Member Sign In
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect
PDF Print E-mail
R2PCS Listserv
18 December 2007
Responsibility to Protect Engaging Civil Society
Web: www.responsibilitytoprotect.org
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

In this issue: [Featured Reports; Eminent Persons on R2P; Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan Receives MacArthur Award; Commentary on Darfur; and Other Reports of Interest]


I. Featured Reports

1. FIDH -- BURMAS AFFRON REVOLUTION IS NOT OVER
2. FRIDE -- THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: FROM AN ETHICAL PRINCIPLE TO AN EFFECTIVE POLICY

II. Eminent Persons on R2P

1. GARETH EVANS SPEECH AT SEMINAR ON INTERNATIONAL USE OF FORCE
2. INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP VICE PRESIDENT DON STEINBERGS SPEECH AT SYMPOSIUM ON THE FUTURE OF CONFLICT PREVENTION
3. ALBRIGHT AND COHEN TO CO-CHAIR GENOCIDE PREVENTION TASK FORCE

III. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan Receives MacArthur Award

1. KOFI ANNAN FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AWARD
2. STATEMENT BY KOFI ANNAN REGARDING THE MACARTHUR AWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

IV. Commentary on Darfur

1. WHY THE UNITED NATIONS STANDS ACCUSED ON DARFUR
2. DARFUR ACTIVISTS APPLAUD SENATE PASSAGE OF DIVESTMENT LEGISLATION

V. Other Reports of Interest

1. DRC: WORSENING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AS INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT ESCALATES IN THE EAST




I. Featured Reports

1. BURMAS AFFRON REVOLUTION IS NOT OVER
Time for the International Community to Act
FIDH
December 2007

This report by FIDH documents the aftermath of the September 2007 crackdown by the Burmese military on peacefully protesting monks and civilians. The international community has the power to influence the regime, as witnessed by the visits of UN Special Envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, and Special Rapportuer on Human Rights, Sergio Pinheiro. This report urges the international community to continue to pressure the regime to ring about political transition. It also suggests the use of targeted sanctions to cut off the regime economically and also using the responsibility to protect as an effective tool for change, as Burma can be considered a threat to international peace and security. Finally, FIDH notes that the climate inside Burma has drastically changed, and although the threat of harm to dissenters is now even greater, the determination of the people has been strengthened.

Full report available at: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/mm485a.pdf

2. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: FROM AN ETHICAL PRINCIPLE TO AN EFFECTIVE POLICY
FRIDE (Fundacin para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dilogo Exterior)
23 November 2007

This report by FRIDE is included in a volume entitled he Reality of Aid and, while seemingly unusual, makes the point that the emergence of the responsibility to protect ill substantially define the scale and nature of the future work of humanitarian aid.r
The report defines R2P and examines its progression in the international system, with its adoption at the 2005 UN World Summit. It concludes that the R2P is a significant development for the protection of civilians against genocide and mass atrocities, and is critical for ensuring that the protection of civilians is not ompletely subjected to political interests or to fall into oblivion due to divisions or lack of political commitments within the international community through the elaboration of a series of guidelines.


Full report available at:
http://fride.org/publication-newsletter/298/the-responsibility-to-protect-from-an-ethical-principle-to-an-effective-policy

II. Eminent Persons on R2P

1. GARETH EVANS SPEECH AT SEMINAR ON INTERNATIONAL USE OF FORCE
he Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Military Forcer World Legal Forum
11 December 2007

This speech was given by International Crisis Group President Gareth Evans on 11 December 2007 at the Seminar on the International Use of Force, which was organized by the World Legal Forum. Evans speech focused on the military aspect of the responsibility to protect and included explanations of R2P and military force, the question of legality, the question of legitimacy, and the issue of legality vs. legitimacy.

Full text available at:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5209&l=1

2. ICG VICE PRESIDENT DON STEINBERGS SPEECH AT SYMPOSIUM ON THE FUTURE OF CONFLICT PREVENTION
Council on Foreign Relations
10 December 2007

() If there is one silver lining to Rwanda - and I would add Somalia and Srebrenica on top of that, it's that we challenge that assumption that sovereignty is, in effect, a license to kill one's own population. And over the course of the 1990s there were substantial movements in this regard. And we tend to forget this, but the international community did respond effectively in Macedonia to stop the possible deterioration there; NATO went into Kosovo; the British supported forces in Sierra Leone; the French in Cote d'Ivoire; the Australians in East Timor; the South Africans into Burundi.

() So not a pretty picture. But just as Rwanda stimulated a whole set of actions, I believe Darfur is going to do the same thing vis-- vis "responsibility to protect." And if you look around the United States in particular right now, you see the Holocaust Museum putting together a genocide prevention task force; you see the Carr Center putting forward their programs; the Stimson Center, the Human Rights Center at Berkley. This is a cottage industry now - "responsibility to protect."

And, indeed, for me, one of the most important aspects of this is the establishment in February of 2008 of the Global Center on the Responsibility to Protect at CUNY, Ralph Bunche Institute. I've been very much involved in putting this together and I'm very excited about this program. It is a center that will be linked with associated centers all around the world - Sri Lanka, South Africa, Ghana, Norway.

It will serve as the catalyst and a resources for those within the U.N. system, within governments, NGOs who what to press these issues - civil society, regional organizations. It's going to take R2P to the next level and it's going to do it in five ways - and I'll be very quick in terms of these five ways:

First of all, it's going to help define the norm. Right now we still have President Bush saying Iraq is "responsibility to protect." At the same time, we have people saying the Inuits have the right to sue the U.S. government, because they're losing their homelands because of climate change, and the U.S. government is causing it.

What we need to do is step back and define the norm as Paragraph 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document. And I have the language right here, it's very simple, we shouldn't be getting involved with this now.

Second, we need to prevent and eliminate backsliding. There are too many governments who signed this Agreement in 2005, who are now saying, "Oh, it's - we didn't really sign it. We don't really believe in it." We even heard, at the ACABQ last week, governments saying, "138 didn't even talk about responsibility to protect. In fact, it was a repudiation of responsibility to protect." Well, I've got the language right here that says, "We respect the responsibility to protect people from - " I mean, this is just rewriting history.

Third, we have to operationalize the concept. We have to provide meat on the bones; we have to define what the toolbox is; we have to put in place the early warning systems; we have to develop the resources that are capable of doing these.

Fourth, we need to put a very fine edge on the military side of this because too many people around the world believe responsibility to protect is just non-consensual military engagement when a genocide is taking place. And if that's - if that's true, we really need to define who has the right to say that this is an R2P situation; who has the right to approve people going in under that situation; who's to say whether it's appropriate; what are the balance of consequences; how do you ensure that this the last resort.

And then finally, we have to apply it to real world cases. Right now we're looking at Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and we don't have the framework to put those issues into. I suggest that responsibility to protect
The Center - just to conclude, will also maintain a watchlist. And this will be 12 to 15 countries around the world that we're worried about, that it will be susceptible to these kinds of mass atrocities if we don't take action. And they will analyze what that action should be; they will be doing this on behalf of the U.N. Secretary General, and Francis Deng and Ed Luck's new offices, in part, because it is inappropriate in their view, for the U.N. to be declaring, here are 15 countries on the verge of genocide. And so, in effect, they will subcontract that responsibility.

None of this is a panacea. None of this is going to be the solution to the problem of genocide. But I'm convinced that if we can put this in place effectively, we will be in a situation of never again having to say "Never again."

Full text available at: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15034/symposium_on_the_future_of_conflict_prevention_session_iii_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.html

3. ALBRIGHT AND COHEN TO CO-CHAIR GENOCIDE PREVENTION TASK FORCE
U.S. Institute for Peace
13 November 2007

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen today announced that they will co-chair a Genocide Prevention Task Force jointly convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace. The Task Force will generate practical recommendations to enhance the U.S. government's capacity to respond to emerging threats of genocide and mass atrocities.

"The world agrees that genocide is unacceptable and yet genocide and mass killings continue. Our challenge is to match words to deeds and stop allowing the unacceptable. That task, simple on the surface, is in fact one of the most persistent puzzles of our times. We have a duty to find the answer before the vow of 'never again' is once again betrayed," said Secretary Albright.

"We are convinced that the U.S. government can and must do better in preventing genocide crime that threatens not only our values but our national interests," said Secretary Cohen.
(...) "The Task Force will harness tremendous expertise from across the spectrum and include distinguished Americans with experience in politics, diplomacy, economics, humanitarian and military affairs," said Ambassador Brandon Grove, Executive Director of the Genocide Prevention Task Force. "It is a unique partnership of organizations and individuals that care deeply about preventing genocide."

The Task Force will issue a report in December 2008.

For more information, visit: http://www.usip.org/genocide_taskforce/index.html

III. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan Receives MacArthur Award

1. KOFI ANNAN FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AWARD
ModernGhana.com
14 December 2007

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation will honor former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan with the first MacArthur Award for International Justice, Foundation President Jonathan Fanton announced Monay in a speech at the National Press Club. The new Award provides Annan with $100,000 for his own work and invites him to suggest an additional $500,000 in support for an eligible non-profit organization working on international justice issues.

ofi Annans life work embodies the values of justice and human rights and the eternal hope for a humane, peaceful world that justice makes possible, said Fanton. t was under his leadership as Secretary General at the United Nations that the International Criminal Court was established and the Responsibility to Protect became an accepted principle for international action in the face of the worst human suffering. These critical building blocks of an effective international justice system form a legacy that will benefit the world for generations to come.

The International Criminal Court, the worlds ourt of last resort, prosecutes individuals accused of the most heinous crimes imaginable genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when governments fail to act. The Courts first cases, now underway, address crimes in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Northern Uganda. The new norm, he Responsibility to Protect, requires the international community to protect civilians in harms way when their own governments cannot or will not do so.

In his speech, Fanton also said the MacArthur Foundation will seek to raise the profile of international justice issues during 2008, its 30th anniversary year. He announced a series of symposia focused on international justice issues, including the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect, in New York City and at four U.S. universities.

The New York City discussion will take place on March 20, 2008, immediately preceding an award ceremony at which Annan will deliver keynote remarks. Over the remainder of the year, university-sponsored symposia will be held in Chicago (DePaul University), Washington, DC (American University), Berkeley (University of California), and New Haven (Yale University). All symposia will be open to the public.

() Annan is the first recipient of the MacArthur Award for International Justice, which honors individuals and organizations that have

In selecting Annan, the Foundations Board cited his role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The Treaty of Rome, which established the court, was finalized during Annans second year at the UN. He challenged delegates to the Rome Conference to reate a court which is strong and independent enough to carry out its task. [Its] overriding interest must be that of the victims, and of the international community as a whole. The Court must be an instrument of justice, not expedience. He later helped ensure that the UN could refer matters to the Court, even for states that were not party to the agreement.

The Board also noted Annans leadership in developing the principle of the Responsibility to Protect. In 1999/2000, he urged UN member states to resolve the conflict between the principles of state sovereignty and the international communitys responsibility to respond to human rights violations and ethnic cleansing. Taking up the challenge, the government of Canada convened the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, whose report laid out the fundamentals of a new way to think about protection of civilians. Later, Annans UN reform document, In Larger Freedom, recommended that governments endorse the Responsibility to Protect. The concept has since been endorsed through General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.

Full text available at:
http://www.modernghana.com/GhanaHome/NewsArchive/news_details.asp?menu_id=1&id=VFZSUk5VOVVXVEk9

2. STATEMENT BY KOFI ANNAN REGARDING THE MACARTHUR AWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
MacArthur Foundation
10 December 2007

am honored to receive the MacArthur Award for International Justice.

dvancing international justice should speak to the collective conscience of the world. The emerging international justice system, including the International Criminal Court and the principle of he Responsibility to Protect, demonstrates humanitys unfailing resolve to create a more just world. Now is an important time for all leaders to unite in support of a comprehensive and fair international justice system.

thank the MacArthur Foundation for this Award and for its efforts to raise the profile of international justice issues. I look forward to continuing my work to see global, lasting peace a peace that only true justice can bring.r
Statement available at:
http://www.macfound.org/site/pp.aspx?c=lkLXJ8MQKrH&b=3677833&printmode=1

IV. Commentary on Darfur

1. WHY THE UNITED NATIONS STANDS ACCUSED ON DARFUR
Enock Wambua
The Nation (Nairobi)
16 December 2007

This week, the people of Sudan were treated to some good news. The two parties to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement - Government in Khartoum and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army) - announced that they had resolved many of their outstanding issues.

However, in the western region of the country, such news rings hollow to people still living in constant fear of brutal death. Since it gained independence on January 1, 1956, the Sudan has been in civil conflict for all but 11 years.

But the current phase of the Darfur killings has heralded an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the country's bloody history.

() That the international community has taken note of the crisis is no longer the question. Perhaps the biggest debate on Darfur today is whether the human catastrophe, engineered and perpetrated by known actors, has reached a level which merits the definition of genocide.

Like the Rwanda genocide in 1994, the United Nations has done little beyond rhetoric to stop the daily atrocities in Darfur. Two cease-fires, in 2004 and 2006, have not stopped the killings and the situation is becoming increasingly dire.

The latest peace initiative ended in disarray after key rebel groups boycotted the talks in Libya in October this year.

On whether the crisis in Darfur has reached genocide level, opinion is divided, depending on the level of information about the conflict, entrenched interests and fear of the implications of the response.

Intent to destroy

The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (and) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

() But even with such an elaborate definition of genocide and equipped with clear benchmarks on establishing whether a government or group of people is involved in genocide, the UN has refused to declare the Darfur crisis genocide.

The United Nations shoulders the burden of the responsibility to protect victims of genocide. But the UN can only be effective in this mission if member countries contribute human, financial and material resources to facilitate intervention.

Lip-service

Most of the state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide have paid lip-service to the international principle of the responsibility to protect.

One of the weaknesses of this principle is that it is a moral paradigm, which presupposes willingness of states to expose their citizens to suffering in order to redeem citizens of another state from suffering.

Wealthy nations, which are remote from Darfur, have pushed the actual duty of intervention to states in the region and restricted their participation to condemning the crisis, passing resolutions, articulating commitments to offer technical assistance and pledging to assist in capacity building.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution on July 31, 2007 for the creation and deployment of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID).

It authorised, for an initial period of 12 months, up to 19,555 military personnel and 6,432 international police. UNAMID is supposed to absorb the 7,000 AU troops currently in Darfur.

The mission is expected to cost $2 billion a year. It has a broad mandate, including the liberty to use force to protect itself and to ensure freedom of movement for its personnel and aid workers.

() In any genocide, there are three parties involved; the victims, the victimisers and the morally culpable witnesses.

If the United Nations (Security Council) decides to act today to put an end to the crisis in Darfur (which it has refused to call by its name; genocide), it will avert further loss of life, destruction of property and displacement.

However, whether the UN acts or not it will never change the horrible statistics that approximately 400,000 people have been massacred, more than 2.5 million people have been displaced and more than 450 villages have been destroyed.

And the "forces of evil" in Darfur have until early next year to kill and destroy with impunity before the UN moves in. ()

Full text available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/200712171071.html?viewall=1

2. DARFUR ACTIVISTS APPLAUD SENATE PASSAGE OF DIVESTMENT LEGISLATION
Save Darfur, Genocide Intervention Network, American Jewish World Service, National Association of Evangelicals, NAACP urge President Bush to end his administrations opposition to critical measure
NAACP Press Release
13 December 2007

In a bipartisan show of force, the Senate unanimously passed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act which would authorize state and local governments to divest from companies that support the Khartoum government at the expense of marginalized populations in Sudan and prohibit federal contracts with those companies.

() "We commend the Senate for pushing the United States towards fulfilling its responsibility to protect civilians in Darfur, the groups said in a joint statement. e specifically highlight the tireless efforts of Senators Dodd, Shelby, Reid and Durbin, who all worked to ensure the measure passed in a unanimous, bipartisan fashion. It is incomprehensible that at a time when significant pressure is needed to change Khartoums behavior, the Bush administration would delay and even oppose efforts to hit the perpetrators where it hurts the most their wallets. Further efforts by the administration to derail this legislation must end now. The collective efforts of our organizations will not end until President Bush signs this measure into law.r
() A U.N. peacekeeping mission authorized by the Security Council in August has yet to deploy in large part because the Government of Sudan has refused to allow non-African peacekeepers into Darfur, landing rights for U.N. transport and unfettered communications between peacekeepers. In addition, the Government of Sudan continues to bomb villages and to relocate its supporters onto land vacated by the displaced.

Since 2005, 22 states and over 50 universities have adopted Sudan divestment policies. The movement has rapidly spread through Europe: in July the European Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on European Union members to support targeted Sudan divestment efforts. Seven major foreign companies - CHC Helicopter, ABB, Siemens, Rolls Royce, ICSA of India, Schlumberger and La Mancha Resources - have ceased problematic operations in Sudan or significantly changed their behavior in the country since the proliferation of the Sudan divestment movement.

() Who will lose their federal contracts?

The Sudan Divestment Task Force, a project of the Genocide Intervention Network, maintains a list of problematic companies supporting the Sudanese government. The following companies appear on this list and, as of September 2007, maintained contracts with the federal government: ALSTOM (FRANCE), LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL (GERMANY), MOTT MACDONALD (UK).
If SADA passes the House of Representatives and is signed into law, all companies renewing or pursuing new contracts with the federal government must certify that they do not support the Sudanese government. The bill includes explicit exemptions for South Sudan to ensure that its effects are felt by the regime in Khartoum, and not by civilians elsewhere in Sudan.

Full text available at:
http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2007-12-13-b/



V. Other Reports of Interest


1. DRC: WORSENING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AS INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT ESCALATES IN THE EAST
International Displacement Monitoring Centre
29 November 2007

Following major new displacement in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a total of at least 1.4 million people remained internally displaced in the DRC as of November 2007. Fighting between Congolese armed forces and dissident troops and militias, as well as widespread human rights violations committed by all groups, caused the displacement of at least 500,000 people in eastern DRC in 2007, particularly in North Kivu province. IDPs in North Kivu have been victims of grave human rights abuses committed by all the factions engaged in fighting and by other civilians. In addition, many of them could not receive assistance from international agencies whose access has been blocked by the level of insecurity.

Since the mid-1990s, millions of Congolese have fled their homes to escape fighting between rebel groups and the national government in a complex conflict which has also involved neighbouring states. Close to four million people are estimated to have died as a result of the conflict, and the accompanying pervasive human rights violations have included the killing of civilians, widespread sexual violence against women and child recruitment.


Full report available at:
http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpCountries)/554559DA500C8588802570A7004A96C7?OpenDocument&count=1000





 

Browse Documents by Region:

International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect
c/o World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy
708 Third Avenue, Suite 1715, New York, NY 10017
Contact