Conference debates implementation of the Responsibility to Protect

It was invoked in Libya, but should it be applied to Syria as well?

The emerging norm of R2P argues that national sovereignty carries with it not only rights but also responsibilities. Among the most grave of these state responsibilities is to ensure the protection of civilian populations from physical harm. But when states begin to target their own people in ‘mass atrocity crimes’ the responsibility falls to the international community to intervene and stop the slaughter.

The major instance of R2P principles being put into practice is UN Security Council Resolution 1973 by which NATO and other international forces intervened in Libya from March of last year. Theoretically, Resolution 1973 was adopted to prevent a massacre in the city of Benghazi, but critics complained that some Western countries stretched the mandate until the Gaddafi regime was completely overthrown.

At Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, a groundbreaking conference has recently been held in which scholars and specialists from many countries debated the implementation of R2P and considered its applications to Asia.

The fundamental principle that slaughter of civilians by their governments should be prevented was widely accepted by the conference participants, but the main point of contention regarded the significance that should be attributed to the abuse of R2P by powerful nations in the pursuit of self-serving agendas. Is R2P, as one participant put it, ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing?’

Professor Bojun Li of the Law School of Xiangtan University in China was among the sharpest critics of R2P. He noted that the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations is deeply rooted in international law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It is also a core principle of the United Nations itself.

As such, Professor Li argued that ‘the emergence of humanitarian intervention poses a severe challenge to the principle of sovereignty’. In Professor Li’s understanding, the emerging norm of R2P faces a major handicap because it is, in the first place, flat-out illegal.

Beyond the legal issue, Professor Li also expressed concern about some of the practical aspects of R2P. He noted that in the heat of conflict it is not uncommon for media reports to wildly exaggerate the scale of bloodshed and that crucial political decisions are often based on such misinformation. Li was also one of several participants to note that ‘humanitarian protection is always the pretext for war’.

In contrast, Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak of the Centre of Air Power Studies in New Delhi, India, was cautiously supportive of the R2P concept. While he shared the concern that ‘R2P should not lead to misuse and provide a pretext for unilateral actions’, he also indicated that he could endorse the emerging view that sovereignty carries with it the responsibility of governments not to grossly abuse the human rights of their populations.

Covering some of the same legal ground as Professor Li, Air Vice-Marshal Kak came to a different conclusion; namely, that ‘sovereignty was never absolute’. As a matter of practice, powerful countries have usually been successful in guarding their domestic monopoly of force but weaker states have been vulnerable to external interventions at many junctures in the past.

Air Vice-Marshal Kak arrived at the position that the implementation of R2P must be carefully circumscribed, but when ‘casualties are well above the threshold of acceptable tolerance, the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention would be undeniable’. The main challenge we face, Kak argued, is to develop the proper instruments to ensure that R2P remains focused on its core concerns.

The Doshisha University conference also encompassed presentations about the recent history of R2P.

Daisaku Higashi of the University of Tokyo, for example, explained to the participants how issues of humanitarian intervention have been playing out in recent decisions at the UN Security Council.

Professor Higashi described his study of voting behavior by the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which have tended to oppose, or at least be very skeptical about, humanitarian intervention and the implementation of R2P.

According to Higashi, a distinction should be made between Russia and China which have a more fundamental antipathy toward R2P when it is cited in relation to their strategic allies (such as the case of Russia and Syria) or even potentially against themselves; and the three nations of Brazil, India, and South Africa, which are sensitive to the potential for abuse inherent within humanitarian intervention but still ‘respect the aspirations of people in totalitarian regimes such as Libya and Syria.’

Professor Pierre Sane, special visiting professor at Doshisha University and one of the key organizers of the conference, wrapped up the discussions by pointing out that it was the case of the Rwanda Genocide in 1994 that gave rise to what would later become known as R2P.

He acknowledged that ‘human rights are instrumentalized by states’ but didn’t see this as a prohibitive factor against the implementation of R2P. After all, he noted, true motives are always complex and inscrutable, and if the practical effects serve the interests of humanity, then state motives may be immaterial.

Professor Sane also advanced the argument that poverty is another grave violation of human rights and that in the future mass starvation too might serve as a trigger for humanitarian intervention. He stated, ‘Where a government is unable to satisfy the basic needs of its population, then it means the international community has a responsibility to ensure that nobody starves to death.’

In the end, the participants in the Doshisha conference did not reach a consensus on what should be done in a case like that of Syria, nor what instruments are available to reduce the impact of powerful states that utilize R2P to advance their own strategic agendas, but none could escape Professor Sane’s final evaluation of why the R2P principles cannot be dismissed by men and women of conscience: ‘We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because, at the end of the day, what we are talking about is saving lives.’

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Michael Penn is the president of the Shingetsu News Agency.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.