web stats

Event

Regional Consultation on the Responsibility to Protect

8-9 April 2010
Venue: Traders Hotel, Singapore



Bookmark and Share

Thinking Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in Southeast Asia

A gathering of policy experts and analysts from leading civil society organisations and think-tanks in the Asia-Pacific held the consensus that the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) should be implemented in the region particularly in Southeast Asia. However, the greater concern amongst them is in addressing the impediments surrounding the implementation of the RtoP doctrine in the region. Three issues repeatedly emerged as core concerns on the feasibility of implementing RtoP. First, is whether Southeast Asian states could actually choose to adopt either one of the three RtoP pillars or if they should embrace the doctrine in its entirety; highlighting the need to raise awareness surrounding the RtoP pillars. Second, how these states could be persuaded into institutionalising RtoP norms and finally, how the RtoP doctrine could be institutionalised within the larger regional framework.

These were issues and concerns that were raised and discussed at the recently concluded regional consultation on the Responsibility to Protect. The two-day event was organised by the RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the Traders Hotel, Singapore, from 8 to 9 April 2010. It brought together more than 20 international scholars including experts on international security and RtoP, representatives from civil society, and the media. Amongst them were Lieutenant-General Satish Nambiar, the first Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the former Yugoslavia; and Mr Omar Halim, who is the Former United Nations Secretary-General Special Representative on Nagorno-Karabakh and Bekkasi Peninsula, Indonesia.

The objective of this meeting was to explore how Asian states can benefit through a common appreciation of the RtoP principles. The larger objective however was to map out and understand the different voices on RtoP in Asia – both from state and non-state actors in an effort to operationalise the RtoP doctrine. The consultation meeting was part of the Centre’s Internal and Cross-Border Conflict programme, which seeks to explore the linkages between internal conflicts and multi-level and multi-lateral approaches to managing them, and to examine how the RtoP principle can be adapted and applied in Asia.

RtoP and its Misconceptions

In general, participants noted that the obstacles to implementing RtoP in the Southeast Asia region exist mainly due to the misperceptions which arise as a result of the knowledge and perception gap in the policymaking community, and the history of colonialism and inter-state conflict in the region.

At the perception level, participants opined that Southeast Asian states may be reluctant to fully embrace the RtoP doctrine because the region has emerged from a period of colonialism and inter-state conflicts and any attempt to exercise the RtoP doctrine may be perceived as interfering and intervening in the domestic affairs of these states, and may subsequent be viewed as a travesty of the ASEAN Way; characterised by consensus-based decision-making, strict principles of non-intervention and the sanctity of state sovereignty and which has thus far proved effective in bringing together all the Southeast Asian states under ASEAN’s roof. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the concept itself may lead to the belief amongst Southeast Asian state leaders that RtoP is an extension of neocolonialism. This ambiguity raises serious doubts in their minds particularly when considering the implications of Pillar Three of the RtoP doctrine, which, amongst other avenues, legitimises military intervention as a last resort. The participants explained that the essence of Pillar Three is lost because the majority of the region’s leaders still hold traditional views of security and equate national sovereignty to state security. Pillar Three would thus be regarded as an affront to state sovereignty as it legitimises the presence of foreign soldiers on national soil, thus working against the acceptance of RtoP in the region.

Participants also noted a widely-held view amongst state leaders and policymakers that developed economies would actually use the RtoP doctrine to pursue their own vested interests rather than further the humanitarian cause as advocated by the doctrine. In addition to this, participants pointed out that it is difficult for the RtoP doctrine to gain traction in the region due to the belief amongst state leaders that crimes against humanity such as the incidents that happened in Darfur, Rwanda and Bosnia, would not occur in Southeast Asia.

Way Forward: Demystifying RtoP in Southeast Asia

Looking ahead, participants concluded that it is imperative to demystify the misconceptions on RtoP in the interest of promoting human security as a global public good and thus, a policy priority. To achieve this, the RtoP doctrine itself has to be clarified and this can be done via public discussion forums with non-state actors and engagements with the policymaking and analyst communities. The objective of these discussions is to inform the various stakeholders and to weaken the dominant narrative that RtoP incidents will not occur in the region. One participant noted that although the RtoP discourse is gaining momentum in the region, it has yet to reach a level that appeals to the wider public. One suggestion was for the advocates of RtoP to collaborate with high-profile personalities –who appeal to a broader audience – to champion the RtoP cause. Finally, from the policymaking perspective, participants acknowledged that the effective implementation of the RtoP doctrine hinges upon identifying entry points and integrating its principles and values with existing regional frameworks and mechanisms.

Click here to read the consultation report.
To view conversation videos, please click here