One of the more powerful but less understood ideas of our times
By Fred • Jul 18th, 2008 • Category: Features
In a speech earlier this week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declared his “deep and enduring” personal commitment to the Responsibility to Protect. Appealing for a common understanding of what R2P is and is not, he said “it is not a new code for humanitarian intervention. Rather, it is built on a more positive and affirmative concept of sovereignty as responsibility”. And he recalled that the principle has been adopted by the 2005 World Summit - “the largest gathering of Heads of State and Government the world has seen” - and subsequently endorsed by both the General Assembly and Security Council.
Pointing out that in Kenya, “the combined efforts of the African Union, influential Member States, the UN, and my esteemed predecessor, Kofi Annan, were instrumental in curbing the post-election violence”, the Secretary General continued:
“As the 2005 Summit recognized, there are times when persuasion and peaceful measures fall short… If Member States can indeed summon the will to act collectively in some cases like this, then others may be deterred from inciting or committing such atrocities. Likewise, if UN rules, procedures, and practices are developed in line with this bold declaration, then there is less likelihood of RtoP principles being used to justify extra-legal interventions for other purposes.”
“In other words, the responsibility to protect does not alter the legal obligation of Member States to refrain from the use of force except in conformity with the Charter. Rather, it reinforces this obligation.”
Nicely timed to coincide with the speech, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has produced a useful R2P Primer and FAQ (both PDFs), both highly recommended reading. The Primer concludes:
“Crises threatening large-scale loss of life are bound to continue to arise, and with them debates over issues such as the most appropriate response to the killing of civilians in Darfur, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, and to the violence surrounding the elections in Zimbabwe. The international community of states will encounter extremely difficult and painful questions about the applicability of R2P, which only demonstrates the need for clarity over the reach and limits of this new principle.
“The attempt to forge political consensus in any given case will depend in part on reaching agreement over exactly what it was that the states agreed to do wwhen they adopted R2P in 2005. But it will depend as well on an evolution of public sentiment. Leaders will take real risks only if citizens demand it; and publics have only recently begun to demand that their leaders confront the issue of human rights violations abroad. As the clamor grows, so will the likelihood of action.”
Fred is living in hope that we'll all get better at collective, preventive action.
Email this author | All posts by Fred
Maybe it’s useful to think of R2P as a process, something inbuilt in us as individuals and states, rather than a responsibility to react. Then we would not be arguing about whether situations are serious enough to be sending in the troops, but always looking to ensure populations are protected from harm, with the first duty of care with families, communities and states then wider out as necessary.