|
NTS Insight July 2010 (Issue 1)
The Responsibility to Protect – A Way Forward
This Insight investigates the origins and evolution of international intervention from the foundation of the United Nations in 1945 up to and beyond the inclusion of the Responsibility to Protect in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. It focuses on the role of United Nations peacekeeping forces and the internal and external bids and influences on their establishment. This Insight argues that the international community cannot stand by while mass atrocities occur but needs to recognise the reasons behind the reluctance to endorse the Responsibility to Protect in developing states. It evaluates under what conditions the Responsibility to Protect is able to operate and suggests ways forward.
By Omar Halim. 1
| UN World Summit 2005 |  |
| Credit: (above) UN Photo, (below) Mizzima News Agency |
Origin of International Community Intervention
In 1945, the United Nations was established by 51 nation states and shortly after that membership rapidly increased with the entrance of states which had just gained independence from their colonisers. Many of these states, particularly those in Africa, were basically carved out of boundary compromises reached among the European colonisers without due regard to ethnic or tribal affiliations on the ground; they also experienced a divide-and-rule policy under colonial rule. The nationhood bond therefore varied widely among these states.
As enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the founding fathers were solely concerned with the security of the state. The concept of collective security was used to guarantee the security of the individual state. The approaches to be used ranged from persuasion to, ultimately, coercion by force by the United Nations.
Soon after the Second World War ended, two blocs emerged – led by the United States and the Soviet Union respectively – and their rivalry and belligerence made the international peace and security situation extremely precarious. Each superpower had nuclear weapons that could annihilate the world, and themselves, many times over; but the prospect of mutual destruction also became the ultimate safeguard to peace. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was an example of this.
Depending upon the strategic considerations of the two superpowers, a number of the newly independent developing states became the ground for their rivalry and competition and many of these states became part of one bloc or the other. The historical animosities between or among certain developing states were used to advance the interests of each of the two blocs as well.
The United Nations was used by the two blocs to intervene in conflict areas when tension had escalated to what was considered a dangerous level; to monitor the peace process, entered into and enforced by both sides, in order to halt the escalation. Thus the concept of the United Nations traditional peacekeeping mission was born. This neither conformed to Chapters VI nor VII of the Charter. The traditional peacekeeping missions were generally considered successful because both blocs, due to their respective interests, made sure those elements on the ground conformed to the requirements of the arrangements.
^ To the top
More Complex Intervention
When the Cold War ended at the beginning of the 1990s, the former Soviet Union fragmented at the periphery due to centrifugal forces of various kinds. In some parts of the developing world, the interests of the remaining major power shifted to reflect new priorities. Various domestic factors in a number of countries became unrestrained and this resulted in intra-state conflicts. The eruption of these conflicts in the 1990s presented the international community with a different kind of conflict resolution problem. It was no longer the straightforward inter-state type of peacekeeping that was needed.
The first intra-state conflict during this period which was dealt with by the United Nations was in Somalia. The absence of a strong authority over the whole country and the conflict among the various clans and sub-clans resulted in vast human misery. The United Nations was entrusted with fielding one of the first humanitarian missions under Chapter VII.2 It authorised a coalition of the willing – the United Task Force (UNITAF) – to end the hunger by delivering humanitarian assistance on a large scale. The situation in Somalia, the genocide in Rwanda a few years later, and other conflicts led to the concept of the need to provide for human security.
Genocide was not only committed in an intra-state conflict situation. In an inter-state conflict between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, genocide occurred in Srebrenica. In both cases – Rwanda and Srebrenica – the United Nations did nothing to stop the killings. These and other examples resulted in the deep concern that human security had to be provided to the world population, wherever they may be; and thus emerged the concept of the Responsibility to Protect.3
^ To the top
Responsibility to Protect
The first question is: whose responsibility is it to protect the population anywhere in the world? Under this concept, the target group is the population anywhere in the world that suffers from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; while the actor is still essentially the nation state. What should happen then if the government in the nation state cannot or is not willing to protect its people or part of its population? Should the international community – a group of other nation states – decide that it is its responsibility to protect the population within that state? The dilemma is how to reconcile the two positions.
 |
| Credit: UN Photo/AFP |
In 2005, the Heads of State/Government of the United Nations agreed that ‘each individual State has the responsibility to protect its population 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‘, and they further stated that ‘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.’4 Therefore, each state has accepted the responsibility to protect their own population and emphasised the need to build their own capabilities so as to prevent the occurrence of such crimes.
Furthermore, they indicated that ‘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 VIII5 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 population…’6 It is clear therefore that member states, including developing countries, agreed that should the government of a state be incapable of protecting its population, international intervention could be carried out.
Therefore, the Responsibility to Protect can be considered to have three pillars: (a) it is the responsibility of every state to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; and at the same time (b) it is the responsibility of the international community to assist states in building their capacity to exercise that responsibility; and (c) if a national authority fails to protect its population from these four crimes, then it is the responsibility of the international community to take action to protect the population of that state. This puts the onus primarily on the individual states, which would be assisted by the international community to build its capability to protect its own population. This capability begins with preventing potential internal conflicts using peaceful means, and ranges to force to protect its population if necessary.
^ To the top
A Way Forward
Under the present circumstances, there is no doubt that our globalised world cannot watch idly as events in Somalia; Darfur, Sudan; Myanmar or Zimbabwe unfold. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between Somalia on the one hand, and Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and perhaps Sudan on the other. In Somalia, there is no functioning government that is capable of controlling the whole country. The country is essentially carved into areas that are each controlled by various clans and sub-clans. The difference these days, compared to two decades ago, is the emergence of Islamist groups such as Al Shahab. Therefore, there is no institution in Somalia that can exercise authority throughout the whole country and is capable of protecting the whole population. Somalia is a failed state.
In Myanmar and Zimbabwe, on the other hand, the government is capable of exercising physical control over the whole country. The government is however antagonistic to certain groups within their own populations, for various reasons. In this case, the government is capable of protecting the sovereignty of the nation state vis-à-vis outsiders, yet there could be a significant number of its people who suffer or are made to suffer. The case of Darfur in Sudan is probably somewhere in between these two cases, where the government seems to be in control of significant amounts of its territory, but either undertakes or allows ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity to take place in its Darfur region.
^ To the top
First Test Case for the International Community
 |
| Credit: (left) Fotosearch, (right) ISN Security Watch, flickr.com |
One clear test case for the United Nations Security Council is to apply the Responsibility to Protect concept on a failed state such as Somalia. There is no sovereignty issue here, since no ruling group is in a position to safeguard the sovereignty of the whole country. Since the fall of Mohamed Siad Barre – a Darod strongman who was able to control the whole country – Somalia has fragmented along clan and sub-clan lines. The northwestern part, formerly under British control, and inhabited by the Isaak clan, has formally seceded to become Somaliland. The rest, formerly under Italian control, is in turmoil, particularly the central and southern regions (which has Mogadishu, with its major harbour and airport, as its the commercial centre) and the Shabelle region. Somalia is arid and poor in natural resources. Because of this paucity, clans and sub-clans tend to gain control over what is available. Thus, the loyalty of the individual Somali is toward the clan or sub-clan which is able to protect him or her from others. The Somali nationhood concept is therefore very fragile. Once Siad Barre’s control was broken, reunification of the Somali nation state became extremely difficult, and remains so to this day. The situation today has been further aggravated by the interference of external support for groups such as the Islamists.
The survival of Somali nationhood can be attained only if the livelihood of the individual Somali no longer depends upon meagre natural resources and the protection of their respective clans or sub-clans. This means that the Somali economy should not depend on agriculture, animal husbandry, and piracy, as it does now. This requires a strong, impartial and trusted government that could steer the economy along a path which allows all Somalis to participate in the economic growth process. If each Somali does not need to depend upon the clan or sub-clan for survival, the loyalty would shift towards the larger unit – the Somali nation.
If the international community is really concerned about the welfare of the world’s population, it should direct the Security Council, working in tandem with the African Union, to assist the Somali people to gain complete normalcy in their political, economic and social systems as a first test case; not only by assuming the responsibility to protect the Somali people but also helping them escape the vicious cycle which has given them only misery – death, injuries, hunger, disease, refugees, internally displaced persons, illiteracy and so forth – and no hope for the future. The Security Council and the African Union should formulate and implement a comprehensive programme of, in the first phase, convincing and assisting the Somali clan and militia leaders, including the Islamists, to form a truly national unity government which would provide all Somalis with the equal opportunity to progress. The bringing together of all Somali factions would require mediators to work with all outside groups that assist the different Somali factions. The Security Council and the African Union mediators, with complete impartiality7, should do their utmost to make this possible. If such a national unity government could be successfully crafted by the Somali factions, the international community should provide comprehensive long-term development assistance which will benefit all Somalis. The nationhood of Somalia could be re-established and Somaliland could even come back to the fold of Somalia.
| African Union and United Nations special envoys and negotiators hold joint press conference |  | | Credit: UN Photo/Fred Noy |
If this first phase approach does not work, the Security Council and the African Union could choose to take up the responsibility to protect and assist the Somali people of those factions that choose to cooperate with the international community. Historically, the Security Council-sanctioned UNITAF was able to stop the violence in Somalia in 1992. The cessation of violence is an absolutely necessary requirement for the establishment of a national unity government of as many as possible participating Somali factions. If some factions choose not to participate in the effort, the international community forces should not engage the forces of those factions; but should protect the population and the area of the participating factions. Aside from maintaining peace and strict security in the Somali government areas sponsored by the international community, humanitarian and development assistance have to be provided and show quick and effective results. In this way, it is expected that all factions will eventually choose to participate in the international community effort to re-establish a truly impartial government for all Somali people. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect will have been applied successfully to a failed state.
^ To the top
Other Test Cases
The other cases that would require the application of the Responsibility to Protect is when there is a government that can exercise physical control over the whole country, but is part of the conflict and either neglects a significant segment of the population or even mistreats them. This is a much more complicated case for the international community, because this is where the principle of the Responsibility to Protect is in direct conflict with the principle of the sovereignty of the state. The relevant regional organisation should be tasked to work with the government of the country concerned to resolve the problem, with the Security Council providing full support, including applying, when necessary, Chapter VI of the Charter. If, however, the government allows, or perpetrates genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, the Council should assume the primary role in applying the Responsibility to Protect. This means war between the international community and the government of that state. Would the international community care and dare to do this?
^ To the top
Conclusion
Due to various reasons, the world is slowly transforming itself from national states to larger units. Western Europe and Africa are examples of this. There is no doubt, however, that nationalism in developing countries, the force behind their ability to unshackle themselves from their former European colonial masters, is still very real. The conduct of international affairs by the rich and powerful developed countries after the process of decolonisation in the 1950s and 1960s has made developing countries suspicious of ‘neo-colonialist’ motives.8 The division of power and role established in international institutions within the United Nations System and outside of it such as regional development banks has guaranteed the absolute prerogatives of developed countries to this day. The demand for the democratisation of the international system, especially as developing countries have grown in role and stature, has fallen on deaf ears. One of the most glaring examples of this is the United Nations Security Council, where not only are there five permanent (vis-à-vis rotating) memberships but that the permanent members are accorded veto power. In addition, the permanent members take their positions based on their national, instead of global, interests. The United States invasion of Iraq, in complete disregard of international opinion, was the most blatant example of this. On the other hand, the Security Council has been accorded the role of ‘maintaining international peace and security’. Could the developing countries be faulted for being suspicious of the decisions of the Security Council? The principle of national sovereignty is thus held very dearly by these countries. The complete democratisation of the United Nations Security Council is a prerequisite for building the trust of developing and weaker countries in Council decisions.
Globalisation in the economic sphere and the rapid development of communications technology, which have influenced the people on the ground, have not been matched by globalisation in the political and security fields, which is decided by governments. Compassion of the people for the sufferings of others in other parts of the world which has resulted in the concept of the Responsibility to Protect, has to be matched by governments taking bold decisions, probably beyond their national interests, to make serious and costly efforts to ensure that all human beings in this world are able to live lives that conform to internationally accepted norms.
Discussions regarding the relative desirability of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect vis-à-vis national sovereignty are unending as long as the present underlying conditions for decision-making at the national and international levels remain the same. There is a way forward. This proposal is meant to test whether the international community has the will and determination to take bold decisions and apply the principle of the Responsibility to Protect to all peoples of the world.
^ To the top
Footnotes
- Mr Omar Halim is a retired senior United Nations staff member. He served in the United Nations peacekeeping missions in Namibia, Lebanon, Somalia and Liberia. He also served as Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Armenia and Azerbaijan on the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, and to Cameroon and Nigeria on the question of the Bakassi Peninsula.
- Chapter VII refers to the UN Security Council’s ‘Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression’.
- The concept of the Responsibility to Protect was first proposed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in December 2001.
- Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, September 2005, paragraph 138.
- UN Charter Chapter VI calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes and Chapter VIII recognises regional arrangements such as ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and calls for them to resolve disputes in the first instance before referral to UN Security Council.
- Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, September 2005, paragraph 139.
- For example, designation of any of the factions as ‘terrorist’ should be lifted for a designated period of time. Recognition of the coalition government by the United Nations and the African Union should be withdrawn during that designated period. The length of this designated period should provide sufficient time for mediation to succeed.
- This is especially obvious during the confrontation period between the so-called Western and Eastern blocs during the Cold War period.
^ To the top
|
NTS Insight July 2010 (Issue 1) | Read:
| Email: NTS Alert NTS Bulletin NTS Insight
