Photo Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
General Assembly holds third interactive dialogue on the role of regional and sub-regional arrangements in implementing the Responsibility to Protect
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
On 12 July, the General Assembly met for the third time to discuss the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and the role that regional and sub-regional organizations play in protecting populations from mass atrocities. As expressed by the UN Secretary-General, the roots of the Responsibility to Protect, “extend to the early declarations of ECOWAS, the pioneering work of the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the OSCE, the legal and human rights traditions of the Americas and the spirit of non-indifference that animates the African Union”.
Panelists during the morning session included the Executive Secretary of the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Secretary for Political Affairs of the Organization of American States. Throughout the day, interventions were delivered by 43 Member States, 3 regional organizations (the European Union, the African Union and the Caribbean Community) and 4 civil society representatives. The afternoon session included the Secretary General and his Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect, Francis Deng and Edward Luck.
Member States called for better cooperation and coordination between the UN and the regional bodies, stressing the importance of information sharing, education and cross-regional exchanges on best practices and lessons learned. Nana Afadzinu, on behalf of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, stressed that “Regional and sub-regional organizations are widely viewed as indispensable partners in translating the global commitment into actual policy. It is in this same spirit that they can foster regional ownership of RtoP and ensure that it is localized in a manner consistent with regional norms.”
A majority of statements pointed to the evolution of RtoP from what was seen as a controversial concept when endorsed in 2005 to an evolving norm that had in the last year become an “operational reality.” Cuba, Pakistan and Venezuela remained the only countries to refer to RtoP as an imperialist doctrine, calling for the UN to abstain from implementing RtoP while the norm is still being developed.
A majority of Member States emphasized the preventive aspect of RtoP and the critical importance of strengthening early warning, mediation and other tools for prevention, noted in the Report as 'under-resourced locally, nationally, regionally and globally.' Several Member States voiced support for the work of the UN Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and RtoP. Several speakers highlighted their support for appointing national RtoP focal points, as well as the International Criminal Court and the Peacebuilding Commission as two complementary tools for ensuring accountability and rebuilding in the aftermath of mass atrocities.
A number of countries raised concerns and reservations about the manner in which NATO is using force to implement Resolution 1973 in Libya, pointing to challenges of putting in place a more effective framework to protect populations in the midst of an armed conflict. Member States shared valuable lessons from recent events in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire, notably the role that the AU, ECOWAS and the Arab League played in calling for specific actions to halt mass atrocities. Guinea, having suffered recent atrocities, shared its experience on the role that West African states had in responding collectively to the plight of victims and refugees.
Speaking on the third pillar of RtoP, which deals with timely and decisive action in the face of the four crimes, many Member States emphasized that third pillar response includes peaceful, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian means, with the use of force as a last resort. Several Member States expressed interest in continuing discussions on the implementation of pillar III, supporting the proposal in the Secretary-General report to hold next year’s debate on the issue.
Importantly, Member States, panelists and civil society insisted on the need for consistency in protecting populations from mass atrocities, whatever the political contexts or interests at play. Liechtenstein and Mexico underlined the role of the Security Council to ensure that further action to protect populations not be blocked or vetoed as a result of controversy over past resolutions. Edward Luck noted in particular that a determinant variable to consistency was the availability of cooperation with and support by regional organizations for early reaction to crises.
Despite the clear interest in this topic from Member States and the strong emphasis that RtoP was considered less complex and controversial than in previous debates, there was limited participation from Member States given competing Ministerial and Security Council meetings which had been scheduled at the same time. Regretting that the Secretary-General’s report came out only a few days prior to the dialogue, civil society strongly urges for next year’s report on RtoP to be published far in advance of than the debate to leave more time for States to prepare statements.
Gus Miclat, Executive Director of Initiatives for International Dialogue (Philippines) and a Steering Committee member of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, captured the prevailing tone of the dialogue, saying “The progress that RtoP has made since the 2009 General Assembly dialogue is remarkable. The international community is engaging in the right questions – those of how to implement the norm. Civil society is a ready partner for Member States in their efforts to uphold the Responsibility to Protect.”
