The Responsibility to Protect principle has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years, but this is nothing that it can’t recover from, believes a still optimistic Gareth Evans.
Looking back just a few years, hopes were high that genocide and other major crimes against humanity might really be a thing of the past after 150 heads of state and government unanimously endorsed the new Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle at the 2005 UN World Summit, especially after the Security Council invoked it in authorizing military action to stop civilian massacres in Libya in 2011. But then the Security Council became paralysed when similar challenges arose in Syria, and three years later 150,000 lie dead with no end to the atrocities in sight. Many are suggesting that R2P is an idea whose time has come – and now gone. SPP Distinguished Visiting Professor Gareth Evans examined what went wrong and how R2P can be set right again at a public lecture in Budapest on May 13.
With atrocities against civilians being reported on almost a daily basis from Syria, a failing peace process in South Sudan, and stories of unchecked terrorist attacks and kidnappings by Boko Haram in Nigeria, the idea that the concept of R2P is still alive and well is easy to dismiss. Evans believes that R2P is an issue which the international community has managed to bungle almost more than any other single issue, but it is still an issue worth pursuing.
‘The Responsibility to Protect principle grew out of despair,’ Evans explained. ‘It generated hope, it produced, with Kenya in 2008 and Côte d'Ivoire and Libya in 2011, moments of real exhilaration. But in the aftermath, and with Syria, we’ve had a sense of real disappointment. That said, the Responsibility to Protect story is not one of a return to total despair, and there are strong grounds for continuing to hope, when it comes to mass atrocity crimes, that we won’t be condemned to repeat forever that lamentation of “never again”.’
The first reason for Evans’ optimism is the continued declarations of support for R2P which are echoed by a whole host of nations each year at the annual debate on the subject in the UN General Assembly. And while Evans concedes that states discuss with much more comfort the non-military aspects of R2P than those related to military intervention, over which there is still much disagreement, in recent debates the ‘absolutely rejectionist voices are just not heard.’
The next reason for optimism is the continued evolution of what Evans describes as the ‘institutional preparedness’ which is critical for R2P to be effective in practice. This preparedness includes both long and short term preventive strategies and the formation of bodies such as the Atrocities Prevention Board in the United States, and it is this activity which demonstrates that interest in R2P is still alive and well.
‘The third thing that I think is very important to acknowledge,’ said Evans, ‘is that the Security Council (SC) itself, for all the angst that has been evident over the Libya case and now the Syria case, continues to use Responsibility to Protect language. At last count it has used it 13 times in resolutions since the Libya and Côte d'Ivoire cases.’ R2P language has now also been used in resolutions related to Yemen, Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Syria, and in reference to the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, when the SC reasserted the necessity of the R2P principles being applied. And while many of the actions actually taken in some of these situations was arguably less than effective, Evans is gladdened by the fact that the SC members are at least remaining active in these crises and the principles of R2P are generally being met with acceptance. The cynical language of ‘why should we get involved,’ is not in use anymore Evans believes: ‘you get intense engagement now as soon as the early warning signs appear.’
Finally, Evans is convinced that the SC members have shown signs of coming to grips with the problem of the failure of consensus on military action in the Libya case. This began with Brazil’s term on the SC when the concept of Responsibility While Protecting (RWP) was introduced as a supplement to R2P. RWP states that a united front should be maintained by the international community in cases where R2P is being invoked, ensuring that before a mandate for the use of force is granted there is extensive and detailed debate on the criteria of jus ad bellum -- namely: proper authority, just cause, probability of success, proportionality, and last resort. And once a mandate for military action has been granted, it should be subject to continuing review by the members of the SC.
These issues have been visited again recently in both China and Russia at two conferences where the subject of consensus on military action in R2P cases was discussed in detail by international experts and representatives of the BRICS community at the Chinese conference, and international experts, Russian think tanks, and foreign ministry representatives at the conference in Russia.
‘I genuinely do not believe,’ Evans concluded, ‘that anyone really wants to go back to the bad old days of the 1990s. I do think there is a sense that what is involved, more starkly than almost any other issue that we can think of, is recognition and respect for our common humanity, and that our common humanity is absolutely demeaned if we don’t respond effectively in these situations.’
You can listen to a recording of the full lecture below.