Historical atrocities from the Nazi Holocaust to the genocide in Bosnia have prompted the international community to regulate interventions in response to mass atrocities. The resurgence of 21st century massacres and the mass killing of noncombatants—in China, Gaza, Afghanistan and Syria, just to name a few—have shaken the global community, revealing the extensive failures of these response systems as international leaders fail to develop an effective response.
These events have exhausted health care systems, deprived countless people of their fundamental rights to clean water, sanitation and access to timely and adequate health care—pushing groups into social exclusion, unemployment and poverty. These events are a fundamental attack on human rights and should prompt the global community to free these nations from a besiegement of ruthless political oppression.
Neutrality of health care, particularly in times of conflict, is to uphold the values of the World Health Organization (WHO) whose mission is esteeming the health of populations—global health—above the concerns of international governments. Addressing the issue of mass atrocities is not to be disregarded as an issue outside the scope of the WHO. Thus, it may be suggested that the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies take charge of these times of crises.
Collaboration among these agencies, however, is key for urgent change. The Red Cross was founded in the aftermath of World War I and is now the world’s largest humanitarian organization serving victims of disasters irrespective of race, religion, class, or political views. Following World War II the WHO was created as an international health organization with the primary focus of directing and coordinating global health policy.
Unlike the Red Cross which is a humanitarian relief agency, the WHO is a specialized agency of the UN and therefore plays a role in intergovernmental activities with the goal of improving global health. Both agencies work to address health concerns in different ways, the question is can their efforts be merged to create a committee responsible for interventions to mass genocide?
Public Health is political; the two are not mutually exclusive so long as political governance and international economics influence the leadership and funding of health agencies. There is a pressing need for interventions to global atrocities, not only through the collaboration of health agencies but also with the support of the international political community. As seen in history, from as early as the Cholera epidemic in 1830 and 1847, a time when political differences hindered change and as recent as the Ebola epidemic, political leadership is essential for reform.