Tag Archives: genocide prevention

#R2PWeekly: 28 November – 2 December

UntitledICRtoP to hold upcoming Event: Preventing Mass Atrocities:
The Role of Women in the Advancement of the Responsibility to Protect

4a681ab8-429e-4bb9-8132-eb4a0e3a753fThe International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP) is pleased to mark this year’s International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime with a public event exploring the relationship between the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) and Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) agendas in order to foster discussion, increase awareness, and produce recommendations for action. Genocide and other atrocity crimes disproportionately affect women and girls at an alarming rate as they often are directly targeted and also bear the brunt of the economic and social consequences of such crimes. However, women are not just victims of atrocities, as they have a vital role to play in the implementation and advancement of the RtoP and an inherent right to participate in the norm’s advancement.

ICRtoP would like to invite you to join us for the event entitled “Preventing Mass Atrocities: The Role of Women in the Advancement of the Responsibility to Protect,” on 12 December from 6:30pm – 8:30pm at The Church Centre for the United Nations (777 First Avenue at 44th Street, NY, NY). The event will feature civil society experts working throughout the world to advance the WPS and RtoP agendas. By convening civil society, UN, and Member State participants, the event will also serve as an opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints, and link actors working on these issues in order to raise and consider recommendations to enhance women’s participation and leadership in atrocity prevention.

Moderated by Jelena Pia-Comella, Deputy-Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, an ICRtoP Steering Committee member, the event will feature a panel of civil society experts, including Louise Allen, Executive Coordinator at NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security; Sharon Bhagwan Rolls, Executive Producer – Director of femLINKpacific; and Lina Zedriga, Secretary of Uganda’s National Committee for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and All forms of Discrimination.

As space will be limited, please RSVP by 5:00pm on Monday, 5 December if you plan to attend. To RSVP, please contact  wfmint5@wfm-igp.org


Catch up on developments in…

Burma/Myanmar
Burundi
CAR
DRC
Iraq
Nigeria
South Sudan
Sudan/Darfur
Syria
Yemen


Burma/Myanmar:

On 28 November, State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi cancelled her planned trip to Indonesia due to protests over government actions against the Muslim Rohingya minority in Rakhine State. The cancellation comes in the wake of a senior UN official accusing Myanmar of engaging in a policy of ethnic cleansing in order to force the Rohingya out of the country. In response to the escalating violence, the Thomson Reuters Foundation recently convened an expert panel on how to solve the issue. The panel’s responses can be read here.

The UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, released a statement on Tuesday expressing alarm over the security and humanitarian situation in northern Rakhine State in Myanmar, following reports of human rights violations. Dieng urged the government and military to allow an independent investigation to look into the reported incidents and also called for accountability for those responsible for the alleged violations.


Burundi:

Last week, the UN announced that it will set up a probe into the violence in Burundi. Following the announcement, the government responded that it will not cooperate with the investigation as they claim it to be part of a political plot. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in support of the president. However, it is not known whether the protests are voluntary or forced upon the civil servants through threats.

On Tuesday, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressedconcern regarding several incidents, including the circulation of a questionnaire asking public servants to state their ethnicity, and reports of killings, abuse and torture. The Committeeaccused the Burundian government of being unwilling or unable to protect the population and called on the country to act swiftly to protect civilians. The Committee also called on the government to allow the deployment of a UN police contingent, mandated to monitor the situation in the country.


Central African Republic:

On 27 November, the government of CAR stated that a week of fighting between the rebel groups, the Popular Front for the Renaissance of Central African Republic and Union for Peace in Central Africa, has left 85 people dead. Mr. Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, has released a statement condemning the violence amid reports that members of the Fulani ethnic group have been specifically targeted, with rebels going house to house looting, abducting people, and committing executions. His full statement can be readhere.

On Monday, a UN official said nearly half of the population, about 2 million people, in the Central African Republic are in need of humanitarian aid. According to aid groups, attacks in the country are restricting the access for humanitarian actors to deliver assistance to those most in need.


Democratic Republic of Congo:

On 25 November, Ugandan rebels from the ADFNALU group released several villagers they had taken captive in order to convey a warning to the armed forces of the DRC as well as MONUSCO, the UN mission in the DRC. The message called for a halt to assaults on their positions, warning that for each rebel killed they will kill ten civilians.

On 27 November, the Mai-Mai Mazembe, a Nande “self-defense” militia, attacked both a DRC army outpost and a camp for displaced persons in the Hutu village of Luhanga, killing at minimum 34 civilians. In the weeks prior, the group had threatened to “purify” the village if the Hutus did not leave..


Iraq:

Iraqi Special Forces have killed approximately 1,000 ISIL fighters since the offensive to retake Mosul from the Sunni terrorist group began six weeks ago. Government forces were initially able to make advances quicker than anticipated in villages and towns vacated by civilians. However, fighting has slowed in recent weeks as operations begin in neighborhoods still populated with local Iraqi residents. More than a million civilians have remained in Mosul throughout the battle.

A major pipeline was hit during the continued battle for Mosul on Tuesday, leaving nearly 650,000 civilians, including women and children, without access to water. The UN has also warned that high levels of food insecurity have emerged and there is extreme need for humanitarian assistance.


Nigeria:

On 25 November, Boko Haram raided three villages in the northeast of the country, killing five people and setting fire to multiple homes.

Late last week, at the EU Human Rights Dialogue in Abuja, the EU urged the Nigerian government to ensure that the country follows global human rights practices and added that peace will be possible only if it is set upon human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.


South Sudan:

Late last week, after intense international pressure, the South Sudanese government agreedto allow the deployment of additional peacekeepers in the country, which was initially refused by the president as he regarded it as a threat to national sovereignty.

On Wednesday, the United States reported to the UN Human Rights Council that South Sudanese government troops are preparing to launch an attack on rebel areas or border states and that the US has credible information to support this report. The US also accused the troops of deliberately targeting civilians. A proposal from the US, at the meeting, regarding an arms embargo and targeted sanction was blocked by Russia.

A UN humanitarian official in South Sudan has expressed serious concern regarding the continuing blockage of aid convoys in the country and has urged all parties to allow humanitarian access to safely reach people in need. During November, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) recorded about 91 incidents where humanitarian workers were blocked and several of these involved violence against personnel or assets. The major challenges for humanitarian workers have continued to increase as the situation for the South Sudanese population has also continued to deteriorate.

A UN commission on human rights has reported that a process of ethnic cleansing is under way in South Sudan, following a visit to the country, where members of the commission witnessed serious violations of human rights, such as massacres, rape, and the destruction of villages, based along ethnic divides, The UN commission has called upon the international community to fulfill its obligation to prevent genocide as such fears rise.


Sudan/Darfur:

The Sudanese government has made public that talks have been taking place in Addis Ababa to determine the locations of Darfur rebel combatants in order to create a comprehensive framework for a cessation of hostilities agreement to be signed with the armed groups. Talks between the government and two armed groups in Darfur, Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Movement-Minni Minnawi (SLM-MM), over a humanitarian cessation of hostilities have been deadlocked since last August.


Syria:

Syrian government forces have reportedly retaken over a third of rebel-held territory in the besieged city of Aleppo. The latest offensive has included a sustained aerial bombardment from both Syrian and Russian warplanes over the area. The Russian defense ministry has stated that Syrian government troops have regained control of 12 districts, or approximately 40% of the territory, from rebels opposed to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session on the enduring and protracted conflict in Syria on Wednesday. The UN Humanitarian Chief Stephen O’Brien, referring to the current situation as a “descent into hell”, pleaded with Council members to do everything in their power to influence decision makers to bring an end to the six year conflict. Nearly 600 people have been killed since Saturday after government forces initiated a large-scale offensive to retake rebel-held areas of Aleppo. At least 200,000 civilians, including women and children, remain in the besieged rebel-held areas of Aleppo.


Yemen:

On 23 November, Saudi-led coalition airstrikes killed 12 civilians in the Hiran district of Hajja province. Another set of airstrikes killed at least 13 civilians on 28 November as it hit two homes in the northeast of Hodeida.

On Monday, the Houthi rebels formed a new government, which was sworn in on Tuesday, according to a Houthi-run news agency. The formation of a new Houthi government is a set-back to ongoing UN efforts to form a unity government in Yemen. However, the UN Envoy for Yemen, Ould Cheikh Ahmed, traveled to Aden on Sunday with the aim of holding discussions and with the hope of reaching an agreement between the warring parties. President Hadi firstrefused to meet with the UN Envoy as the Yemeni government is opposed to the peace plan, but later agreed to a meeting after sending a letter detailing the parts of the plan that his government will not accept.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under RtoP, Weekly Round-Up

#R2P10: Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect at 10, Part 1: A Norm for Our Times

The following is the first entry in ICRtoP’s new ongoing ‘RtoP at 10’ blog series. The series invites civil society and academic experts to examine critical country cases, international/regional perspectives, and thematic issues that have been influential in the development of the norm over the past 10 years, and that will have a lasting impact going forth into the next decade.

Below is the first of a three part introduction  courtesy of Dr. Alex Bellamy, Executive Director of the Asia Pacific Center for the Responsibility to Protect. In part one, Dr. Bellamy provides an overview of RtoP’s normative development before delving into the “Unfinished Conceptual Work” that remains. Read on to learn more.

 

A Norm for Our Times

Few ideas have travelled further, faster, than the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). In the ten years since its adoption by world leaders at the 2005 World Summit, RtoP has become a central part of the way we think about, and respond to, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Whatever one thinks of its merits, it cannot be said that RtoP has failed to make itself relevant.

4a8037136

Rwandans fleeing the genocide to neighboring Tanzania in 1994. UNHCR Photo.

RtoP has progressed farthest in its normative development. In its first ten years, the principle has established itself as a political norm. Today, we expect that states will protect their populations from the four atrocity crimes and are critical of them when they fail. Equally, we expect that the international community will do whatever it can to protect people from atrocities when their own state manifestly fails to do so.It was not always thus.

In the 1990s, the UN created a “Protection Force” for Bosnia that was not mandated to protect civilians and drew down its forces from Rwanda when genocide struck; in the 1980s, the international community was absent entirely when the Guatemalan government unleashed genocide on the Mayans; and in the 1970s, the international community sanctioned Vietnam for ending the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia that had claimed the lives of a quarter of that country’s population.

Today we expect better. More than two-thirds of the UN’s Member States voted to “deplore” the UN Security Council’s failure to protect Syrians from the tidal wave of abuse and mass killing that has afflicted their country since 2011. RtoP has appeared in more than thirty UN Security Council resolutions, in resolutions of the General Assembly’s third and fifth committees as well as its plenary sessions, in a series of informal Assembly dialogues and in Human Rights Council resolutions (see them all here). Over the course of these debates, conceptual uncertainty and determined opposition to RtoP have been gradually whittled away, replaced by a now broadly held understanding of what RtoP is that commands the support of a significant majority of states from every corner of the world.

That RtoP has largely won the battle of ideas about whether the community of states should protect populations from atrocity crimes, and the most appropriate framework for doing so is evident not just in the avalanche of resolutions and government statements, but in practice too. The international community is foregrounding the protection of populations like never before. In addition to referring to RtoP in the context of comprehensive resolutions addressing protection crises in countries such as Libya, Cote d’Ivoire, Darfur and Yemen and resolutions condemning atrocities and reminding actors of their responsibilities, as in the case of Syria, the UN Security Council has begun to specifically task its operations with the job of helping states to protect populations in countries such as South Sudan, Mali and the Central African Republic. Sometimes, as in efforts to prevent the escalation of violence in Kenya and Guinea, or to prevent its recurrence as in Kyrgyzstan, RtoP has proven to be one of the major catalysts for international action.

Basics of RtoP (3)

What is the Responsibility to Protect? Click the infographic for a full view.

The principle also played a central role in elevating international attention to the chronic protection crisis in North Korea, to the point where, for the first time, the UN’s General Assembly, Human Rights Council and Security Council are all now seized of the issue. Shining a light on the crimes committed by that government and its agents has not only prompted that government to make some concessions, it has also made it more difficult for others to support it. There are unverified reports that late last year China handed a small group of North Korean refugees not back to Pyongyang, as has been its policy, but to the authorities in South Korea. If true, that would be a significant change of heart. Such progress on the human rights situation in the North Korea was unthinkable just a short time ago.

Together, these developments have made states more aware of their protection responsibilities. They have also made it less likely that perpetrators will “get away” with committing genocide and other atrocity crimes and more likely that the international community will take measures to protect vulnerable populations.

But having established itself as an international norm, RtoP now faces the challenge of making more of a difference to people’s lives, more of the time. As a practical doctrine, RtoP will be judged not on its ability to inspire warm words and comfortable resolutions but on the extent to which it helps bring real improvements for vulnerable populations. It already has been associated with a more resolute international attitude towards mass atrocity crimes. For example, the international community has not recoiled from Mali and the CAR, despite deliberate attacks on peacekeepers there, and in late 2012 the UN decided to open its gates and protect imperiled civilians in South Sudan.

At the same time, the dramatic rise of internal displacement, the Security Council’s failure to respond decisively to the tragedies in Syria and Sri Lanka, the international community’s inability to hold Libya together, and ongoing crises in South Sudan, Darfur, and the DRC that daily threaten the civilian population, remind us that there is no room for complacency. We need to redouble our efforts to implement what states agreed in 2005.  To do that, in the coming decade we will need to address the unfinished conceptual, institutional and operational work of building RtoP.

 

Unfinished Conceptual Work

Experience in the first ten years has revealed the need for the further conceptual development of RtoP. First, and perhaps most importantly, there is the question of non-state armed groups. As agreed in 2005, RtoP is a state-based principle, yet it has become painfully clear that in many parts of the world the principle threat to civilian populations comes not from states but from non-state armed groups such as the “Islamic State”, Boko Haram, the Lord’s Resistance Army and al-Shabaab.  The picture is further complicated by the fact that non-state armed groups can also sometimes play significant roles as protectors of civilian populations, as the Kurds’ stoic defense of Kobane recently demonstrated.  Not only do we need to further clarify the relationship between RtoP and non-state armed groups, we should also elucidate carefully the operational relationship between atrocity prevention and doctrines associated with counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency.

Isis fighters, pictured on a militant website verified by AP.

Islamic State fighters pictured on a militant website verified by AP. AP File.

This brings us to a related set of questions posed by extremely violent societies where the boundaries between “normal” or “everyday” violence and atrocity crimes are blurred. In these contexts, which include societies where violence linked to organized crime is so common that rates of violent death exceed those recorded in countries experiencing civil war and those where sexual and gender based violence is so endemic as to stretch our capacity to record it, the multiplication of individual crimes amount to patterns of violence not dissimilar to crimes against humanity. The relationship between RtoP and endemic violence needs to be carefully examined but there seems to be a prima facie case for thinking that, at the very least, efforts to reduce endemic violence ought to be considered part of RtoP’s agenda for prevention.

A third set of outstanding conceptual questions relate to the individual responsibility to protect. Thus far, RtoP’s common currency has been the collective: the state’s responsibility to protect; the international community’s duty to assist and take timely and decisive action when needed. Yet these collectivities are comprised of individuals and the courses of action they follow are determined by individual choices. Atrocities occur because military and political leaders choose to authorize them and armed individuals choose to commit them. Sometimes they might choose not to. The international community responds effectively to these crimes because officials choose to highlight them and political leaders choose to invest material and political capital in prevention and response. Equally, of course, they may choose not to. By their actions, countless bystanders can make it easier or more difficult for targeted individuals to survive.

Ultimately, like all social norms, whether RtoP becomes a daily “lived reality” depends on whether individuals in all parts of the world choose to make it so. In the face of genocide and mass atrocities, everyone – and not just those in the affected areas – has a choice to make about whether to employ their talents to help protect others, whether to stand aside in ambivalence, or whether to assist the perpetrators.  RtoP establishes a moral imperative for individuals to do what they can to protect others from atrocities. We need to better understand individual decision-making, the varied contributions that individuals can make, and the factors that push them in these different directions. Civil society should figure large in this work.

 

Be sure to check out Dr. Bellamy’s Reflections on RtoP at 10,  Part 2: Unfinished Institutional Work for insight on RtoP’s formalization into international and regional mechanisms for atrocity prevention. 

3 Comments

Filed under CivSoc, Guest Post, ICRtoP Members, RtoP, UN

The G8 – An Untapped Forum for Advancing R2P

A guest post special to ICRtoP’s blog by Naomi Kikoler, Director of Advocacy and Policy at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P), on tonight’s G8 +5 Summit and the role the body can play in implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP, R2P) and preventing mass atrocities. 

This evening a small but exclusive group of world leaders, the G8+5,[1] will sit down for a ‘working dinner, leaders only’ to discuss regional and political security issues. Not on the table formally, but should be as it speaks to core interest of each participating state and the organization, is the urgent need to advance the global commitment to the responsibility to protect (R2P) by prioritizing the prevention of mass atrocities.

G8 summits have increasingly, in their discussions on international peace and security, delved into matters directly relevant to R2P. As a group of likeminded states (with the exception of Russia) on human rights issues, with each summit there has been a growing willingness to raise and speak out on mass atrocity situations.

At the 2011 Deauville Summit, G8 members jointly declared that “Qadhafi and the Libyan government have failed to fulfill their responsibility to protect the Libyan population and have lost all legitimacy.” At that same summit they also discussed and expressed concerns about the risks facing civilians in Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Burma.

That these concerns were included in the final joint communique shows that the G8 can be an important forum for building consensus amongst members, notably Russia, on contentious issues related to R2P. For example, the strong language on Libya and Syria at last year’s summit came at a point when Moscow was critical of NATO’s implementation of United Nations (UN) resolution 1973 and was blocking UN Security Council action on Syria.

The G8 has also played an important role in operationalizing R2P – even prior to the 2005 commitment. As G8 scholar John Kirton notes, “the G8’s most decisive achievement was in preventing a major genocide in Kosovo, by agreeing on military action in 1999.” Faced with a paralyzed Security Council, G7 leaders authorized an air campaign carried out by NATO to halt and avert atrocities in Kosovo which Russia subsequently supported.

While the G8 has had conflict prevention on its agenda in the past, there has been no formal discussion of the need to prioritize the prevention of mass atrocities. As Libya has shown, halting atrocities once they have begun is an incredibly difficult task. It is a costly undertaking, especially in an economic downturn. It also requires considerable political resources and energy to mobilize the Security Council and other relevant actors, and to sustain domestic support for action. As the leading world economies, the G8 has an incentive to see the emergence of an international prevention agenda and to be at the fore of such efforts.

How then can the G8 fulfill its potential as an agenda setter on R2P and more specifically on prevention? For starters states should include a re-affirmation of their 2005 World Summit commitment to R2P, and the importance they place on early prevention, in the final Summit Communique. They should also outline the steps that they individually and collectively will endeavor to take to advance an international prevention agenda. These steps should include at the national level three things: (1) issue an official statement outlining the priority the government places on prioritizing atrocity prevention and R2P; (2) appoint a senior-level government official to serve as an R2P focal point to help improve intra-state and inter-state coordination on mass atrocity prevention; and (3) undertake a review of existing domestic capacities for mass atrocity prevention.

The G8 members should also use the opportunity to start a conversation with the +5 states, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, about mass atrocity prevention. The G8 presents a unique forum to start crafting an international prevention agenda. Because averting and halting mass atrocities requires a collective response, the effectiveness of the G8’s efforts will depend on the support of states like the +5.

As the leaders sit down for dinner tonight to discuss Burma, Syria and ‘others,’ may they discuss not only what needs to be done to save lives today, but what they, the G8 and +5, can do together to prevent crimes from occurring in the future.

The comments expressed above are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the GCR2P or the ICRtoP. 


[1] Attending the G8 Summit this weekend are the G8 member states: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. They will be joined by five influential powers: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

Leave a comment

Filed under G8, Guest Post, Human Rights, Libya, Prevention, Regional Orgs, RtoP, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Third Pillar, Timely and Decisive Action