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.
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
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