Responsibility to Protect: Ten years in - what next?

Responsibility To Protect ten years on-what next ?

Published by Liberal International (LI) with the support of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.

[2-3] Foreword [4-5] What is RtoP?

[33-37] Angela Patnode [38-43] Amb. Natalie Sabanadze

[6-13] LI’s Work on RtoP

[44] Liberal Visions on RtoP

[14] RtoP Conference in Brussles

[45-46] Lord John Alderdice

[15] Overview [16] Opening Remarks [17-20] Is RtoP Dead?

[21] Working Lunch [23-25] The Future of RtoP [26] Concluding Comment

[28] Expert Outlook on RtoP [29-32] Jonas Claes

[47-49] Celito F. Arlegue [50-53] Irwin Cotler [54-55] Khdor Habib MP [56-58] Ingemund Hägg [59-60] Ilhan Kyuchyuk MEP [61-62] Richard Moore [63-67] Why RtoP Matters [68] About Us

table of contents

foreword A

ssuming responsibility for oneself and one’s community and respecting the basic rights of one another are key tenants of liberalism, notions the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom actively promotes in cooperation with its partners worldwide.

We are particularly pleased to work with Liberal International.

2

As Liberals, we have always believed that our responsibility may extend beyond the confinement of national borders; it can reach across oceans and continents, it extends to everyone who is prevented from living their lives in dignity. This is even truer in a globalized world. German liberals have supported the Responsibility

“As liberals we have always believed that our responsibility may extend beyond the confinement of our national borders.”

to Protect (RtoP) norm since its inception, its principal goal being the prevention of gross human rights violations and genocide.

The “responsibility to protect” has often, mistakenly, been equated with military intervention, when such intervention is, in fact, only the last step in a long line of

measures designed to stop gross human rights violations. As in every peacebuilding initiative, the alpha and omega of RtoP is prevention.

This is where we see our main responsibility: Supporting citizens, civil society organizations and parties to strengthen democratic structures in their countries. We seek to help them create accountability mechanisms, further economic development, and – above all – foster dialogue between citizens and across borders.

Although often consumed by domestic turmoil, Europe must not shrink from its global responsibility to protect. As Michael Ignatieff, a liberal thinker and member of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, rightly puts

it: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Let this serve as a reminder that in the interconnected world of today, looking away is simply not an option.

Dr. Hans H. Stein, Director European and Transatlantic Dialogue, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom 3

What is RtoP?

An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect

R

ecognising the failure to adequately respond to the most heinous crimes known to humankind, world leaders made a historic commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity at the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit. This commitment, entitled the Responsibility to Protect, stipulates that:

4

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take 2. The international community stronger measures, including has a responsibility to assist States the collective use of force in fulfilling this responsibility. through the UN Security Council.

3. The international community Since the end of the Second should use appropriate diplomatic, World War, an international effort humanitarian and other peaceful has been undertaken to protect

civilians in armed conflict and prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In 1948 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations, and entered into force three years later. The Convention was the steppingstone in the international community’s attempt to ensure the horrors witnessed during the Holocaust would never occur again. However, the resounding promise of “Never Again” would prove to be hollow.

in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia demonstrated massive failures by the international community to prevent mass atrocities. Thus, near the end of the 1990’s there was a recognised need to shift the debate about crisis prevention and response: the security of the community and the individual, not only the state, must be priorities for national and international policies.

The end of the 20th Century marked a change in the nature of armed conflict: large interstate wars were replaced by violent internal conflicts, where the vast majority of casualties are now civilians. The genocides Source: International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect

5

LI’s Work on RtoP Foreword Liberals have been at the

forefront of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine since its inception in 2001. Liberal International (LI) – which counts more than 100 political parties and affiliates among its membership – has actively advocated this humanitarian principle. This chapter offers a glimpse at the progress of LI’s RtoP activities since the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty of Canada released the Responsibility to Protect report in 2001.

LI advocacy on RtoP 2004: Liberal Mission visited Darfur, Sudan Liberals including Mr. Jasper Veen (then-LI Political Adviser) visited Darfur, Sudan, where armed conflict had produced thousands of refugees. To draw international attention to the situation in the northeast African country, Mr. Veen presented a report to Liberal International’s Executive Committee meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica, where he made an early call on the African Union to step in and resolve the situation.

6

Sanctions on the government alone will not make the Sudanese authority more trustworthy, he noted. The report concluded by indicating that a clearly mandated African Union force, which permits the use of forces if necessary, would be required to stem atrocities.

“

There must now be a serious commitment from all governments to the development of effective mechanisms such as comprehensive and coordinated early warning systems and more investment in preventive diplomacy.

-- Lord Robertson (LibDems,UK), The Lord Garden Memorial Lecture, June 2008

“

2005: Resolution on RtoP adopted by the 51st Congress (Sofia, Bulgaria) Delegates from the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the country from which the historic RtoP report was published, seized the agenda at LI’s 51st congress by tabling a resolution on RtoP to LI’s highest decision-making body for the first time. This resolution provided the doctrine with a central platform for promotion and debate amongst international liberal leaders.

The adopted resolution stated that LI would seek the evolution of international law to build a coalition for RtoP and develop the international community’s thinking and action to unite for human rights. The Congress also adopted a resolution on freedom and security, calling for appropriate sanctions against regimes offering support for terrorists. Building on LI’s earlier RtoP work, the resolution drew attention to the human rights violations in Darfur, Sudan, urging immediate action from UN on the humanitarian issue.

7

2006: Panel on RtoP at the 54th Congress (Marrakech, Morocco) In November, as a context of the LI 54th Congress in Marrakech, Morocco, Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire (LPC, Canada) led a panel on RtoP. 2008: Liberals express outrage over Kenya violence Liberals around the world came together with one voice to express their outrage at the violent fallout following the 2007 Presidential elections in Kenya, which cost hundreds of lives. In his statement, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Party in the UK, Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP (Liberal Democrats, UK) said that the UK has a moral responsibility to lead the international community in tackling this crisis.

2011: Liberals call for further international action in Libya Liberals around the world called for further international action against the violent, thuggish regime of Muammar Gaddafi. While the UN, EU and individual countries had imposed sanctions on the regime earlier in the year, the then-LI President, Hans van Baalen MEP (VVD, The Netherlands), went further and issued a statement calling on the UN Security Council to enforce a no-fly-zone above Libya.

8

“

It is the duty of Liberal International and its member parties to remind people, all over the world, of their responsibility to protect, and that is the priority of the new LI Human Rights Committee.

-- Richard Moore (LI Patron; LibDems, UK), at the RtoP Conference, October 2011

“

2008: LI calls on the African Union to intervene in Chad As the security situation in Chad deteriorated, leaving more than 1,000 people injured in its capital N’Djamena, Liberal International called on the African Union (AU) to take action and intervene to prevent further violence.

Then-Vice Chancellor of Germany, Guido Westerwelle (FDP, Germany), brought forward the idea of appointing a special international envoy to evaluate and coordinate humanitarian efforts. Prior to the 57th Congress held in Manila, The Philippines, a draft Resolution on Responsibility to Protect was proposed by Democraten 66 (D66, The Netherlands), Centerpartiet (Sweden) and International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY). Underpinning the ambitions of the proposing political organisations, the resolution sought to inspire governments around the world to vote in accordance with the spirit of RtoP at the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, without being selective or biased.

2011: Liberals call for further international action on Syria As violence escalated against anti-government demonstrators in Syria, liberal leaders called for urgent intervention. The then-LI Vice President, Abir Al-Sahlani MP (Centerpartiet, Sweden), urged the UN to step in and work harder to tackle the situation.

2011: RtoP Conference (London, United Kingdom) In the margin of Liberal International’s 187th Executive Committee meeting in London, United Kingdom, LI organised a conference on RtoP in October 2011. The conference consisted of 3 panels, discussing RtoP in principle, in practice, and its future. Participants reaffirmed that RtoP is a legal concept but warned that its interpretation and application is expressed with a regional bias. Intervention should be maintained until there is certainly no potential for atrocities to resume, insisted Sam Rainsy MP (Cambodia National Rescue Party, Cambodia). Highlighting the challenges of RtoP, Lousewies van der Laan (D66, The Netherlands), drew on her experience as a former Chief of Cabinet to the President of the International Criminal Court (ICC), noting that the Rome Statue Treaty had not been ratified by key players like USA, Russia and China; it only dealt with 3 issues: ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes; and it can only deal with activities which had been exercised by state leaders, 9

not non-governmental actors. Han ten Broeke MP (VVD, The Netherlands) pointed out we should not forget the primary responsibility to protect rests in the sovereign states. To follow up the event, Mr. Ingemund Hägg (LI Patron, Sweden) urged liberals to promote the RtoP discussion beyond the political elites.

2011: ELF Seminar on Libya and RtoP (Brussels, Belgium) At the seminar organised by the European Liberal Forum (ELF) in November, Lord Paddy Ashdown (LibDems, UK), High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002-06), addressed a seminar regarding Libya and the future of liberal interventionism. Mr. Joris Voorhoeve (D66, The Netherlands) also took part in the seminar and indicated that Libya offered a good example of how things should be done, adding that it was not a complete success as one had to take responsibility for the aftercare of intervention.

2012: Resolution including RtoP was adopted at the 58th Congress (Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire) Against the backdrop of a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria, LI’s 58th Congress in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, included the RtoP principle in the World Today Resolution, after reaching an overview of the geo-political situation tabled to every congress. Followed by a breakfast meeting on the RtoP issue, the Congress expressed belief in the need to create safe zones in the north and in the south of Syria and guarantee humanitarian corridors. The resolution added that only international intervention would turn the tide of massacre. The resolution reiterated that any solution in Syria must be taken in accordance with the will of and full involvement of the Syrian people, without which the country could not find a durable solution for the crisis.

2013: Human Rights Committee Panel on RtoP in Syria (Beirut, Lebanon) With the conflict in neighbouring Syria raging, liberals from around the world came together in Beirut, Lebanon for LI’s 190th Executive Committee meeting. Organised by the Human Rights Committee of Liberal International, a panel on RtoP in Syria debated “How Should Liberals Deal with the Situation in Syria? Is 10

Syria the end of RtoP?” While the international cooperation was regarded indeed as an important step, Lord John Alderdice (LibDems, UK) stressed that the West had in fact driven Syria to further isolation. He urged some responsibility from the international community in order to address major underlying regional tensions that sustained violence.

“

It must be a main task and responsibility for liberals and liberal parties to be driving and active in discussions about the principles of responsibility to protect.

-- Ingemund Hägg (LI Patron, Sweden), in the follow-up note on the RtoPconference

“

2014: Meeting of Liberal Parliamentarians at UN Human Rights Council The second Liberal International’s annual liberal parliamentarians’ meeting was held within the framework of the 26th session of the UN Human Rights Council in June. Under the theme’s Protection of Human Rights in Areas of Conflict: Cases of Highest International Priority, participants noted that liberals should unite to project a common, peaceful voice of the conflict in Syria.

Without cooperation we cannot make a significant contribution, the parliamentarians noted. After meeting with UN Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Alexander Aleinikoff, the meeting concluded that LI and liberal parties from around the world should act as a catalyst for the world community while proximity with local communities on the ground is crucial.

11

2015: Written Statement on RtoP presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council (Geneva, Switzerland) In the 10th anniversary year of the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect Principle, Liberal International presented a written statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council, entitled “Responsibility to protect ten years on: 12

“

Everything must be done to ensure universal compliance with human rights and to provide for prompt and effective recourse when noncompliance occurs.

-- Chito Gascon (LP, The Philippines), LI Human Rights Bulletin, ed. 2, 2015

“

2015: Human Rights Bulletin on RtoP The second edition of LI Human Rights Bulletin, published in March, focused exclusively on RtoP. In the articles Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1996-2000) (LPC, Canada) urged supporters and practitioners to build on the RtoP framework so that it can form the basis of effective international action in the protection of people, and get away from loose coalitions of the willing with limited rules of agreement, and sporadic coordination. Mr. Chito Gascon, The Philippines Human Rights Commissioner and member of the LI Human Rights Committee (Liberal Party, The Philippines), wrote of internal armed conflicts blighting several countries across Southeast Asia. These conflicts have not yet undermined the positive economic development of the region, noted Mr. Gascon, however if left unattended substantial development gains made in the region risked being compromised. Offering practical advice, he called for the introduction of a reform plan for RtoP, including the early warning mechanisms that prevent escalation of violence.

strengthening the global approach to the prevention and elimination of mass atrocities.�

Drawing on the situation in Syria, the statement called upon the international community to invest in development, economic capacity and democracy-building in fragile states as a first step to prevent mass atrocities. The statement also urged the international community to formulate a strategy to tackle atrocities committed by non-state groups.

LI pledged to promote public awareness on RtoP, as well as developing a roadmap for the future.

13

2015

R toP

conference

Brussels

overv iew O

n 10th December 2015, ten years after the adoption of RtoP principles by the member states of the United Nations World Summit, Liberal International brought together politicians, academics, and diplomats to debate and identify whether the doctrine can survive under the strains placed on RtoP in

international

relations

“The Responsibility to Protect: Ten Years on. What Next?�

today.

Parliament in Brussels, having been received the previous Together with its partners Alliance evening at the headquarters of of Liberal and Democrats for Open VLD (LI full member) by Europe Group (ALDE - LI full LI Past President, Ms. Annemie member) and Friedrich Naumann Neyts. The meeting was conducted Foundation for Liberty (FNF - over three distinct sessions.

LI cooperating organisation), Liberal International convened the meeting in the European 15

C

Opening Remarks

hair of Liberal International’s Human Rights Committee and LI Vice-President, Mr. Markus LÜning (FDP, Germany) opened the meeting by outlining the tensions between the perception of RtoP and the inconsistent

16

application of the principle in practice. RtoP enables the international community to work against the inhumane activities, which used to be regarded as a domestic issue, noted Mr. LĂśning.

However the world has seen

the faulty implementation and even the potential for abuse of RtoP; liberals should work on and improve the system, he concluded.

Is RtoP Dead?

Syria, Ukraine and beyond C haired by LI Past President, (Future Movement, Lebanon) Annemie Neyts (Open VLD, detailed the humanitarian costs of sustained violence in Syria and also in the neighbouring states.

In Lebanon, approximately 1.5 million refugees have entered the country since March 2011. Today, Mr. Habib noted, almost half of the population in Lebanon is Syrian, resulting in a major security issue in the country. Introducing the Lebanon Crisis Response Plan drafted in 2015, Mr. Habib called for an inclusive discussion on economy, politics and security Delivering a first-hand account from which both the Lebanese of the consequences of the and the refugees would benefit. conflict in Syria, Mr. Khodr Habib Ukraine’s former Minister of

“

The political divisions and the security challenges affected the functioning of the [Lenanese] government and other constitutional institutions.

-- Khdor Habib, MP (Future Movement, Lebanon)

“

Belgium), the opening panel laid out the ongoing challenges facing RtoP today. Past President Neyts recalled the initial steps undertaken by Liberal International to promote RtoP as part of the global work of the international liberal family. It was under her presidency that LI initiated a study visit to Sudan and brought the importance of RtoP to the attention of Liberals world-wide.

17

Defence, Mr. Anatoliy Grytsenko, spoke of the abuse of RtoP in Ukraine, where Russia has intervened under the auspices of RtoP. Consequently, Ukraine has now come to the point of no return, Mr. Grytsenko said. The country is under pressure to run elections in the occupied areas, which Western countries mistakenly thought to be an effective answer to the crisis. As an anti-corruption actor targeting money laundering, Mr. Grytsenko also asserted that part of the road to peace must resolve internal corruption amongst Ukrainian MPs, even though Western countries show hesitation to impose sanctions against them. He concluded the presentation by emphasising the need to implement the Minsk Agreement, which is supported

by Germany, France and Russia.

18

Member of the European Parliament, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, of MRF - LI’s ethnic Turkish minority party in Bulgaria (LI full member) – cautioned of the ease with which interventionism can quickly slide into imperialism.

To avoid the abuse of RtoP, Mr. Kyuchyuk said, a universal responsibility to protect should always be grounded in education and promoted internationally.

Despite criticisms of RtoP in the context of the Syrian crisis, Ms. Angela Patnode (USA) who was representing the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect presented examples where RtoP has been successfully applied in less obvious ways.

Citing 10 UN resolutions to investigate the situation in Syria in addition to numerous countries

accepting refugees, Ms. Patnode noted the different forms of RtoP implementation. RtoP is facing some challenges yet, she added, there are also positive facts about the norm: states have shown an increasing willingness to implement RtoP; cross party parliamentary groups on atrocity prevention have been formed in countries such as UK; and the UN General Assembly has also continued to participate in national dialogs on RtoP. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the number of NGOs and civil society activists working on the issue.

L

Debate

in Syria. Vice-President of the International Network of Liberal Women, Ms. Khadija el-Morabit (Morocco), presented a speech from the UN Human Rights Commissioner, urging a Syrian force to provide safe passage for humanitarian assistance to civilians trapped inside Syria, with support from the international community.

Dalen (The Netherlands), inquired what more could be done to overturn the poor media coverage on the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

In reply, Mr. Grytsenko called for Mr. Petras Austrevicius MEP the support of Western regions to (Lithuania), cited corruption prevent the corruption, criticising among local members of the West’s faulty attempt to parliament in Ukraine as one impose a “stay calm and don’t reason why intervention failed provoke” policy, which added to before the mission had taken off. the current disorder. He put a clear Chair of the Liberal International emphasis on the implementation LGBTI Work Group, Mr. Frank van of the Minsk Agreement.

L

iscussion centred primarily on D possible solutions to the crisis

Obstacles facing effective implementation of RtoP were also set out. Mr. Jonas Claes (United States Institute of Peace, USA) highlighted two major issues that often distort one’s understanding of the principle: (1) that the implementation has a double-standard as most media, and in turn the wider public, measure the consistency of RtoP by military intervention alone and

19

Conversely, the case of Macedonia presented by LI Secretary General, Mr. Emil Kirjas (Macedonia) offered a rare and positive example of conflict prevention, where apart from the military security component, the international community assisted political parties and civil society in engaging in dialogue among different social actors, ethnicities and religions.

20

LI Treasurer, Mr. Manfred Eisenbach (LI German Group, Germany), highlighted as problematic that the implementation of RtoP may consist of regime change, which non-democratic countries - such as Russia and China – determinately resist. However, RtoP is not dead, considering the successful case of Libya, Mr. Kyuchyuk said.

Offering a proactive suggestion to improve the application and success rate of RtoP, Mr. Kyuchyuk requested an enormous overhaul of the UN Security Council in order to incorporate a moral obligation for human rights.

“

If we seek to translate responsibility to protect from words to actions the world needs to accept our liberal vision that responsibility for human rights is universal.

-- Ilhan Kyuchyuk, MEP (ALDE Party, MRF, Bulgaria)

“

(2) while protection is ideal, it is often difficult to apply in practice owing to an absence of clear justification for mobilising the required resources without an obvious conflict, further, a clear metric for measuring the success of prevention means making the case to governments and international bodies is problematic.

Working Lunch

Advancing RtoP within the framework of LI HRC

D

rawing on Liberal International’s global reach, LI President of Honour, Mr. Hans van Baalen MEP (VVD, The Netherlands) noted the strength of liberals globally to unite and advance the RtoP agenda. Adherence to the rule of

international law was defined as paramount by Finland’s former Prime Minister, Ms. Anneli Jäätteenmäki MEP (Keskusta, Finland) while Mr. Austrevicius, praising the participation of LI to the international discussion on RtoP, emphasised on-going

missions such as the task force in Kosovo and the drone attacks in Syria. Mr. Löning concluded that there is a credibility gap in the use of RtoP, which calls for the liberals everywhere to be proactive in addressing.

21

The Future of RtoP Beyond the Transatlantic Cooperation haring his optimism ahead of the second panel debate, the Executive Director of the Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), Mr. Celito Arlegue (Philippines), offered a positive progress report on RtoP and conflict prevention in Asia. Mr. Arlegue explained that Asia has developed a supportive environment to promote the values underpinning RtoP; the 3 pillars of the Association of South‐East Asian Nations (ASEAN)—political security, economy, and social contract— are connected to the RtoP

principle. ASEAN, he noted, now has a Human Rights Committee.

Drawing on the precarious border area her country shares with Russia, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Georgia to Belgium, Luxembourg and the European Union, Her Excellency Natalie Sabanadze (Georgia), charted Georgia’s understanding of the RtoP project: it is a doctrine about good intentions regarding international crisis and about both national and international responsibility.

Speaking from personal

“

I think with the evolution of international law... we can say that there is an emerging consensus of redefining sovereignty in terms of responsibilities and away from rights.

-- Ambassador Natalie Sabanadze, (Georgia)

“

S

23

experience of the abuse of RtoP, the Ambassador recalled that Russia rhetorically used RtoP for intervention in Georgia and, more recently, in Ukraine; Ms. Sabanadze warned of further possibilities for exploitation of the principle for political ends.

responsible for this lack of integrity.

Promoting mechanisms through which RtoP can be strengthened was the subject of the presentation by Mr. Jonas Claes, who drew attention to two areas: (1) that RtoP must reflect the right expectations and (2) that RtoP does not equate to Expanding on the risks associated military intervention. In limiting with RtoP, Natalie Sabanadze coercive activity, Mr. Claes noted, noted that identifying when a RtoP is first and foremost a mission might have reached political tool, which enables the its conclusion is an community It is a moral international inherent complexity to take the next step in tool used prevention of atrocities. when applying RtoP, adding that, it is difficult to consider Addressing the excuses to identify whether the norm is applied evenly appropriate levied regarding or merely reserved for international law, the behaviours. USIP senior research the Global South. Ms. Sabanadze saw a lack of consensus officer explained that RtoP does and the weak authority of the UN not aim to make new law and it Security Council as being partly is not a tactical blueprint; instead 24

it is a device for international cooperation to mitigate egregious acts of violence. Development of robust institutions is also essential for preventing scenarios that might give rise for the need of an RtoP response.

L

Debate

Annemie Neyts as to whether the United States considers the European Union’s perspective on issues related to RtoP as being important, Mr. Claes highlighted the example of roundtable debates between the USIP and EU officials in Brussels, emphasising the fundamental, transatlantic relationship as a source of momentum on RtoP, a position endorsed by Mr. Arlegue. More sceptically, H.E. Natalie Sabanadze cautioned against the problems associated with excessive outsourcing to local activists.

L

Addressing the concerns of Ms.

historical studies. Earlier instances of intervention – good and bad – can inform a lack of understanding on the causes of conflict. This view was endorsed by Ambassador Sabanadze, who pointed to a recent flourishing of academic interest in RtoP, whilst Mr. Claes emphasised the need to identify a goal for every intervention.

Applying a holistic approach to the trajectory of the RtoP principle LI With H.E. Natalie Sabanadze Patron, Mr. Richard Moore, (UK), noting that discussions around proposed the need for comparative RtoP differ greatly in 2015 to those

taking place in 2005, when the UN Outcome Document was signed, delegates discussed what potential action can be taken by liberal politicians in the current era, with the ambassador reaffirming the need to continually debate subject and identify new challenges as they occur. The panel concluded with all speakers calling for further understanding, discussions and engagement to solve the barriers associated with RtoP. 25

Concluding Comment iberal International President of Honour, Lord John Alderdice (Liberal Democrats, UK), summed up the discussion by underlining that RtoP is a moral obligation. The liberal parliamentarian, who is also the Director of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at the University of Oxford, warned that it was unhelpful that RtoP has become synonymous with military intervention. Compelling delegates to acknowledge that the current plague of violence is a public health matter, Lord Alderdice urged liberals to 26

coordinate their activities with NGOs, businesses, philanthropists and academics in order to build the early conflict warning system.

10 years is not enough for a principle to be applied, he concluded, therefore LI has a responsibility to promulgate RtoP and establish a behavioural principle.

“

RtoP is a responsibility to protect human beings regardless of which side of the border they are.

-- Lord John Alderdice (LI President of Honour, UK)

“

L

Conference Attendees Group Photo

27

Expert

outlook

on

R toP

Jonas Claes

United States Institute of Peace

U

nited States Institute of Peace has a long-standing involvement in the field of atrocity prevention and RtoP. Most noteworthy was our involvement in the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretaries Madeleine K. Albright and Bill Cohen.

The Task Force Report presented one of the most impactful policy blueprints USIP produced to date.

Many of the recommendations were implemented, including the creation

of the Atrocities Prevention Board.

Currently we remain engaged in this domain through policy dialogues, and an interagency course on atrocity prevention tailored to midto senior-level U.S. practitioners.

Practice of RtoP as a Political Instrment.

Let me start by raising an important conceptual issue. One way to strengthen the position of RtoP in the international policy domain is by setting the right

expectations. Too often RtoP is equated in the literature and policy articles with the use of military force.

It is a deep-rooted misperception that the invocation of RtoP automatically allows for the use of military force. RtoP cannot be equated with humanitarian intervention. At its core, RtoP is about preventive non-coercive action: early warning, mediation, etc.

The toolbox for RtoP consists of a broad range of tools, including

29

diplomatic, economic, legal, and military instruments. RtoP instruments can be coercive and cooperative, and operational or structural. If the context permits, the instruments gradually move towards a higher level of intrusiveness. In my presentations or guest lectures at universities I will always ask the students the following question: Is RtoP is primarily a moral, political, legal, or tactical instrument?

There is no wrong answer to this question, but I generally rank these adjectives in order of relevance.

First and foremost, RtoP presents a political commitment. RtoP is meant to trigger an automated consideration of your response options, in the face of imminent or ongoing atrocities. When it occurs, what options do we have? RtoP also has strong moral underpinnings, as it guides towards appropriate state behavior. In his 2011 speech,

30

President Obama stressed this point, emphasizing that “Preventing mass violence is our moral duty.”

But morality is not the #1 answer, since its practice faces significant political constraints. Is RtoP a legal instrument? Some say it is not, as it does not create new legal obligations. RtoP merely realigns existing sources of international law, like the Genocide Convention, or International Humanitarian Law. Others may argue RtoP presents a source of customary law. But it could be argued that, so far, the practice remains too inconsistent. Finally, I would not consider RtoP a tactical instrument. RtoP does not explain the “how” part; what instruments are the most useful in given context?

The State of RtoP in the US, and the Promise of Transatlantic Engagement in the United States, government officials predominantly adopt

the “atrocity prevention” lens.

The RtoP label is rarely applied.

Originally genocide prevention was the label of choice, but that presented too high of a threshold.

Operationally RtoP and AP look 95% the same; it is mostly a different label for similar activities. In addition, U.S. officials generally consider RtoP to be one part of a broader U.S. atrocity prevention toolbox. Atrocity Prevention (AP) has advanced significantly in the U.S., not just politically, but also institutionally and operationally.

Politically, the first Obama Administration did a lot to advance this agenda. AP was considered a priority in several strategic documents. In a 2011 Presidential Study Directive (PSD-10), Obama highlighted “the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide as a core national security interests and a moral responsibility of the U.S.” The debate remains whether it is

in fact a national security priority: Three types of justifications could be provided for this: 1.Direct threat territory and its

to

U.S. citizens.

2.Threat to international stability.

3.Threat to values and principles the USG stands for the consensus within the U.S. political establishment about the first justification has not yet extended to the second and third justification. Institutionally some progress has been made as well. At the NSC, the position of Director for War Crimes and Civilian Protection was created, and in August 2011, President Obama authorized the creation of the interagency APB. This Board, comprised of senior officials from across the USG, is responsible for developing atrocity prevention and response

strategies, by scanning the horizon atrocity analysts are active. And for emerging risk and fragility, and dedicated courses have been proposing coordinated action. established, through the Foreign The APB faces considerable Service Institute, the military challenges however: It remains academies, and the Pentagon. an unfunded mandate, it is very dependent on supportive Operationally there have been some personalities, and faces the risk signs of progress as well. In terms of lower prioritization with the of intelligence gathering and the upcoming change in Administration. prioritization of atrocity risk. There However, more important than the has been the first ever National institution itself is the ripple effect Intelligence Estimate on Global PSD-10 created, beyond the APB. Risk of Mass Atrocities, the APB The involvement informed U.S. policies While the stated of the USG in AP on Burma, CAR commitment of goes far beyond and South Sudan, the APB meetings and there has been the U.S. and EU to and activities. mixed U.S. and preventing atrocities the Within several international should theoretically experience in places agencies, dedicated personnel has been allow for cooperation, like Libya; Kyrgyzstan appointed, and in 2010; Syria, etc. the coordination is Task Forces have “surprisingly low� been set up. Within While the stated the intelligence commitment of community, over half a dozen the U.S. and EU to preventing

31

32

atrocities should theoretically allow for cooperation, the coordination between both governments and non-governmental organizations is “surprisingly low.� However, there is some low-hanging fruit within reach.

apply repressive measures, does present the RtoP community with a sizeable conundrum. The international normative weight of RtoP has problems competing with the national security-driven impulses.

On Risk Assessment, conversations have been held between EEAS and the CSO unit at the U.S. Department of State. A key actor to include in these conversations is the private sector, which invests significantly in risk analysis already. In part, the future of RtoP will depend on the way it engages with competing or alternative international security priorities, like violent extremism.

Some argue that counter-terrorism and atrocity prevention are simply different ways to talk about the same problem, i.e. violent attacks against civilian populations (Be llamy). But the risk of CVE efforts undermining atrocity prevention objectives, or emboldening states to

Yet, there has been significant progress in making RtoP lingo more central to Security Council discussions; we are yet another step away from our traditional ad hoc approach, towards a normalization of RtoP, and automated consideration of options.

Angela Patnode

International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect

I

n hearing the other panelists’ presentations, it’s clear that there’s a lot of frustration in how RtoP has been utilized or not utilized in Syria and Ukraine. I can assure you that this frustration is very much shared by RtoP practitioners as well.

contexts when comparing responses to Syria to other RtoP situations, particularly Libya.

Finally, I’ll go over some real institutional progress that shows that commitment to RtoP is not dead, but actually thriving in a number of ways.

Nevertheless, I want to take a slightly different angle during this presentation by first discussing how actors have upheld their RtoP in Syria. Next, I’ll go over why it’s necessary to recall the different

As many, including Heather Hurlburt and Homa Hassan have stated, RtoP has been implemented in Syria, and arguably in the very way its founders intended - who did not want to legitimize military

intervention and saw the goal of RtoP as prevention and early response. I’ll outline four general categories of how RtoP has been operationalized here.

First, international organizations have reminded the government of Syria of its RtoP dozens of times, while the international community has cited its own responsibility under Pillars II and III in this regard.

All parties, even Russia and China, agreed that mass killings were

33

occurring early on in the crisis, and that the situation is a legitimate matter for the international community to debate and respond to. This stands in sharp contrast to the Balkans, where such factors took years to establish.

Second, though we are all aware of the failures of the Security Council to properly address the crisis, other UN organs and mechanisms have acted in an unprecedented fashion, within their mandates, when responding to the crisis. The Secretary-General, for example, has used his power to send observers, chemical weapons investigators, and a special representative.

The Human Rights Council has passed ten resolutions on the Syrian crisis, one of which established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.

The Commission has been

34

instrumental in documenting these abuses, and will be a central tool when we have the opportunity to hold perpetrators to account.

The General Assembly, meanwhile, has passed five resolutions, some of which have served as shadow resolutions of vetoed Security Council drafts. They therefore were not only condemning the events in Syria but were also condemning Security Council inaction. On three occasions, the GA even specifically called for Assad’s resignation, resolutions which only 12 states voted against out of 193 states. While these resolutions do not save lives, they have and will continue to have an impact on behavioral development within the UN system, and can assist in shifting the international community towards action in the long run.

Meanwhile, when the Security Council has been able to act, it has done so in often innovative and creative ways. The most famous example of this is Resolution 2118, which supported the OPCW’s procedures or eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. This was followed up by the more recent Resolution 2235, which established a Joint Investigative Mechanism to identify those responsible for using chemical weapons. In addition, another unprecedented move by the Council includes Resolution 2165, which allowed for humanitarian aid delivery across borders. This was the first time that the Council authorized an operational measure without the consent of the Syrian authorities.

Thirdly, regional organizations have also taken exceptional measures. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference suspended Syria, with

the Arab League also sending an observation force and passing sanctions. Several states joined the Arab League in passing such sanctions, including Norway, U.S., Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, Turkey and the EU. In addition, external countries, particularly Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, (and now the EU) have absorbed millions of Syrian refugees, despite heavy economic and social tolls. By accepting such refugees, these states are helping to fulfill their Pillar II responsibilities.

has tracked human rights violations, including through, inter alia, the use of torture in 27 detention facilities and the use of barrel bombs and cluster munitions on civilians.

Amnesty International uncovered the use of starvation as a tactic of war by the Syrian regime.

ICRtoP member Permanent Peace Movement held a training for Syrian activists on civilian protection and conferences on the possession/use of small arms and light weapons in Syria.

Human Rights serving as the only organization keeping a death toll after the UN announced it could no longer verify reports.

ICRtoP member Human Rights Watch

can all agree that they have been insufficient to protect populations in Syria.

However, it becomes impressive when you compare it to the

All of these measures,

When the Security of course, probably Fourth, civil society Council has been able provide scant comfort groups have to act, it has done so to the millions of Syrian consistently monitored victims of atrocities. the crisis, with the in often innovative As considerable as Syrian Observatory for and creative ways they may be, we

harsh indifference shown to past examples of atrocities. As pointed out by Thomas Weiss, the steady stream of condemnations levied at Assad stands in sharp contrast to the deafening silence that greeted the 1982 Hama massacre, in which Assad’s father killed 40,000. The strong UN response, which I outlined earlier, is also remarkably different than the UN’s quiet and deliberate inaction to the genocide in Rwanda.

For a norm that is only ten years old, this is significant progress.

Moreover, it remains unclear whether additional measures under RtoP, such as the use of military force earlier in the conflict, would have saved more Syrian lives. Though the international response to Syria is often compared unfavorably to the famous RtoP intervention in Libya, these were two extremely different situations. Of course, the

35

most obvious difference is that the NATO intervention had the approval of the Security Council. Additionally, however, the likelihood that a military intervention in Syria would have succeeded was much lower than that of Libya, for four reasons — also outlined by Weiss. First, Libya had a cohesive opposition movement, which was run inside the country, whereas Syria’s is split in terms of ideology, politics, and geography. Nor does the Syrian opposition have a clear chain of command to organize operations, protests, or supplies.

Secondly, in Libya, 75% of the population lived in areas under rebel control, but the Syrian opposition can’t maintain their hold over major population centers. Third, there was a far greater anti-Qaddafi movement among the Libyan people, but in Syria, a sizeable portion still support Assad or are waiting to see how the tide turns. This makes sense, as Syria is much more culturally

36

and ethnically diverse than Libya.

not backed up empirically.

Finally, Libya is full There was significant The Security Council of desert, with some has referred to RtoP reason to believe scattered cities. Syria in 38 resolutions, that the cure of has several densely all but three of populated urban military intervention which have come areas, which made after the NATO would have been surgical airstrikes intervention. worse than the not only implausible but likely to cause disease a lot of civilian deaths.

We must not Meanwhile, participation in the forget the original aims and annual GA dialogue on RtoP has purposes of RtoP, which is to protect continued to grow steadily. The UN populations from atrocity crimes. Secretariat has continued to improve There was, and still is, significant its capacity to respond to atrocity reason to believe that the cure of crimes, including by military intervention would have implementing the Secretary been worse than the disease. Progress General’s Human Rights up Front on RtoP I’d now like to go beyond initiative, which aims to better the Syria and Libya to discuss concrete, UN’s ability to prevent and respond institutional progress on RtoP. First, to large-scale violations of human though many say that Libya blowback rights. Beyond the UN, states have has killed RtoP, particularly within shown an increased willingness to the Security Council, this assertion is uphold their primary responsibilities

to protect. Such steps have included appointing an RtoP Focal Point, of which there are now 52. Other states, including the U.S. and those in Africa’s Great Lakes region, have taken this a step further by developing national architectures to prevent or respond to atrocities. Still others, including the UK, have developed Parliamentary Groups aimed at increasing legislators’ involvement in atrocity prevention.

Lastly, but certainly not least, my organization, the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, has seen a growing number of civil society organizations join the movement to implement RtoP. This is a crucial sign of progress in our eyes, as civil society often serve as the primary preventers and responders to atrocities, particularly in those states, such as Burma or Sudan, where the state is the perpetrator of such crimes. All this is

to say that, despite the obvious difficulties that we have confronted in turning RtoP into practice, the global community still believe in RtoP. The norm is here to stay.

In conclusion, I’d like to again emphasize that RtoP is a principle, not a tactic — a norm intended to steer action. Therefore, saying RtoP has failed in Syria, Ukraine, or anywhere else is misguided.

Rather, it is the international community who has clearly failed to meet these obligations and live up to its RtoP. Will the so-called application of RtoP, particularly third pillar responses, always be selective? Probably, yes. But this selectivity and failure to fully implement RtoP just serves to underscore the need for swift, preventive acttion before a crisis devolves into a state in which international consensus is needed.

Thank you

37

Natalie Sabanadze

Ambassador of Georgia to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the EU

T

his is a topic which is quite close to my heart. I have not thought about it for a few years.

I left it off in 2012 and it was interesting to go back and to look how the debate has evolved. RtoP first of all is a doctrine born out of good intentions and it is about international responses to national crisis. It has both national and international dimensions and it is about both national and international responsibilities. RtoP

38

is premised on a very specific conception of sovereignty: sovereignty as responsibility as opposed to sovereignty as right which was probably was never absolute but at least this was the prevailing understanding of sovereignty over the 20th Century and less so today.

As its core RtoP is concerned with legitimacy. The whole raison d’être of RtoP is an attempt to lay down

parameters for legitimacy for international action. This is why the overall topic of this panel is very important. We need to find a consensus among the international community which involves both the global south and north. It is important to take criticisms that are out there about the concept of RtoP seriously as this is how we can refine the framework and come up with better solutions to the challenges

which will legitimacy of

increase the the doctrine.

It is important that we minimize in these discussions the possibility for misuse and abuse of RtoP which is realistic. There is nothing worse than a good concept born out of good intentions being used for wrong purposes and for actions to justify bad intentions.

I come from Georgia as you know and the personal encounter, not academic but the real one, with RtoP was for me in 2008 when Russia used the RtoP rhetoric to justify its military intervention in Georgia. It soon dropped this language because it didn’t fly and it was quite clear but at least the justification to invade Georgia was to protect citizens which were living in the breakaway region of South Ossetia. In his speech Foreign Minister

Lavrov referred to the international norm of RtoP and the constitution of Russian Federation saying that it is a Constitutional obligation to exercise RtoP when it comes to the safety and security of their citizens.

RtoP is a pretty good framework and much better than any of its decedents and any kind of discussion on humanitarian intervention. There is an attempt to move the debate, and particularly recently when I said that I looked Later the same logic to a degree again at how the debate has was also used in Ukraine but less so evolved and especially how the in the RtoP term which is also quite new special Advisor on RtoP to interesting. Why was RtoP specifically the UN Secretary General, Jennifer not used in Ukraine but was used Welsh, whom I knew from my days at in the case of Georgia? Perhaps it Oxford is interpreting this, it is very says something about where this clear that there is an attempt notion stands now and whether it is to move away from military a bit more contested perhaps than it intervention and to look at RtoP in was then. If we go back much more general There is an to this idea of looking terms and not at criticism about RtoP increasing focus about coercive action. and how it is practiced on prevention There is an increasing I think we have to look focus on prevention and prevention and prevention of at both conceptual and of atrocities operational challenges atrocities. This means that this doctrine faces. emphasizing the three pillar approach that you have also Conceptually I have to say that mentioned the Chairman (Mr Celito

39

Arlegue). The three pillar approach is precisely about focusing on national and international dimensions. It is about national responsibilities of states and international dimension comes in the form of supporting states and capacity building to meet their responsibilities. It is only in the third pillar that we come with the idea of action but again it is not only about military action. There are other means and considerations such as prudence and reasonable prospect for success qualify this action. Other methods can be used such as quiet diplomacy, mediation, international pressure, referral to court, etc. Such conceptualization of RtoP is less contentions. Still challenges remain as to how this can be applied in practice.

Let me say a few words about prevention. I think rhetorically it is

40

extremely attractive but it getting involved at all. It is difficult is very difficult to exercise in practice. in the existing international system to I was working, before assuming this mobilize resources for prevention post, at the OSCE High because it is about It is difficult in Commissioner for a non-event (about the existing national minorities: an something that it is not institution mandated international system supposed to happen specifically to do to mobilize resources and doesn’t happen). conflict prevention.

As a result it is very for prevention We knew how difficult to measure difficult it was to because it is about a success. How do you mobilize resources measure success of a non-event (political, material non-event? How can and intellectual) to do the work you be sure that your of prevention. One problem that prevention or the efforts of the is often encountered is either too prevention have actually worked? much interest from those states Who can claim the credit? Sometimes concerned or involved or too this is also important. In the world of little interest. If there is too much politics people want to claim credit interest then simply there could and be able to say that the investment be an interest not in helping with that they have put into a specific case the prevention but leading to actually brought some dividend. It is certain outcome of the conflict. very difficult to measure and prove.

Of course it is not cheap. If we If there is too little interest then speak about structural prevention again it is a problem of not this links to capacity building: the

second pillar. Then it takes a lot of resources and consistency which is a long term approach which again is not always easy to sell. In many respects the logic of doing politics the way it is today is not conducive to prevention unfortunately. When it comes to state building I think this is a very important dimension.

This is precisely what we were doing also in that office: truing to assist states in building capacity, to create legislative frameworks, to ensure that human rights are protected and basically help them meet their responsibilities.

state is not to help them to effectively suppress decent but to help them to be able to deal with decent and conflict in a democratic framework.

This is not easy to do. It cannot be done quickly and it is very difficult to do in times of crises. This is a bit of double edged sword.

The problem of unattended consequences basically which every goodaction may have.

All of the above here and particularly when we add here the third pillar and that is deciding on when, how and where to get involved and the considerations such as reasonable prospects for success, But there again it is a delicate balance where it will work, is it prudent, is when it comes to Can RtoP realistically it going to make the the situation of situation worse, etc. be applied consistently crisis because you when all this comes or is it always can get involved and to mind we end up you can strengthen going to be exercised in facing the problem the state a bit too of selection. This the case of weak, much. The idea of is something that small, failing states strengthening the has been raised

many times. Can RtoP realistically be applied consistently or is it always going to be exercised in the case of weak, small, failing states that are often from the South or so called Global South? This of course very much undermines the legitimacy of the doctrine among non-Western states and the initial resistance to RtoP from non-Western states very much can be explained by this.

Of course there is a big moral question: simply because we couldn’t realistically protect or exercise RtoP in Chechnya in 1994 does it mean that we should automatically not do the same in Central Africa in 2014?

We are talking about saving lives and each one counts. Other conceptual challenges to building consensus around RtoP include the conception of sovereignty. You mentioned ASEAN and that there is a growing acceptance of RtoP.

41

ASEAN countries are much more traditional in their understanding of sovereignty. This move away from sovereignty as right to do basically whatever and to expect non-intervention from other states is still very strong among some countries and some regions.

Regional interpretations still vary also among countries with different sizes. In Europe where pulling of sovereignty is much more accepted this is probably not so much contested concept but in other cases it is.

Nevertheless I think with the evolution of international law and practice and use of remedial succession even and growing cases of international action to prevent and respond to large scale atrocities, we can say that there is an emerging consensus of redefining sovereignty in terms of responsibilities and away from rights. There are antecedents

42

to this also in history and in There is an overlap now, especially, international theory that go back to with an anti-terrorist agenda. the 16th and 17th century from the original thinkers on sovereignty. Other Operationally, the biggest challenge issues that we need to address are the is receiving timely authorisation form limited diffusion of the language of the right authority –timely here is RtoP: it is very much important as we live What happens a UN terminology and in an anarchical system there are different when atrocities are where there is no uses and different committed by non- overarching authority understandings of it over sovereign and state actors? in different regional supposedly equal and sub-regional contexts. You (Mr. states, so the question of right Celito Arlegue) mentioned ASEAN. I authority is a c-challenging one. am more familiar with the OSCE, Individual states do not have a right where there is a lot of use of in international law to intervene the prevention language: conflict in the affairs of other states. Only prevention, conflict resolution, early the Security Council has such right, warning mechanisms –it’s not RtoP acting under Chapter 7 of the UN language. I think in terms of coming up Charter, and given the propensity with some common understandings of states to use human rights as it might help to find some consensus a justification for hostile acts against on the terminology. There is also other states, and I use the example the problem of non-state actors – of Georgia, unilateral intervention what happens when atrocities are on humanitarian grounds should committed by non-state actors? not be permitted in law. So the

Security Council is the closest we get to the right authority and on the one hand this is prudent because we have a clear diversity of interests within the permanent five, so the likelihood that those five will find a consensus on intervention unless there is a very, very strong case, is small. On the other hand this is also a problem because consensus among the five is very difficult to achieve and normally trying to get there delays the process in a situation of crisis and this is very costly in terms of lives. The lack of consensus or Security Council authorisation means we have unilateral or multilateral intervention but without Security Council consent.

The problem here is that this sets a dangerous precedent that can be used by other states for different purposes.

Another operational challenge which was made evident by the case in Libya is how to stop mass

killings effectively and ensure they do not reoccur without, actually, regime change. This was one of the main criticisms of the use of RtoP in Libya: that it resulted in regime change. Can we realistically say that when we have a regime that perpetrates these crimes that it should remain and that this is how we will try to prevent the killing – it is very difficult to do it and when you have a regime change then what do you replace it with because leaving a power vacuum can be very dangerous and harmful for the very lives we are trying to save. So then there was this idea of responsibility while protecting: I think this is very interesting and worth looking into.

I think it is very important to be having this debate because this is the way we can address challenges, minimise risks, and advance the cause, which I believe fundamentally is a just cause.

43

Liberal

visions

on

R toP

Lord John Alderdice LI President of Honour, UK

“W

hy are we talking about RtoP today?” This was the question posed

by Liberal International’s President of Honour, Lord John Alderdice, as he evaluated the contributions of the numerous expert panellists who had contributed to the debate.

“Ten years on from its acceptance by the United Nations we are focussing on the important principle that we have a responsibility to protect each other across borders, but it is hardly

a celebration of ten years of success.

When the United Nations was established after World War II, the first aim in its charter was to deal with international conflicts and bring peace. Yet in the list of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) just signed off this September in New York, everything else comes ahead of peace. All that remains is a feeble mention in SDG 16 (out of the 17) that speaks of justice, good governance and ending all violence. The UN’s

primary focus has been lost and we are descending again into global conflict.

The same has happened with the European project. It was forged out of the ashes of World War II to ensure that we never had another terrible war in Europe, but because our leaders have become preoccupied with free trade, the euro and a place at the top table of world affairs, the primary purpose - peace in Europe – has been forgotten, and the whole EU project is now in grave danger.

45

We must refocus on peace and conflict, and RtoP has a key role.”

In unpicking the patchy and inconsistent application of RtoP, Lord Alderdice reminded delegates that “RtoP is a principle not a set of policies, which may succeed or fail. We do not say of the Ten Commandments that because “You shall do no murder” has not stopped killing we should abandon the principle that murder is wrong. The question is how we implement the principle. After 10 years there are already many lessons to be learnt about applying the principle of RtoP. One that should have been clear from the beginning, is that while military intervention may be necessary for the implementation of RtoP, it should be the last option, not the primary one.”

In finding a sustainable and successful framework for RtoP a much more holistic approach is necessary. For

46

example, the private sector has a role to play because of its economic power and trans-border reach. Instead of portraying violence as a conflict between good and evil, we need to examine it as the major global public health challenge. Can we persuade philanthropists, foundations and business owners to focus on this as much as they have on malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis? If we are to succeed in protecting each other across borders we need to understand much more deeply the processes of violent conflict, and as politicians we must acknowledge our need to work with others. If it is left only to politics and political structures to prevent conflict we are unlikely to succeed.” noted the LI President of Honour.

Summing up, Lord Alderdice concluded, “RtoP faces a profound challenge in the current uncertain global environment, as people are tempted to turn inwards and focus

on concern for their own people.

LI has a responsibility to maintain a concern for each other across borders and continue to promulgate RtoP.”

Celito F. Arlegue

Executive Director, Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD)

T

his afternoon, we were privileged to hear the interventions of two distinguished speakers from the diplomatic corp and the policy community – Her Excellency Natalie Sabanadze and Mr. Jonas Claes. From the specific cases of Syria and Ukraine that we tackled in the first panel, we moved to a more theoretical, policy-oriented discussion in this panel, particularly in relation to the future of RtoP. In my brief comment at the beginning

of the session about RtoP in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, I emphasized three (3) points: 1) RtoP is compatible with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’(ASEAN) goal of establishing a peaceful, just, democratic, peoplecentered and caring community; 2) ASEAN has existing institutions and mechanisms that can help in the implementation of RtoP such as the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

(AICHR), the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights (ADHR), the ASEAN Commission for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), among others; and 3) the Southeast Asian context, however, remains ripe for the onset of conflicts (ethnic, religious, resource, etc.) which may necessitate the application of the RtoP. In the presentation of Ambassador Sabanadze, she noted that RtoP

47

was borne out of good intentions 2) What should we do if non-state actors and that it continues to be a are involved in the atrocities?; and good framework for humanitarian 3) How do we stop mass killings intervention (vis-à-vis military without regime change? Mr. Claes, intervention).

She cautioned, in his intervention, agreed with the however, that RtoP could also good ambassador as regards the be abused, citing in particular conceptualization of RtoP. He pointed how Russia used the concept in out that RtoP should increasingly be justifying its actions in Georgia. viewed as a preventive, non-coercive Hence, she argued for the tool. He then moved on the political, reconceptualization of RtoP – by moral, legal and tactical aspects moving away from military of RtoP, noting in particular that, intervention to conflict “an appropriate It should be prevention. This might invocation of the emphasized that not be easy though as concept is not “the logic of doing RtoP includes a range necessarily followed politics is not conducive by effective action.” of tools, from the for prevention.” preventive to the He also raised some She then raised very issues and problems coercive valid questions regarding in transatlantic the future application of RtoP: relations which could impact on RtoP, highlighting specifically the need 1) How do we ensure the consistent for a common understanding of the and non-selective application of RtoP? concept. Finally, he proposed that RtoP should move in the direction

48

of risk analysis and assessment –a reiteration of his claim that RtoP should focus more on conflict prevention rather than military intervention.

The presentations of our two distinguished speakers, and the points raised during the open forum, led me to believe that we agreed on the following points.

1) Reconceptualization of RtoP – It should be emphasized that RtoP includes a range of tools, from the preventive to the coercive. In the past, the success of RtoP was usually equated with the success of military intervention. There should be a shift from this line of thinking towards risk assessment/conflict prevention.

This rethinking, however, might not be easy because of the following reasons: (a) it is difficult to mobilize support and resources for a nonevent (i.e. conflict prevention); and (b) a world threatened by

terrorism seek a

would increasingly coercive response.

2) Consensus on RtoP – It is important to note that even the US and the EU are not entirely in agreement about the conceptualization and application of RtoP. While this is understandable, a common ground is imperative for the future of RtoP. This could be facilitated by studies/exchanges on RtoP best practices, or by setting of clear, definite goals whenever RtoP is applied.

3) Prevention of RtoP Abuse – The international community should be vigilant of attempts to use RtoP to achieve selfish, egoistical ends. RtoP should also be consistently applied to all comparable cases, otherwise it may lose its credibility, particularly in the developing world.

49

Irwin Cotler

Former Attorney General of Canada

I

take the responsibility to protect to be, among other things, the struggle against hate, against racism, against mass atrocity, against indifference – and against the crime of genocide; all this as part of the larger struggle for international justice, for human rights and human dignity in our time, and which underpins the importance and compellability of RtoP as a foundational principle with respect to the pursuit and implementation of international justice, human

50

rights

and

human

dignity.

We meet also in the 70th anniversary year of the liberation of Auschwitz – the most brutal extermination camp of the 20th century – a reminder of horrors too terrible to be believed, but not too terrible to have happened – and a reminder too that “Never Again” must not be an idle slogan, but a remembrance to act.

We meet also on the fifth anniversary

of the killing fields in Syria that have gone un-addressed let alone un-redressed and have led to the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since the Second World War. I have met with survivors from the Syrian killing fields – the scorched earth policy that has targeted innocent civilians, beginning with the criminal Assad regime and then with ISIS. Simply put, we have a situation now of more than 300,000 killed, some 12

million displaced people, and close to 5 million refugees – a kind of mocking rejoinder to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. When I say this, it’s not so much a rejoinder to the doctrine as it is a rejoinder to our inaction with respect to giving expression and implementation to that doctrine.

rejoinder to the RtoP doctrine, but that it is a mocking rejoinder to what happens if you don’t take RtoP seriously, and if you don’t implement RtoP as was initially conceived.

As Václav Havel and Desmond Tutu put it, and I quote:

I remember that those of us who “The Responsibility to Protect is the wrote three years ago – again and most significant development in again – about the need to give defense of human rights since the expression to the RtoP doctrine were codification of those rights enshrined told at the time, “Well, you know, if in the Universal Declaration of you intervene, this is going to lead Human Rights in the aftermath of to civil war, this is going to lead to World War II and the Holocaust. Yet, sectarian warfare, this is going to six years (they wrote this in 2011, lead to jihadism in Syria”. but one can say this RtoP is a All the things we were now 10 years later) and frustratingly millions of preventable told would happen if we intervened, I hate to elusive promise deaths after the adoption say, happened because of RtoP by the 2005 we did not intervene – early and World Summit, its implementation effectively. If you want to know the remains far from a reality”. Instead, tragedy of Syria in relation to RtoP, (as they concluded) “RtoP is a it isn’t so much that it is a mocking frustratingly elusive promise”.

And so, on this anniversary of anniversaries, we need to ask ourselves: What is it that we have learned? And no less importantly: “What is it that we must do? And where is RtoP in all of this, in both the prevention and protection against mass atrocities?

Perhaps the most painful chapter is the one documenting the mass atrocities of the Rwandan genocide – to read is to weep, not only at the horrific slaughter of innocents, but at the inaction and indifference which made it possible.

There are no heroes in Samantha Powers’ telling, save for one: Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, who not only warned of the impending genocide in his fax of January, 1994, but would plead for help again and again. Warnings, which went ignored, unheeded, if not rebuffed and repudiated.

51

Seven years later, in 2001, 192 states unanimously adopted the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, the most important normative, if not juridical doctrine.

It is not only Rwanda or Darfur – whose genocide is also so unspeakable because it was also preventable. As we meet, as I mentioned, in Syria, the deaths, destruction and devastation continue unabated, with the daily commission of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity.

And so, we must ask ourselves: What have we learned – and, more importantly: What must we do?

And where is RtoP in all of this? In particular, how do we pour content into what we mean by RtoP; and so as to ensure that RtoP – like “Never Again” – does not become an idle slogan or cliché, but can serve for remembrance and action.

52

What is to be done?

The time has come for governments and parliaments – in concert with civil society – to reaffirm our commitment to R2P, whose implementation remains as inadequate as it is incomplete.

agency council in government that would be a focal point for the prevention and combating of these international crimes and which would also reflect and represent our commitment to R2P in that regard.

4. To take the lead in the development 1. To reaffirm the Responsibility to and implementation of international Protect as an organising idiom for human rights and international our human rights foreign policy – as humanitarian and criminal law, as an organizing idiom of part of combating the We need to ask our commitment to culture of impunity. international justice. ourselves… what is We have been too it that we must do… silent also in the 2. To take the lead in matter of supporting where is RtoP in making mass atrocity and assisting the all of this? prevention – war International Criminal crimes, crimes against Court in combating humanity, ethnic cleansing, and the culture of impunity that is so genocide – as a centerpiece of our systematic and widespread in the foreign policy as it must be a focal point international community today. of our international security doctrine.

5. We need to take the lead in peace 3. To establish a mass atrocities protection, invoking the paradigm of prevention board, an inter- human security as being a focal point

as well of our RtoP. When I was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, our government invoked the paradigm of human security as a model for combating international terrorism, which itself is anchored in two foundational principles. a. We need to see international terrorism as constituting an assault on the security of democracy and the rights of its inhabitants to life, liberty, and security of the person. Therefore, anti-terrorism is the promotion of the protection of the democracy and human rights – of human security. b. We must always ensure that anti-terrorism law and policy must always comport to the rule of law, adheres to constitutional rights, prohibits torture, and must never single out minorities for differential and discriminatory treatment.

6. Finally, with regard to promoting, protecting and implementing RtoP

are the partnerships between government, parliaments, civil societies and NGOs. If you want to know why the Ottawa Landmines Treaty was such an important and successful initiative, it was because of the involvement of governments and parliaments, in an inclusive partnership with civil society and NGOs in the implementation of RtoP. I hope and trust that this 10th anniversary of the RtoP doctrine may not only be – which it is – an important moment of remembrance, but may it also be a remembrance to act and give expression to the implementation of RtoP.

53

Khdor Habib

Member of Parliament, Lebanon

I

would like to focus in my intervention on the Syrian refugee crisis. I believe that this crisis is one of the biggest refugee crisis ever witnessed in history. The pictures of today illegal migrants trying to cross to Europe is an indicator of this crisis. More than 700,000 illegal migrants tried to cross to Europe this year by crossing the Mediterranean to Italy and Greece.

500,000 of them tried to cross to Greece more than 60% of them are Syrians.

54

Lebanon is today one of the countries that suffered the most from the refugees’ crisis. The magnitude of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Lebanon: -Since March 2011, the number of people residing in Lebanon has increased by at least 30% -The number of Syrians residing in Lebanon has reached 1.5 Million -1,187,000 Syrians are registered with UNHRC as refugees -Today, 1 in 4 is a refugee in Lebanon -50,000 Lebanese have returned from Syria

-Around 50,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria have moved to Lebanon since 2011 -16% of Syrian refugees live in 2000 Informal Settlements -26% of the population of Lebanese prisons are Syrian nationals -There is a significant increase in human trafficking of Syrians and Palestinians from Syria -86% of Syrian refugees live in 242 villages in Lebanon that are considered to be poor -The Lebanese and the Syrians are becoming partners in deprivation

-Since March 2011, the economic Officially, and since 2011, the Lebanese losses due to the crisis in Syria have government has adopted a policy of exceeded $7.5 Billion disassociation The main concern -Since 2011, the labour towards the Syrian force in Lebanon have Nonetheless, remains that the crisis. increased by 50% different economic, some political groups and unemployment in in Lebanon have been social and Lebanon have doubled publicly involved in developmental since 2011. More than fighting in Syria in 4 years since the challenges should not support of the Syrian start of the Syrian Hezbollah, turn into political and regime. revolution, we cannot for example, which is security risks anymore speak only represented in both about the humanitarian the government and consequences of the Syrian the parliament, has been military crisis on Lebanon. We need to involved in the Syrian war since 2013. expand this discussion to include Around 1000 fighters from Hezbollah other consequences such as: lost their lives fighting in Syria. The The Demographic Impact, The political groups represented in the Economic/Development Impact government have been unable to and the Security/Political Impact. agree on the issue of establishing The Lebanese people are divided formal camps. The political divisions regarding the Syrian crisis and and the security challenges affected regarding the different policy the functioning of the government options towards the Syrian and other constitutional institutions. refugees in Lebanon. The Lebanese Parliament has

been unable to elect a President since May 2014. The parliamentary elections have been postponed twice since 2013. Finally, and unlike its predecessor, this government has taken few decisions that aimed at managing the Syrian displacement into Lebanon.

The main concern remains that the different economic, social and developmental challenges should not turn into political and security risks.

The government is working closely with local NGOs, international NGOs and international organisations. The government of Lebanon has also drafted together with the UN a joint plan “Lebanon Crisis Response Plan� for 2015-2016 to ensure that the humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis benefits Lebanon and helps in stabilizing the country.

55

Ingemund Hägg LI Patron, Sweden

T

he principles of Responsibility to Protect are compatible with basic liberal ideas. In this note I will focus on important issues of terminology and the need to develop an understanding of conditions when responsibility to protect applies. An understanding to be deeply rooted in the minds of the populations of our nations, which means continuing public discussion.

Basic human rights are universal.

This was evident when the UN

56

Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN in 1948. “The great religious traditions – take for granted the principle of common humanity. Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, and more of their variants share a recognition of the human conditions. Their explanation of it and their solutions for it may differ but not their concerns.

The idea of universal human rights

shares the recognition of one common humanity, and provides a minimum solution to deal with its miseries” (“A world made new.

Eleanor Roosevelt and the unive rsal declaration of human rights”, by Mary Ann Glendon, 2001, p 233).

Even if Glendon in her excellent book does not make a reference to nonreligious beliefs it would be easy and natural to add such views as part of the deep concerns for basic

human rights. Basic human rights are definitely not only a “Western” idea.

And they constitute a solid basis for the principles of responsibility to protect.

Human security includes – as formulated in the ICSS Report 2001 – “concern for human rights, but broader than that in its scope” and “increasingly providing a conceptual framework for international action“ (Op.cit., p. 6). “Human security means the security of people – their physical safety, their economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

(Op.cit., p. 15). The meaning of to be broader in scope than human rights is not clear to me. Human rights declarations include both firstgeneration and second-generation rights. Though the latter rights have been criticised as diluting the concept of human rights Amartya Sen,

for example,) gives arguments for the wants to regard sovereignty as acceptance of economic and social responsibility and on that line go rights as real human rights in his great from “sovereignty as work “The idea of justice” (2010, p control“ to sovereignty as 355 ff.). Even if he does not discuss responsibility in both internal responsibility to protect functions and directly I find his views on This does not mean external duties” human rights compatible that sovereignty as (Op.cit., p. 13). This with conditions for control is outdated does not mean that responsibility to protect. as control but that sovereignty sovereignty is outdated but The ICSS commission as responsibility that sovereignty as wants to avoid the must must be added responsibility phrase “humanitarian be added, even if intervention”.

Humanitarian such responsibility can come into organizations object to the use conflict with the control definition of “humanitarian” when it comes of sovereignty. Acceptance of the military intervention and the principles of responsibility to protect commission understands that. For liberals acceptance of what (ICSS Report, p. 9). Further, the responsibility to protect is and stands commission prefers not to talk for is important. This is not easy as about a “right to intervene” this responsibility is not a simple and instead talks about a clear responsibility and further, not “responsibility to protect”. a static thing. An understanding and acceptance in the populations Similarly the commission in our countries of responsibility to

57

protect must therefore build on discussion and elaboration over time with new experience and interpretation.

Similar to the fact that human rights is not something you can “learn” once and for all.

The wordings are not in themselves norms but can in the longer time perspective strongly influence development of norms for action.

It is not enough that the political leaders and elites understand the responsibility to protect principles.

“As to moral appeal, preventing, averting and halting human suffering – all the catastrophic loss and misery that go with slaughter and ethnic cleansing and mass starvation – are inspiring and legitimizing motives in almost any political environment” (Op,cit., p. 71). We should not underestimate the need for discussion and dialogue about the principles in our countries. In the

58

UN secretary general report from 16 February 2009 it is stressed that States should “engage in a process of self-reflection to understand how RtoP principles are universal and can also be integrated in local values and standards.”

A liberal task Suchself-reflection involves neverending open discussions and dialogues in our countries. It must be a main liberal task and responsibility for liberals and liberal parties to be driving and active in such discussions about the principles of Responsibility to Protect.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Member of the European Parliament, Bulgaria

D

ear colleagues,

As the European Parliament is one of the international pillars of Human rights protection it is a great honour for me to welcome you here to day and to discuss with you important human rights issues.

Responsibility to protect is an international security and human rights norm that aims to address failures of the international community to prevent and stop genocides,

war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Having said that it is valuable to note the fact that in the post-Cold war situation of world politics the norm Responsibility to Protect has always been related to the emergence of humanitarian interventionism. Of course, this is not a problem as long as a humanitarian intervention aims to promote and encourage respect for human rights, to enforce an UN resolution or

to perform a moral obligation.

However, when interventionism is used as a cloak for other interests then it is a form of cultural imperialism (or aggression). Namely, then we are facing the problem of selectivity of interventionism and consequently of responsibility to protect. The problem of selectivity or double standards is that major powers, including Security Council holders of a veto, will always be able to resist pressure, and

59

ultimately intervention, in a way that we try to avoid resentment by nonsmaller and weaker powers cannot. liberal states, put emphasis on Thus, in the eyes of many experts, state rights and keep to political observers, colleagues principles of international order and most importantly public (sovereignty and domestic opinion, interventionism and in jurisdiction).

What particular the norm is more chilling is the All of this is a of responsibility to fact that the problem result of our protect is dead. NATO of selectivity will interventions in Kosovo inactivity because go beyond Syria and and Libya can serve as Ukraine, for instance we try to avoid good examples of how Burundi.

What we we managed in a resentment by have to do to solve the capacity of international non-liberal states problem of selectivity? community to avoid We liberals define war crimes, ethnic cleansing and ourselves as people with crimes against humanity. In light of cosmopolitan perspectives rather this, it is more than important to than communitarian ones, people note that our inactivity in cases who believe in universal rights over of Syria and Ukraine already has community rights, who are tolerant resulted to the deaths of half a towards different cultures and who million people, unseen since Second respect both individual and collective World War refugee crisis, state rights. Therefore, we seek universal destruction and upsurge of responsibility for human rights. international terrorism. All of this To achieve this goal, we need to is a result of our inactivity because promote our liberal vision not only on

60

a local level (governments and public opinion) but also on international one (international organisations and international community). If we manage to succeed, then state sovereignty will be conditional and not absolute, consistent actions will be taken and there will be sustaining commitments to others.

In my liberal vision, responsibility to protect is still alive and for sure it will always be alive since the norm originates from liberal tradition and thinking. However, if we seek to translate responsibility to protect from words to actions the world needs to accept our liberal vision.

Here, comes the question how this will happen. The answer to this question is very simple indeed, through education and again education in liberal values and norms.

Thank you!

Richard Moore LI Patron, UK

T

his is a time when the Responsibility to Protect has seldom been so relevant and seldom been so difficult to fulfil. Its neglect in the recent past is now leading to a crisis, which according to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the Prime Minister of France, puts the future of the European Union in peril.

The failure to protect the victims of President Assad of Syria, even when

he used chemical weapons on his own civilian population, led to the mass exodus of refugees now multiplied by the atrocity of Daesh.

This mass of desperate people has produced such different responses in the member states of the European Union that its cohesion is threatened as never before. While the murderous attacks of Assad are not explicitly aimed at the Sunni population of Syria that is their effect together of course with any

other Syrians who oppose Assad’s tyranny. The atrocities of Daesh are boasted of being part of a jihad to exterminate Jews, Christians, Yazidis, and any Muslims who do not share Daesh’s corrupted view of Islam and its wild distortion of the Caliphate. The Caliphate of the Ottomans for generations practised religious toleration that the raison d’état of Daesh’s version is to destroy all other religions and all Muslims judged to be heretics.

61

No government however seems willing to invoke the principle of the responsibility to protect in Iraq and Syria. If it is to remain a dead letter we may soon be faced with even greater horrors elsewhere. If extremist Islamists gain home in Egypt the eight million Christian Copts will be in peril. The brutalities of the present dictatorship in Cairo provide plenty of excuse for the armed rising of the Egyptian majority who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is certainly the duty of civilised governments to concert plans for protecting the Copts rather than relying on the persistence in power of the dictator Sisi. When we are witnessing also the beginnings of a repetition of the Rwandan horror in neighbouring Burundi and, while it has vanished from the screens and the headlines, the continued ethnic cleansing of Africans by the Army in Darfur, the need to

62

make a reality of the responsibility to protect is seemingly obvious.

It is a gloomy prospect on which the Liberal International must continue to focus. There is hope that the great victory of the Canadian liberals, who did so much to foster the idea of the Responsibility to Protect will give renewed impetus to one of the moral imperatives of our time.

why

Responsibility

to protect MATTERS

Overview of RtoP Development

1948 After World War II the UN resolution 260 of 9 December 1948 adopted the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as a direct response to the horror of the Holocaust.

64

1994 The modern turning point for the notion of “Responsibility to Protect” (RtoP) came out of the Rwanda experience.

2001 The Canadian government released a report which held that state sovereignty is a responsibility, and that the international community could, as a last resort, use military intervention to prevent “mass astrocities.”

2005 At the 2005 World Summit member states included RtoP in the Outcome Document. The next year the UN Security Council formalized their support of RtoP by reaffirming the provisions made in this document.

2009 The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon released a report which argued for the implementation for RtoP and its arguments were subsequently discussed at the 2009 UN General Assembly.

Source: Our World in Data

65

Number of active genocides and politicides* around the world, 1955 - 2015 11

# of genocides & politicides

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1955

66

1975

*Politicide are the destruction of a political movement

years

1995

2015

Source: Our World in Data

Map of genocide and politicide deaths around the world since 1955

in terms of the number of deaths, 0 being less than 300 and 5 being more than 256,000

Source: Our World in Data

67

about us Liberal International (LI) is the world federation of over 100 liberal and progressive democratic political parties. LI was founded in 1947 to strengthen liberal protection from totalitarianism and communism. The founding “Oxford Manifesto� is widely considered as one of the most important political documents of the 20th century. It has since become the pre-eminent network for promoting liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, equality of opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy.

The European Dialogue Programme of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom examines and analyses the European integration process from a liberal point of view.

We develop and discuss liberal policy solutions through international conferences and seminars and link partners from developing and transition countries with decisionmakers at the EU level.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE/ADLE) is the current liberal–centrist political group of the European Parliament. It is made up of MEPs from two European political parties, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (formerly the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party) and the European Democratic Party, which collectively form the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

68

Published by: Liberal International 1 Whitehall Place London, UK SW1A 2HD With the support of: European and Transatlantic Dialogue Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Avenue de Cortenbergh 71 1000 Brussels Belgium www.fnf-europe.org Edited by: Liberal International Cover photo courtesy of UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe 69