguously answered, “college students should call their local representatives.” The Ambassador then revealed that the Security Council often prevents intervention using vetoes, meaning individuals are limited by the cohesiveness of the UN. In the short term, gridlock could result in millions of deaths; alternatively, within the long term, the Security Council’s power deteriorates the influence of individuals. Thus, the Ambassador’s underlying message that individuals form the foundation of intervention was
eroded. Ultimately, Ambassador Prosper crafted a strong case supporting international interventions, discussing the importance of preventing war crimes. Prosper also used an emotional narrative to suggest that sacrifices for humanity are vital. Yet, through inadvertently acknowledging the UN’s limitations, Ambassador Prosper’s argument was weakened; indeed, it became apparent that individuals are bound by bureaucracy. This directly contradicting the notion that citizens form the foundation of intervention. Despite this, his overarching message was left intact: if one seeks to uphold international law, nations must intervene in war crimes.