life, not to eliminate it”.^64 We might also recall that the Talmudic saying that
prefaced this chapter is preceded by the idea that whoever destroys a life, destroys
an entire world.^65
It is not hard to agree with Rieff that “the slaughter of innocents” is wrong,
and can never be a “humanitarian act” as such. But the problem is that surely Rieff’s
intuition that force should be used to stop a genocide (wherever it may occur), and
his implication that the slaughter of innocents is always wrong (wherever it may
occur) stem from the same discussion, which is a humanitarian discussion about the
universal value of human life and the need to defend a common humanity. Though,
in practical terms, he ultimately comes down on the same side of the argument as
Rieff, Hugo Slim argues that:
The paradox of humanitarian violence should be allowed to raise its head
and not simply be shouted down by humanitarian purists and critics of neo-
liberal hegemony, for it represents a serious moral problem. The fact that
the best way to restrain extreme violence and to protect civilians might be
to use violence itself is a moral paradox that needs careful attention, not
simple slogans.^66It may well not be appropriate to give the symbols of that value, organisations like
the ICRC and MSF, guns. But that is not quite the same thing as saying that those
with guns, who stop a genocide, however imperfectly, are not part of the same
discussion. If humanitarianism becomes the vocabulary through which we describe
and understand the worst excesses of cruelty and inhumanity, it cannot exclude a
priori action that comes into being precisely as a response. Of course, we should
always be sceptical of justifications for the use of force. But can we really exclude
force once and for all from our understanding of how humanitarianism functions? Is
64
65 Orbinski, "Nobel Lecture".
The Rescuer Otto also notes this. “On my medal, the Yad Vashem Medal, there is an
inscription. It says, ‘Whoever saves one life, he has saved the entire humanity.’ And I think
the inversion of that is also true. Whoever kills one innocent human being, it is as if he has
killed the entire world." Monroe, 66 The Hand of Compassion , 88.
Hugo Slim, "Violence and Humanitarianism: Moral Paradox and the Protection of
Civilians", Security Dialogue 32, no. 3 (2001): 337.