Responsibility to Protect - Assignment Example

Responsibility to Protect Following the mass murder, torture and displacement of many thousands in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990’s and continuing throughout the current crises in Darfur, Sudan, world leaders have debated the issue of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ Members of the United Nations, governments, charity organizations, intellectuals, church officials and the public alike have been compelled to consider the many moral and legal aspects of humanitarian and military intervention into a sovereign state. The debate centers around what means and under what circumstances can countries force their will on another nation. In many instances of ‘ethnic cleansing,’ government officials themselves have committed these atrocities on its citizens but U.N. regulations prohibit external interventions into the internal dealings of a nation. Therefore, the power of the international community has proved impotent while thousands suffer. In September of 2005, the world leaders assembled at the U.N. The largest such gathering of heads of state in history produced the ‘responsibility to protect’ document in which 150 signatures were attached. The nations of the world agreed “to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter … on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate” (Rasul, 2005). Since the end of World War II and the Nazi’s implementation of the ‘final solution,’ the phrase, ‘never again’ has echoed throughout the world, but genocide has occurred over and over again. The responsibility to protect is an agreement late in coming. It has not curbed the violence in Darfur and its complex implications have not existed without continued debate and controversy. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ provides that a country cannot refuse assistance or support from other countries when it cannot or will not safeguard its citizens from genocide or other actions deemed as a crime against humanity. All nations’ sovereignty is respected as is their ability to conduct their own affairs but this is a qualified condition, not one that is considered absolute. “When peaceful means are exhausted and leaders of a UN member state are ‘manifestly failing to protect their populations,’ then other states have the responsibility to take collective action through the Security Council” (O’Neill, 2006). In some respects, the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” was founded in the common concern for human rights worldwide, the concept that initiated the formation of the U.N. The Genocide Treaty (1948) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) are manifestations of the U.N.’s founding principles. In the 1960’s, the international human rights covenants furthered this philosophical stance of the U.N. However, these treaties, covenants and resolutions were not effectively enforced. Affected countries argued that their right to national sovereignty superseded the intentions of uninvited intrusion. For many years, the U.N. and others have debated the subject of humanitarian intervention issue regarding the question of when the nations of the world should unite to take military action against a country so as to protect that country’s population. Supporters of ‘the responsibility to protect’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ concepts include liberal-minded persons worldwide who encourage the use of military forces to come to the aid of desperate people (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001). However, the questions surrounding the use of force has been of great concern to many especially following the recent ‘humanitarian’ efforts in Iraq led predominantly by the United States. When the conservative leadership in the U.S. sent military forces to occupy Iraq, the liberal concept of humanitarianism was occupied as well. Political author Ian Williams perhaps recognized this ideological occupation when he commented, “we should not let George W. Bush’s misappropriation of humanitarian intervention alienate the concept from its natural owners, the left” (Williams, 2003). As evidence of its claim, the U.S. videotaped soldiers handing out food to citizens of a city that it just bombed. The liberal proponents of forced humanitarian assistance are rightfully disgusted that the Iraq war was dubbed a humanitarian effort. Since invasion of Iraq, the liberal-minded have earnestly sought to create a doctrine of intervention which distinguishes its notion of legitimate humanitarianism via military force from the illegitimate variety. Mindful of this scenario prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion, a report issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty suggested the terminology ‘right to intervene’ be changed to ‘responsibility to protect’ in addition to altering the framework of the concept by crafting guidelines that distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate humanitarian militarism. The Commission maintains that “efforts to fortify the ramparts of humanitarianism against the grasp of imperial interventionists may prove futile” (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001). No doubt the majority of Iraq citizens do not regard the occupation of military forces and deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians as a humanitarian cause. Such actions which attempt to hide under the veil of a humanitarian mission when it clearly is not have raised much debate even amongst the liberal-minded regarding the specific situations when the use of military forces is appropriate. Critics of the responsibility to protect concept argue that it is simply another method by which the western world can justify its imperialistic predispositions. The concern being that responsibility to protect will be invoked whenever a more powerful nation wishes to advance its own agenda at the expense of the less powerful. Of course, this concern cannot be dismissed or denied in light of the Iraqi occupation which makes the argument for military intervention a tough sell to all, especially to the lesser developed countries. It is the nature of countries to consider their own interests first and foremost and a responsibility to protect document, no matter how well intentioned, cannot change this fact or guarantee that the motives behind its invocation are morally sound in every situation. The responsibility to protect is also critisised because it does not place enough emphasis on poverty and famine conditions and too much on violent situations. In addition, many that advocate humanitarian efforts question military involvement as the focus of this effort. “The challenge facing enlightened state leaders is to build an international consensus behind policies that address the underlying cause of human rights deprivations and that defend basic rights wherever and whenever they are threatened” (Linklater, 2000). For a country to intervene in a humanitarian pursuit, it must convince the Security Council of its motives for it to be a legal action. The U.S. ‘humanitarian’ exercise in Iraq and Afghanistan is illegal in the eyes of the U.N., the International Court of Justice and in the court of public opinion therefore should not be considered an accurate characterization of military intervention as supported by the left-minded or the U.N. However, the perception remains that the Iraq war is a conspicuous example for potential abuses within the responsibility to protect doctrine. “It will be more difficult next time for us to call on military action when we need it to save potentially hundreds of thousands of lives” (Roth, 2004). This comment has particular meaning when considering the lack of global reaction there has been to the circumstances in Darfur where more than 300,000 people have been murdered (International Development Committee, 2005) and at least 1.75 million persons supplanted since 2003 (Secretary-General, 2005). The Darfur government provides the definitive example of a state’s leadership that is either unwilling or unable to safeguard its citizens. The community of nations has thus far been unwilling to take the necessary action envisioned by responsibility to protect because of the perceptions for the potential abuses of authority. Another common criticism is that for the responsibility to protect to be properly implemented, it first requires a sufficient military force be assembled beforehand (Macfarlane, 2004). It has been argued that military manpower would not be of concern if the U.S. was interested in protecting Darfur’s citizens. The deployment of troops to Darfur would not be without cost but if safeguarding civilians from genocide were high on the political priority list, the risks would be deemed justifiable. Presently the relatively small African Union military force is attempting to protect the citizens of Darfur from genocide. This is a goal that will not be realized without further military as well as political support (Reeves, 2005). Another criticism regarding the situation in Darfur is that the responsibility to protect relies solely on the Security Council’s approval for the authorisation of humanitarian interventions. If it is given that military capabilities were not an obstacle, intervention would still face unlikely passage by the Security Council. Any resolution can be vetoed by one member of the Security Council. China is a member and imports most of its oil from Sudan. A military conflict in this region is decidedly not in China’s best interest. The responsibility to protect report suggested modifying the veto system for an occasion of this type but the acceptance of this change depends on the outcome of the discussions regarding U.N. reforms (Reeves, 2005). The world discusses while Darfur suffers. The responsibility to protect is not a new concept. The U.N. has addressed how nations are entitled to act when attacked (UN Charter, Article 51) and the authorisation of force ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’ (UN Charter Chapter Seven). These regulations contain several unresolved issues as well and do not adequately address forcible military intervention into a sovereign nation for humanitarian purposes so cannot be associated with the intervention debate, only the initial concept of humanitarianism (Evans, 2004). The debate among those in the academic community has produced much thoughtful, incisive writing on the subject, but it has not been greatly influential thus not any more helpful to the people of Darfur than debates in the political arena. The Swedish and Danish governments have produced well-respected studies concerning the responsibility to protect. “A common theme of these reports, and many other scholarly analyses, has been a distinction drawn between ‘legal’ and ‘legitimate’ interventions” (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). The debates regarding military intervention to protect people from genocide, torture, starvation and displacement continue while governments continue to consider their own interests with little regard to others. Human nature continues to be fallible and the nations of the world experience internal conflicts. The world continues the debate as countless people continue to suffer needlessly. References Evans, Gareth & Sahnoun, Mohamed. (November/December 2002). “The Responsibility to Protect.” Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from Evans, Gareth. (1 April 2004). “The Responsibility to Protect: Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention.” International Crisis Group Address to The American Society of International Law, 98th Annual Meeting,  Panel on “Rethinking Collective Action”, Washington DC. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from International Development Committee. (March 2005). Darfur, Sudan: The Responsibility to Protect, 2004–05. H.C. 67-1. Linklater, Andrew. (2000). “The Good International Citizen and the Crisis in Kosovo.” Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Imagination, Collective Action, and International Citizenship. Ramesh Thakur & Albrecht Schnabel (Eds.). Tokyo: UN University Press, p. 493. Macfarlane S. Neil et al. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention? 25 Third World Q. 977, 980. O’Neill, William G. (28 September, 2006). “The Responsibility to Protect Darfur.” The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from Rasul, Fatema Abdul. (22 September, 2005). “Responsibility to Protect.” Global Solutions Fact Sheet. Citizens for Global Solutions. Retrieved 16 November, 2006 from Reeves, Eric. (Fall 2005). Darfur: Shame and Responsibility. Dissent. Roth, Kenneth. (2004). The War in Iraq: Justified as Humanitarian Intervention? Kroc Institute, Occasional Paper #25:OP:1. Secretary-General. (16 November 2005). Monthly Report of the Secretary-General on Darfur. Delivered to the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2005/719. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from Williams, Ian. (11 August, 2003). “Intervene with Caution.” These Times. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from Read More