Answering Tough Questions: Our Responsibility to Protect

Once immersed in the world of international relations, diplomacy and politics, there is a very difficult, yet fascinating, question one is inevitably confronted with. The question, roughly, is: Are there any circumstances under which the international community has the responsibility or duty to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state on behalf of the well being of that state’s people?

(Photo www.responsibilitytoprotect.org)

I have been pondering that question for a long time now. I have have heard answers to this question from the “horses mouth” - Alan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy. I have attended lectures and read articles. What I have written here is raw, since the answer to this question depends may become a cornerstone of my international belief system and philosophy.

I first got more questions than answers when I confronted myself with this question. Do I have a shared responsibility or duty with others living across the world? If so, what is that responsibility? How do I know when Canada and the international community become responsible for what happens to them? What is their reaction supposed to be? How do I reconcile the Green Party’s value of non-violence if the response entails military intervention?

The framework that encapsulates a positive response to the initial question is called Responsibility to Protect, or R2P for short. It was developed by Canadians working on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian government in 2000. In 2001 it presented its report to the UN, and in 2005, R2P passed unanimously as a resolution at the General Assembly of the UN. In short, R2P declares that the international community has the responsibility to intervene in a state if that state is unwilling or unable to prevent or stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

My answer is yes. After thinking about all of these questions and getting the arguments for and against, there simply is not enough sensible arguments for me to say the opposite of R2P: under no circumstances do we have the duty to do everything we can to prevent people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

My reservations to my answers to the above questions were difficult to resolve, my answers hard to construct and I readily admit I am still in the early stages of grappling around this difficult and intellectually messy question.

I believe that I share responsibility with people across the world to prevent human atrocities from occurring and protecting people when they do. What I share with them is universal. I share with them humanity and human rights which does not allow – under any circumstances – horrors such as those in Rwanda, Srebrenica, the DRC, and Darfur.

The international community must be aware of possible situations emerging at all times. We don’t wake up one day in an established democracy to the human rights violations, mass murders and genocide. The international community is aware of where states are on the verge of failure or are teetering on the edge of mass human rights abuse. R2P includes three components, including the responsibility to prevent. Far, far too often is the international community hamstrung into reacting rather than being proactive in preventing humanitarian disasters. But it does not have to be that way. The reaction of the world to a grave situation must be measured and must follow an appropriate continuum – as the abuses become more serious, so does the international communities’ response to it, with military action being the very last component of that continuum.

(Photo: Harvard)

Once it is clear that the prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity, and mass murder cannot be achieved, and when all preventative mechanisms – from diplomacy, denunciatory resolutions, negotiations, sanctions etc. are exhausted, the international community must take the last step of military intervention. But this must always be the very last step, and must come after rigorous scrutiny over whether military action follows the basic principles of a Just War including proportionate response.

The last question of how to I reconcile my answers to all of those questions with the value of non-violence was quite difficult. I personally share the view of non-violence as an ideal to hold and strive towards, but believe that in many circumstances it is impossible or is not pragmatic to avoid. My view is partly utilitarian and partly ends-versus-means. If the military actions of the international community by force prevent or end acts genocide, ethnic cleansing or mass murder, then – perhaps paradoxically – the use of violence has ensured the occurrence of less violence, thus moving us closer to the ideal of non-violence. Of course, the military force used cannot be so destabilizing as to result in further, long-term violence and aggression, but must be accompanied by strong development as well as democratic institution and nation-state building so that the state will have the subsequent ability to protect its own citizens. This is possible. We have the tools and the knowledge.

Another component of R2P is the responsibility to rebuild.  Part of the resolution passed in 2005 included that the nations of the UN would “commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.” Thus, the nations of the world committed themselves, in words at least, to helping build the sovereign capacity of states to prevent humanitarian attrocities.

If this reconciliation of non-violence and R2P does not appease the unease of Greens, I would suggest that Greens embrace R2P but exclude military intervention. Far too many people believe that R2P means forceful intervention to stop humanitarian abuses. But that is hogwash. Both of the original minds behind R2P that I have seen speak have said that was its last intent.

It is critically important that R2P remains a tool that the international community can debate and employ when necessary and when conditions have been met. However, it is coming up again this spring for discussion at the UN and it is not guaranteed to survive. I will maintain my perspective and sentiments on the overarching issue, but I hope that the specifics of the resolution itself and the belief in the responsibility and duty to protect citizens in states that cannot or will not protect them, remains a focal point in the world’s international framework.

Originally posted at www.kerstenskolumn.wordpress.com