This satellite picture from UNOSAT is one of a series showing the destruction by arson and shelling of over 2,170 buildings and tent structures in three camps for displaced people in the Rutshuru area of North Kivu (as originally reported by the UN refugee agency). Information from human rights observers is that the camps were destroyed by Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP.

A large group of Congolese civil society organisations wrote a letter to the UN Security Council to call attention to ongoing atrocities including summary executions, rapes and forced recruitment:

While we wish to thank you for [recent] supportive visits and for your concerns about the tragedy here in eastern Congo, we also urge you to move from theory to practice, by transforming your kind speeches and messages into action. Diplomacy always takes time, and we understand this, but unfortunately we do not have time. The population of North Kivu is at risk now; with each day that passes, more and more people die…

We therefore urge you to immediately send EU troops which can deploy quickly to provide protection and security for civilians as you did for our brothers and sisters in Bunia, Ituri, in June 2003 [and] to increase the number of MONUC troops…

The Security Council has agreed to additional troops for MONUC (partly financed by the UK). The next question is where they will come from and whether the EU will deploy reinforcements in the interim. The UK’s position on this is likely to be decisive, which is why a new coalition of NGOs has published full-page ads in several newspapers with the following open letter to the British Prime Minister. (Note the R2P references.)

It’s time for a bold decision, Mr Brown. Prime Minister, your Government must act today to get more peacekeeping troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As we write this letter, a humanitarian catastrophe in eastern DRC is unfolding before our eyes. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced from their homes by violent clashes. Attacks on civilians are occurring daily. Women and girls are being raped on a horrific scale. The situation is deteriorating every day.

The current peacekeeping troops are overstretched and UN reinforcements will take months to arrive. The EU promised that troops would be available to act in conflicts like this. The UK has a responsibility to ensure this promise is met. The people in eastern DRC cannot wait any longer for protection.

The UK Government has said we must “never again” stand by in the face of wide scale atrocities. Over the past five years some five million people have died in the DRC. Now is the time for your Government to uphold its promise. Swift deployment could save thousands of lives.

Prime Minister, we know you are as appalled as we are by the catastrophe in the DRC. But we also know you have the means to act. Today is the day to show courageous leadership.

Earlier this week, Rob Crilly, a freelance journalist in Goma warned in his blog that “There are pirates off Somalia doing their thing and most news outlets can only cope with one Africa story at a time. The charities are launching a big appeal but I suspect this will be a last headline before we let the country sink back into obscurity.”

To be reminded of the human impact of this crisis, you can read four individual stories gathered by ActionAid.

Update: Gordon Brown has replied to the open letter, stating that the UK is focusing its efforts on “making sure that MONUC is deployed as effectively as possible, and that it has the additional capability it requires, as quickly as possible…”:

“We are looking at what additional logistical support we can offer MONUC/troop contributors (e.g. helping them get to the DRC). We are ready to offer candidates to bolster the command and intelligence functions of MONUC, if requested…

“While the EU maintains a battle group, this is designed to deploy to a new crisis where no international force is present. It is not a convenient way to generate additional forces to an existing mission. Some EU member states are already saying they are ready to send troops and would do so through the UN force.”

He emphasises the importance of constructive engagement and collaboration with states, subregional organisations and civil society to encourage “the constructive management of diversity”:

“Wherever there is exclusion and marginalisation, there is a risk of reaction to injustice, leading to a clampdown that can become genocidal. This is a problem that could affect any country in the world: all our countries have identity differences.”

He sums up the essence of the Responsibility to Protect in the phrase, “sovereignty as responsibility”, which Deng himself coined some time ago while working to improve the protection of the 25 million internally displaced people around the world.

(The video may take a few moments to load. Don’t worry about the weird Thunderbirds beeps at the start. If it doesn’t appear, please try this link instead.)

“Hundreds of thousands of people are on the run, fleeing a war that rages in eastern Congo, in the provinces of North and South Kivu. They are frightened. Many are sick or wounded. Others have been harassed or raped, or have had everything they own stolen. The people of the Kivus are in a critical condition. The destiny of everyone in this region is shaped by the war. The story of their struggle to survive needs to be told.

“Starting November 20, 2008, MSF will help the people of the Kivus speak out through a new web site: Condition: Critical“

“In speech after speech, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, talks up human rights and his concept of “civilian surges”… Even if Britain feels it cannot act decisively and boldly in the DRC, it should at least not be blocking other EU member states from doing so. MONUC desperately needs reinforcements of troops and equipment. Some EU members are apparently ready to act. The UK should immediately support that initiative, at least politically and preferably by offering some of its much-vaunted military expertise as well.”

(Marker shows Kanyabayonga)

Underlining the continued instability of the situation, Congolese troops have gone on the rampage again, this time looting and raping in Kanyabayonga, after news of a rebel advance.

In an open letter to the UN Security Council, respected figures including Jan Egeland (former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs), Gareth Evans (President of the International Crisis Group) and Juan Méndez (President of the International Center for Transitional Justice and former UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide) have made explicit reference to the obligation to respond under the ‘Responsibility to Protect’:

“Human rights violations currently committed by the parties in conflict in North Kivu have clearly crossed the thresholds laid out by the responsibility to protect norm adopted by the General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. The violations include: forced displacement that is not for clear military objectives or to protect civilians; rape as a weapon of war; and the killing of civilians including on the basis of ethnicity.

“Yet the situation could get even worse… The risk of Nkunda resuming the offensive and occupying Goma, now defended only by a small contingent of UN troops, and of the Congolese government mobilizing Rwandan Hutu rebels to regain lost ground, presents the real possibility that the campaign of violence could threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands more. It could lead to ethnic violence against Tutsis in South Kivu and north Katanga, and a campaign of revenge killings by Nkunda’s forces. Escalation of the conflict may also draw neighboring Rwanda into the conflict once again, reignite the regional war, and lead to a major humanitarian catastrophe among a population that already lacks essential food, adequate shelter and medical care.

“…in cases where a state “manifestly fails” to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to act in a timely and decisive action. The failure of the Congolese government to effectively protect its population has made this one of the most desperate situations on earth.

“It is past time that the responsibility to protect norm be applied meaningfully in DRC. The Security Council must now deliver on the UN’s commitment to act in a timely and decisive manner to save people and avert the risk of mass atrocity crimes.

“It is essential that the Council use the full range of applicable measures at its disposal.

“A step change in political engagement is required from the Security Council to press Nkunda and the Congolese to sustain the ceasefire, and to insist to the Rwandan and Congolese governments that they uphold existing obligations and commitments to stop supporting Nkunda’s insurgency and Rwandan Hutu rebels, respectively.

“The Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Congo has called for reinforcements for the UN mission which is struggling to fulfill its mandate to support the Congolese government to protect its citizens. There is widespread consensus on the urgent need for increased international military presence in Goma, to provide better protection for the civilian population, to deter the parties from breaking the ceasefire, and to provide space for the essential political dialogue. The Security Council must take [a] swift decision on this point.

“…It is essential that there be effective disarmament and disbanding of all armed groups and militias in north Kivu, both foreign and national, and the restoration of sustainable civilian state authority in North Kivu…

“The Security Council must also apply other measures at its disposal to avert these crimes. It must enforce compliance with the sanctions regime it has put in place, involving an arms embargo and targeted sanctions, including against those that recruit child soldiers or use rape as a weapon of war.

“And it must recognize the centrality of tackling the impunity of those responsible for Rwanda’s genocide, as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity in DRC - including widespread sexual violence and recruitment of child soldiers - which has made the region so vulnerable to further mass atrocity crimes.

“The Council should express support for ongoing trials by the International Criminal Court of militia leaders in the DRC, and encourage the Office of the Prosecutor to renew and reinvigorate investigations that may lead to new indictments of figures involved in the current violence.

“The 2005 agreement on the responsibility to protect was meant to mean never again to atrocity crimes. Eastern DRC is a test of international resolve to save lives - now.”

[Link to the full statement (pdf), from the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect.]

The Security Council discussed the Democratic Republic of Congo today (11 November). After “probably the most interactive luncheon” with the UN Secretary-General this year, the Council was briefed on the military situation and discussed options, noting that there is currently just one peacekeeper per thousand inhabitants of North and South Kivu. No decision has been taken, but according to the Costa Rican Ambassador to the UN, who chaired the meeting, “a large majority” of the Council agree that MONUC needs to be strengthened [Video]. The head of UN peacekeeping warned that if additional troops are authorized, it could take two months to mobilize them [Video].

The Security Council will hold meetings with representatives of MONUC (the peacekeeping force in the Congo) on 26 November, by which time it will have received formal reports from the UN Secretary-General and from the Group of Experts assigned to monitor sanctions banning any form of assistance to illegal armed groups and the recruitment or use of child soldiers in in the DRC.

Members of the Security Council are fully aware that a new humanitarian emergency is engulfing eastern Congo (where there were already chronic problems), posing a clear and present danger of further mass atrocities and a threat to international peace and security. Nor can they ignore the impressive degree of consensus and clarity that has emerged from diverse advocates concerned about the Congo. International resolve to end mass atrocities is on the line, and so is the credibility of the Security Council.

The Security Council is currently composed of the five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica (who hold the Presidency this month), Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam. The links are to each country’s mission in New York: please write to them today!

(Many thanks to Security Council Report for making it possible to report accurately on these developments.)

Eastern Congo and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’

On this tremendous occasion, and I feel as much relief as excitement and hope that a more United States offers good prospects for a more United Nations.

On that note, I trust you and your team will consider what needs to be done to implement the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine that world leaders signed up to at the 2005 World Summit.

Most people across the world are appalled by mass atrocities - too often in retrospect - and wish to help prevent them in the future. We urgently need a credible mechanism to clearly voice, reinforce and realise those convictions in time to save lives.

The individual Responsibility to Protect initiative (iR2P) engages individuals as agents of change, transforming popular concern into tangible action. By joining the dots across geographical, social and institutional barriers, and by re-imagining activism to include policy ‘insiders’, the iR2P network fosters stronger connections between those with most influence, those immediately affected by crises such as those ongoing in Darfur and eastern Congo, and those who ask, “What can I do?”

The US government is already actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to help stabilize and resolve the situation in eastern Congo. A huge test of international resolve to support democracy and peace where these fundamentals are all too elusive, it is hard to overstate the significance of the outcome for Africa as a whole, and the people of the Great Lakes region in particular. We have collected analysis and 10 policy recommendations on the iR2P website.

In continued hope, and with heartfelt congratulations,

Fred (on behalf of all who have signed the iR2P Pledge)

Avaaz (a bold new campaigning organisation with over 3 million members worldwide) is collecting a million messages of congratulation to display on a wall in the heart of Washington DC, in the hope that the site will become a focus for US media reporting on global reactions to Obama’s election success. Add your own voice here.

Update from Avaaz: “In just 24 hours, over 150,000 people from 189 countries have signed and sent a message for Barack Obama to our huge global wall in the centre of Washington DC, and it has been covered on CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and in the US on front pages of two of the biggest newspapers and on the evening news.”

The last time eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) had this much media attention, it was full of refugees from Rwanda who had arrived intermingled with the extremist officials and militia groups that had orchestrated the 1994 genocide. (People who are armed or have committed crimes against humanity aren’t eligible for refugee status under international law, but neither the Congolese authorities nor the UN prevented the genocidaires from keeping their weapons and running the camps.) There were stories of cholera outbreaks and a massive relief operation, but then the news moved on. There was very little coverage or outcry when the same exiled genocidaires staged gruesome raids on Rwanda, or when in 1996 the new Rwandan army crossed the border and carried out massacres of its own, hunting down Rwandan Hutu rebels and refugees alike before sending some 600,000 back to Rwanda.

That was the opening act of two really nasty wars, followed by a power-sharing agreement and a transition to democracy. But these achievements were built on flimsy foundations, and were not shored up by meaningful reforms and effective nationally-led efforts to improve security, end impunity and improve living conditions. All manner of foreign and home-grown armed groups flourished in the security vacuum and profited by selling Congo’s fantastic mineral and timber wealth to the highest bidders.

Now the international press is back in Goma in numbers that seem remarkable, given stiff competition from the financial markets and the US elections. So there is much more material than usual to draw on for the background material and news articles below.  But some humanitarian workers are also uniquely placed to report on the consequences of the violence, as Helen O’Neill of MSF does here (audio):

“One week there is a bustling village and the next week our mobile medical teams return to discover it’s completely empty - a ghost town. Thousands are on the move - a constant stream of humanity on the road. Who knows where all these people will end up? The families settle in inhospitable areas, many of them in the bush, where there is no chance of accessing healthcare… Malaria is endemic in the country, as is cholera, which increases whenever people are on the move like this or crowded into unsanitary camps… The people I met are also hungry, as they can’t go to their fields to harvest. It’s just too dangerous. If you are out alone trying to get to your land you can be shot or raped.”

News roundup

• Photo slideshows: MSNBC & Time
• A UN convoy brought limited humanitarian supplies into rebel-held territories yesterday, but found the camps around Rutshuru were empty. (On Friday, the UN Refugee Agency said it had received reports that a number of camps in had been “forcibly emptied, looted and burned“.) Rebels told journalists “We are bringing peace and then we will bring development“. Humanitarian sources say the rebels are preventing new camps from forming.
• The UN Human Rights Commissioner has warned that “During previous outbreaks of fighting in this region, we have seen horrendous large-scale summary and arbitrary executions, rapes, disappearances, torture, harassment, unlawful arrest and arbitrary detention, not to mention wave after wave of mass displacement. Over the past days, a number of fresh violations have been recorded by UN human rights staff in the region… In Goma, the main perpetrators of looting, killings and rapes appear to have been renegade soldiers belonging to the national army, many of whom have fled the fighting. Other serious abuses, including targeted killings, have been reported from areas held by forces of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), commanded by Laurent Nkunda.”
• The Guardian, Associated Press and Human Rights Watch have denounced war crimes committed on November 4-5 in Kiwanja, 2 km north of Rutshuru, North Kivu, prompting the UN to launch an investigation.
• Talk about talks: Nkunda has demanded to negotiate directly with Kabila, who has refused. Diplomatic efforts are underway to get Kagame and Kabila to meet face-to-face in Nairobi next week. The African Union is to hold emergency talks, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is planning to visit DRC and Rwanda this weekend. Ban has appointed former Nigerian President Obasanjo to be his Special Envoy to DRC.
• The head of UN peacekeeping says the overstretched UN force in DRC (MONUC) has been unfairly criticised for its failure to defend key towns and protect civilians. But outspoken critics include French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who says the force needs strengthening. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has told the BBC, Channel 4 news that it’s possible the UK could send troops to the DRC as part of a possible European Union force, if requested (audio). New: Miliband’s written statement to Parliament. But Human Rights Watch say his words haven’t been backed by deeds.
• Nkunda said the ceasefire doesn’t apply to the FDLR, and continued to battle them near Rutshuru (Bloomberg). Reports from humanitarian sources say the CNDP clashed with Congolese army and PARECO soldiers on Monday and Mayi Mayi militia on Tuesday.
• More fighting was reported on Friday as African leaders and the UN Secretary-General attended a crisis summit in Nairobi (Daily Nation, Kenya). A separate southern African regional summit - a group that includes DRC, Angola, Zimbabwe and South Africa - has announced that it is sending military advisors to support the Congolese government and declared its readiness to deploy ‘peacemaking forces‘ if necessary. (Angolan troops have been observed in North Kivu since at least May.)


People queuing for food and water outside Goma. Photo by Oxfam.

Background briefings

• New: Q&A (International Center for Transitional Justice)
• A brief history (animated slideshow from The Guardian)
• Detailed history & timeline (Reuters Alertnet)
• Background to the crisis in North Kivu (From the Frontline blog)
• Vested interests in the mineral trade (Global Witness)
• Human rights in DRC (Human Rights Watch)
• Forced displacement issues (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre)
• Analysis of the conflict (International Crisis Group)
• Reporting and links (Pulitzer Center)
• Action by the UN Security Council (Security Council Report - includes briefing on recent events)
• The FDLR and other foreign armed groups in DRC: presentation / report (Conflict & Transition Consultancies)

Policy recommendations

The following 10 steps have been taken from a variety of sources (listed below) and are consistent with ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine:

1. Apply sustained, coherent and even-handed international pressure to ensure dialogue between the protagonists to work on acceptable problem-solving mechanisms instead of seeking to profit through dangerous alliances with proxy forces.
2. Strengthen the UN mandate and answer UN requests for more, better-equipped troops (preferably including Special Forces) for MONUC, including through rapid deployment of a UN-mandated European Force, to secure strategic locations and protect civilians.
3. Maximise efforts to help impartial specialist agencies like MSF and the ICRC get humanitarian assistance to those who need it. New: Impose strict measures to police and prevent the militarization of IDP camps.
4. Regroup the Congolese army (FARDC) and bring it under firm control and new leadership as a matter of urgency. Senior officers must be vetted; no national army can succeed if it is led by war criminals and racketeers. The troops need better training and discipline, but also better conditions.
5. Through political, economic and military pressure, isolate, diminish, disarm and disband all foreign and local militia groups.
6. Enable more inclusive dialogue in DRC and Rwanda to address deeper problems including citizenship, property rights, management of natural resources and the return of refugees. In the process, listen to and inform the rural population and multiple minorities of the Kivus.
7. Examine and control the mineral trade, including through more intrusive sanctions monitoring (e.g. flight inspections) and instruments such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Global Compact.
8. Investigate and prosecute human rights abuses and war crimes through the Congolese courts and the International Criminal Court, whose Chief Prosecutor is “closely monitoring converging information about attacks against civilian populations, forced displacement of populations, murders, rapes, pillaging and looting” in North Kivu.
9. Monitor, challenge and prosecute hate speech from politicians and the media in DRC, the Great Lakes region and the Diaspora.
10. Review development assistance programmes to ensure that they abide by Do No Harm and OECD principles for engagement in fragile states while helping to build democracy and uphold the Rule of Law in DRC (and Rwanda).

Sources of policy recommendations, with sample quotes:

• New: International Center for Transitional Justice: Nearly half the population surveyed in eastern Congo a year ago said they had faced death threats, suffered beatings, or been enslaved by armed groups. One-third had been abducted and held captive for more than a week, and fully 80% had been forcibly displaced from their homes either permanently or temporarily during the conflict. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of people surveyed expected the Congolese government to be able to deliver peace and security by means including truth commissions, dialogue, criminal justice and military defeat of armed groups. In a sharp rebuke to those who portray peace and justice as mutually exclusive, 82% of those surveyed said that accountability for war crimes was a necessary step toward securing peace.”
• New: Refugees International: “The UN Security Council should underscore that civilian protection is MONUC’s primary responsibility, as outlined in resolution 1794, and provide clear guidance on how to fulfill this responsibility most effectively, while ensuring that it has the resources needed to do so.”
• Council on Foreign Relations: “The problem in eastern Congo is analogous to the problem Sierra Leone faced in 2000, when a British intervention stabilized the country.” (With audio)
• The Economist: “Plainly, the peacekeepers need reinforcing fast, with the right sort of troops. Instead of wringing its hands, the UN Security Council must resolve to send a robust force of extra troops forthwith.”
  
• Human Rights Watch: “It’s up to the Congolese government, not Nkunda, to protect its Tutsi citizens.” New: Audio commentary by Anneke Van Woudenberg, Senior Researcher: “Starting a rebellion is seen as the fastest way to a promotion in DRC.”
• Minority Rights Group: “The grievances of the Tutsi cannot justify the abuses committed by the CNDP.”
• UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes: “We should not return to the status quo. This crisis should be the occasion to redefine the international commitment to the Congo so that there can be a more effective effort to address the causes of the conflict. If we leave the fundamental problems to fester under the surface, all our other efforts – and the UK’s laudable investment in helping the Congo – will be built on sand.”
• Amnesty International: “Deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians and peacekeepers carrying out their duty of protecting civilians is a war crime, punishable under international law.”
• Enough: “All sides must be held to account for the crimes committed, and the International Criminal Court must work with MONUC to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity by all sides“
• The Guardian (Comment Is Free): “Unless sufficient determination can be mustered to follow up with more inclusive dialogue to address deeper problems including citizenship, management of natural resources, government legitimacy and return of refugees, violent instability will continue to plague eastern Congo and unsettle the entire region.”

Further action

Margot Bokanga, a Congolese woman in Washington DC recently wrote:

“The demand for reform is urgent and palpable; although this reform may seem insurmountable it is how the Congolese people and government manage it that will determine the future of the country. By building partnership with those interested in Congolese affairs, the diaspora, and more importantly Congolese on the ground, I am confident that we can influence foreign policy in the West and policymaking in Kinshasa to serve the interests of the Congolese population regardless of ethnicity, religious background, and region of the country.

“In the coming years, it important that the government commit to engage in negotiation to end the conflict in the Kivus, building the economic and political institutions that will move the country forward, as resources can be utilised and economic growth promoted through share government revenues equitably. It will be crucial that our leaders look critically at the methods being employed to solve problems in the Congo as they possesses the seeds of its own destruction. We must learn from past mistakes.”

If you would like to help, but aren’t sure where to start, the following are some actions you could take. (No doubt you can think of other ideas, perhaps inspired by other campaigns - please let us know. Your comments and reports would be welcome.)

• Write to your elected representative. Better still, ask to meet them. Bring a persuasive friend. (For those in the UK, there is likely to be a special parliamentary debate this Thursday. Refer to They Work For You to get your MP’s contact info.) Ask them what they think about these proposals, and ask if they have any links with the Congolese Assembly or the Rwandan Parliament. Find out if your country is currently a member of the UN Security Council. Ask how your government is responding to the humanitarian emergency, and whether this is proportionate to the needs.
• New: join Avaaz in calling for rapid deployment of a European force.
• Most news sites, blogs and radio shows encourage you to comment on the big stories. Add your voice, and draw on the material on this page and the links (please send us a link to your comment as well).
• Media coverage will slip, taking some of the pressure off the politicians. Why not write to the editors (and your MP again) to tell them you want to know what happens next?
• Find out which humanitarian and human rights organisations are doing valuable work in the Congo (e.g. ICRC, MSF, Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam, Heal Africa, Save the Children, Search for Common Ground, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Human Rights Watch). Ask for their recent reports and independent evaluations, as well as their programmes and codes of conduct. Join one of them.
• If you are already a member of a club or organisation, consider how events in the Congo may be relevant to them. Discuss it.
• Find and get to know any Congolese people in your school, college, workplace or neighbourhood. They may be surprised to know you care about what is happening there. Exchange information.
• If you are in North Kivu, or know people there, you may be able to contribute to Ushahidi’s new incident reporting/mapping website by phone, email or the web. (’Ushahidi‘ means testimony in Swahili. The DRC site is brand new, but the system has previously been used in Kenya and South Africa.)
• If you have a blog or website, link to this page and use the resources here to write your post.
• Email the link to this page to friends and colleagues, with a personal message from you to introduce it.
• New: write a message of congratulation to President Obama, calling attention to the action we are recommending in the Congo.

Ituri: Waiting for change. (Photo by Fred)

“It’s not a bad result,” one said.  “But we didn’t get the Responsibility to Protect.”

That was wrong, of course.  R2P was in, shoehorned in a blur of final deals.  I’d bet that some of the presidents and prime ministers in New York didn’t know R2P was in either.

That it slid into the document was a tribute to an uneasy alliance that emerged during the summit talks: EU and African states, led by Rwanda, had pushed aside objection from the R2P-sceptics like India.  For a moment, that alliance looked like the future of the UN.

Now it looks like it’s falling apart.  Last week, Franziska Brantner and I published a report for the European Council on Foreign Relations on the EU, UN and human rights.

It shows that the overall level of support for EU positions in human rights votes in the General Assembly has fallen from 70+% in 1998 to around 50% in the last two sessions.

That’s a gradual drop – in the same votes, support for American positions on human rights has gone from 77% to about 30%.  That probably makes John Bolton really happy.

Equally striking is that China and Russia have been gaining friends.  As the EU has slid down, they’ve seen their support rise by a comparable amount: from about 50% to 75%.

The figures contain all sorts of anomalies and quirky details – the votes cover everything from the rights of the child to human rights abuses in Iran, so generalization is tricky.  But it’s pretty obvious that the rise in backing for China reflects bigger political trends.

Yet looking at the data, the thing I’ve found most depressing is the divergence between the African and European blocs on rights.  Ten years ago, nearly half the African members of the UN typically voted with the EU on human rights.  Now just six do so.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise.  The Zimbabwe case and the dispute over the ICC indictment of Sudan’s President Bashir have suggested a growing gap between African and European ideas on international justice.  The deepening dispute between France and Rwanda over events surrounding the 1994 genocide has become ever more venomous.

What’s gone wrong?  The past decade has seen the West support a series of initiatives for Africa: the MDGs, help against AIDS, the boom in UN peacekeeping and the creation of the African Union.  Numerous European leaders have got great press for African trips.

But they have failed to allay many African worries.  European appeals to international justice look like efforts to dictate terms to Africa.  African analysts revolted by Robert Mugabe’s rule remain suspicious of Britain’s role in Zimbabwe.  Why has every ICC indictment to date involved an African?  Why are European leaders happy to talk about human rights in Africa at the UN but not about the rights of African migrants in Europe?

You can argue about each of those issues for a very long time.  But the overall sense that European and African countries have a common interest in international law and order – the touchstone of those hopeful UN moments in 2005 – seems to be slipping away fast.

That is bad news for R2P.  Ban Ki-moon and his Special Advisor on R2P Ed Luck have worked hard to build an international consensus on the concept (check out this excellent report on their efforts) but at the same time, the news from Darfur has always been grim.  

Now the day-to-day operational problems in Darfur are being overshadowed by a Euro-African debate over whether the ICC’s pursuit of Bashir will put African peacekeepers at risk.  In precisely the place where R2P should be turned a reality, there’s a dog-fight over the limits of international law instead.

Whoever wins that argument, the idea of R2P – especially in its most robust form of international intervention – could be a significant victim.  If R2P is going to stand a chance in future, European and African leaders need to rediscover the spirit of 2005.  It’s time for a strategic dialogue on how international institutions and justice work in Africa.

If that discussion doesn’t take place, maybe we didn’t get R2P after all.

Richard Gowan is the Associate Director for Policy at the NYU Center on International Cooperation, and UN Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

This blog recently referred readers to a speech by Gareth Evans on R2P, calling it ‘probably best available detailed introduction to the concept, including its origins, significance and current challenges’. Now Gareth’s book on The Responsibility to Protect is about to be launched, with events in New York (today), London (22 September), Brussels (7 October) and Washington (28 October).

The book clarifies misunderstandings about the new norm’s scope and limits and spells out the steps needed to make R2P work in practice, with plenty of reference to past and present real-world examples. All of which is most timely, given that R2P has recently been cited by observers and protagonists in controversial situations as diverse as Kenya’s post-election violence, Zimbabwe’s ongoing political crisis, Cyclone Nargis in Burma, Russia’s clash with Georgia over South Ossetia, Somalia, eastern Congo and of course Darfur. Furthermore, Ban ki-Moon and his Special Advisor on R2P will be presenting a report on R2P to the UN General Assembly before the end of the year, no doubt with plenty of advance consultation behind the scenes. Jan Egeland (who you may remember for his successful appeals for more attention to multiple humanitarian crises from 2003 to 2006) has called the book “a tour de force“.

Louise Arbour (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2004–08, and chief prosecutor of the
Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals from 1996–99) has called the Responsibility to Protect:

“The most important and imaginative doctrine to emerge on the international scene for decades. No one is better placed than Gareth Evans to lead the debate about its scope and application to contemporary crises… And no one could have done it better than in this comprehensive and sophisticated book.”

The book will shortly be available in hardcover from Brookings (quote code KGE8 for a discount, say ICG), Amazon UK and Amazon US.

In the interests of full disclosure, we are proud to say that Gareth Evans is a patron of iR2P. (This plug, however, is entirely at our own initiative.) Gareth Evans is President and CEO of the International Crisis Group. Before joining ICG in 2000, he served eight years as Australia’s Foreign Minister. Evans co-chaired the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that initiated the Responsibility to Protect idea in 2001, and he was a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Opportunity and Changethat in 2004 proposed R2P’s adoption by the World Summit.

Three years after saying “We accept that responsibility”, the United Nations General Assembly will soon debate how to put ‘the Responsibility to Protect‘ into practice. How do we know this? Because UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon plans to present to the General Assembly some proposals on the subject by the end of 2008. 

Forget about UN procedures, complicated politics and differing interpretations of sovereignty for a moment - the question is really quite simple: What does the world need to do differently to protect people from genocide? How can we ensure that governments meet their responsibilities in places where there are clear signals (including recent interethnic violence and ongoing incitement) that a situation risks degenerating into the worst kind of organized, widespread atrocities?

Imagine your own neighbourhood is becoming increasingly divided and tense - perhaps jobs and land are scarce, and past injustices have brewed distrust and resentment. Moderate voices seem to have gone quiet, while others are using recent incidents to stir up fear and hostility. The rest of the world doesn’t appear to have noticed, but friends of yours are worried and thinking of leaving. Practically speaking, what things need to happen to make the situation safer? Who should do what, how and with what sort of support and resources?

And now the more tricky bit: clearly the authorities are supposed to provide proper security, but what if some of those in power seem to be part of the problem, privileging one group while marginalizing another, restricting access to the area, letting criminal acts go unpunished and perhaps even arming militia groups and gangs? Let’s assume that by now enough people in other countries- including parliamentarians and ministers - have recognized the danger and agreed not to ignore their duty to act - what are some effective ways they could collaborate to help save lives without making things worse?

Whatever your experience, intuition and imagination might tell you in response to these questions, we’d welcome your thoughts and ideas (leave a reply below or use the contact form), and encourage you to discuss them with friends. To judge by history, the world hasn’t come up with very satisfactory answers so far, so how can we do better? We promise to publish and pass on the most promising practical and creative suggestions received before September 12 for consideration by Ban Ki-moon’s Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect, Professor Ed Luck (who, happily, is a patron of iR2P). ]]> http://www.ir2p.org/2008/09/06/brass-tacks-time/feed/ http://www.ir2p.org/2008/09/06/brass-tacks-time/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ir2p/blog/~3/379820027/ http://www.ir2p.org/2008/08/31/80/#comments Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:25:07 +0000 Fred http://www.ir2p.org/?p=80

Charred boot & wrecked tank, Georgia (Photo: Antonis Shen)

Three years ago, at the 2005 World Summit, 150 world leaders resolved “to create a more peaceful, prosperous and democratic world and to undertake concrete measures… to provide multilateral solutions to problems in the four following areas: development, peace and collective security, human rights and the rule of law, and strengthening of the United Nations.”

Under ‘peace and collective security’, emphasizing “the obligation of States to settle their disputes by peaceful means“, leaders said “we solemnly renew our commitment to promote a culture of prevention of armed conflict“, reiterating “the obligation of all Member States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations“.

Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Summit Declaration read:

Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

At the Summit, Russian diplomats argued against the inclusion of these “Responsibility to Protect” clauses and insisted on watering them down. Yet in an interview last week, the Russian Ambassador to Canada referred to the same principle to defend his country’s military actions in Georgia (which were not authorized by the Security Council): “Our tanks came to protect the lives of Ossetians and our citizens,” he said. “It is a Canadian suggestion that every United Nations country has a responsibility to protect, and in this case its so clear cut I don’t know how it can be distorted.”

As Gareth Evans has argued in today’s Los Angeles Times, this is a misapplication of R2P on several grounds. Ahead of the World Summit, Kofi Annan’s In Larger Freedom report proposed five criteria or ‘precautionary principles’ to be referred to - preferably in Security Council deliberations - when determining the legitimacy of the use of force in special circumstances. All of these present awkward questions for Russia:

1. The seriousness of the threat: What evidence of systematic, widespread atrocities is available to back Russia’s characterisation of the Georgian army’s assault on Tskhinvali as ‘genocide‘?
2. The proper purpose of the response: Was Russia’s primary intention to protect South Ossetians, or to establish full control over the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia while reasserting its influence over other neighbours?
3. Military action only as a last resort: Had non-military options truly been exhausted?
4. Proportionality of the response: Was the scale and intensity of the military response proportional to the threat (in keeping with International Humanitarian Law), or excessive?
5. The response should have reasonable chances of success, and of doing more good than harm: Geopolitical considerations aside, what are the net humanitarian consequences of Russia’s actions (bearing in mind the displacement of at least 80,000 people, the widespread use of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions, the looting and burning of ethnic Georgian villages, and the unchecked behaviour of Ossetian irregular forces)?