Member Sign In
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect
PDF Print E-mail
Dear Colleagues,
Please find below excerpts of articles on the following:

- Observer of the Holy See uses R2P language in Third Committee meeting on refugees.
- Deputy SG Louise Frechette cites R2P in lecture on UN reform.
- Christopher Hitchens on the ealist political posturing that enabled the genocide in Darfur.
- A review of Gerard Prunier book arfur: The Ambiguous Genocider -Ambassador John Boltons escalating frustration with UN, including the blocking of a resolution to disallow Perm-5 veto use in cases of genocide.
- Olara Otunnu, former United Nations Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, wins 2005 Sydney Peace Prize and speaks on the atrocities occurring in Uganda
- Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick speech at Khartoum University titled Sudan: The Hard Work of Peace.
- Humanitarian groups call for increased intervention in Darfur
-UNHCR & member-states of the Third Committee on R2P principles, and R2P principle inclusive Draft Resolutions

Regards,

Gaia Filicori


Rise of intolerance clear danger for peace, social cohesion Refugee High Commissioner tells Third Committee

M2 Presswire

November 10, 2005

Celestino Migliore, Observer of the Holy See, said that since the movement of peoples was acknowledged in the last century, serious attempts had been made at the international level to find solutions to the problems associated with that important humanitarian question. Although there had been a recent decline in refugees specifically, the number of people of direct concern to the UNHCR had increased worldwide to some 19 million, including asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced persons and others at risk in the world. The scale alone of that human phenomenon merited close international attention. Given that each individual State had the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the concept, as reflected in the Summit Outcome, had rightly gained acceptance for humanitarian reasons. Protection of those in distress and assistance to them went hand in hand with lucid analysis and public awareness of the causes of humanitarian crises. However, crises by their very nature demanded swift action and predictable funding.

A reliable system, embedded in an appropriate institutional framework, could play an effective role in responding to the security and protection needs of the internally displaced and in helping the concerned local authorities fulfill their responsibility towards the displaced, he added.

www.un.org


he United Nations at 60: Too Old to Reform?r Lecture by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frchette
Toronto, Canada
November 9th, 2005

oday, a high proportion of the conflicts in which the Security Council decides to intervene are essentially internal to a single Member State, even if they often have repercussions, and sometimes causes, beyond its borders. Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi, Liberia and Haiti are all current examples of such situations in which a UN peacekeeping mission is deployed.

Such operations are almost always complex missions charged with restoring institutions, organizing elections, training the police, etc., after a civil war, in implementation of a peace agreement already reached between the parties. Lessons have been learnt from the traumatic failures in Somalia and Bosnia in the early 1990s. The Security Council is now aware of the dangers involved in deploying peacekeeping troops in situations where there is no peace to keep, but also of the fact that armed factions in civil wars often have less discipline and unity of command than the regular armed forces of States engaged in international war. As a result, it typically gives UN peacekeeping forces a mandate under Chapter VII - the "enforcement" section of the Charter - which allows and indeed requires them to use force not only in their own defence, but also to deal with armed elements that threaten the civilian population, ignoring agreements signed by their putative leaders. We call this "robust" peacekeeping.

(.)

But perhaps the Summit's most important achievements were in the field of human rights. Sixty years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps, 30 years after the Cambodian killing fields, and 10 years after the horrors of Rwanda and Srebrenica, all Member States of the United Nations have now at last accepted their responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. And they have expressed their readiness to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, when peaceful means are inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their own populations.

On the conceptual level, this is a historic breakthrough - and Canada deserves full credit for the part it has played in bringing it about. But it by no means guarantees that the Security Council will act swiftly and decisively - in Darfur, or anywhere else where action is needed. It is not a substitute for the political will and military strength that Governments will always have to muster when push comes to shove.r

link to full article


Realism in Darfur
Consider the horrors of peace.
By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, Nov. 7, 2005

It looks as if the realists have won the day in the matter of Darfur. Or, to phrase it in another way, it looks as if the ethnic cleansers of that province have made good use of the "negotiation" and "mediation" period to complete their self-appointed task. As my friend Johann Hari put it recently in the London Independent: "At last, some good news from Darfur: the genocide in western Sudan is nearly over. There's only one problemt's drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill."

By some reliable estimates, the Sudanese government or "National Islamic Front" has slain as many as 400,000 of its black co-religionistsnown contemptuously as zurga ("niggers")nd expelled perhaps 2 million more. This appalling achievement has been made possible by a very simple tactic: The actual killers and cleansers, the Arab janjaweed militias, are a "deniable" arm of the Sudanese authorities. Those authorities pretend to negotiate with the United Nations, the United States, and the African Union, and their negotiating "card" is the control that they can or might exercise over said militias. While this tap is turned on and off, according to different applications of carrot and stick, the militias pretend to go out of control and carry on with their slaughter and deportation. By the time the clock has been run out, the job is done.

()

And what on earth was I thinking when I employed that "carrot and stick" clich a couple of paragraphs above? Carrots there have been. Only the other day, according to the New York Times, the Bush administration granted a waiver to the sanctions ostensibly in place against the Khartoum government in order to allow it to spend $530,000 on a lobbyist in Washington. Well, one would not want to deny a government indicted for genocide the right to make its case. That would hardly be fair. Meanwhile, the State Department has upgraded Sudan's status on the chart that shows "cooperation" in the matter of slave-trafficking. Apparently, you can be on this list and still be awarded points for good behavior. A hundred-plus congressmen recently signed a statement accusing the administration of "appeasement," which seems the only appropriate word for it.

But that's about the extent of the protest. How can this be? Surely the administration did everything that could have been asked of it. Abandoning any sort of "unilateralism," it pedantically followed the Kofi Annan script of multiparty negotiations and patient diplomacy. It allowed the inspectors more time. It exhausted all avenues short of war and never even threatened the use of force. By the use of sanctions, it kept Sudan "in its box." And it has got exactly what anyone might have predicted for such a strategy. Perhaps that's why there is so little protest. After all, we know that "war is not the answer." And now Sudan has Darfur province in its box. It has taken the land and gotten rid of the people.

http://www.slate.com/id/2129657/


Rwanda to Darfur: A Mockery of Never Again
By Gerald Caplan

Review of arfur: The Ambiguous Genocide By Grard Prunier. Cornell University Press,

rard Prunier, a Paris-based ethnographer and renowned Africa expert, is author of a dense new analysis of the crisis in Darfur. He is universally known as one of the world's leading authorities on the utterly preventable 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Although UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan failed to attend Rwanda's 10th-anniversary commemoration of the genocide, he did set aside that day to make a major statement on genocide prevention; in it, he said that the world must not allow Darfur to become "the next Rwanda."

Noble Rwanda: Ten years after being abandoned and betrayed by everyone in the world, it had become the poster child for Never Again. Noble Darfur: If anyone is left alive there in 10 years, the hypocrites' chorus will tell the world that we must not let (fill in the blank) become the next Darfur.

It's quite a phenomenon. No matter how cynical and jaded you become, the so-called "international community" can sink you to depths never previously glimpsed. As Prunier implies, comparing the U.S. invasion of Iraq to its reaction to Darfur tells us all we need to know about the honourable R2P (responsibility to protect) formula that Canada pushes with such earnestness. In the real world, those with power and resources virtually never act on the basis of their moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Often as not, they have been in part responsible for the crisis demanding intervention. The will to intervene is invariably driven by self-interest, however dishonestly spun, and most interventions have been illicit. When they are morally justified, they don't happen.r
link to full article



Bolton Prods U.N. To Act on Spending, Human Rights Issues
By Colum Lynch

The Washington Post
November 10, 2005

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said Thursday that inaction by U.N. members is jeopardizing the passage of U.S.- and U.N.-backed initiatives to combat human rights abuses and streamline the agency's bureaucracy.

Bolton, speaking at a luncheon hosted by the Foreign Policy Association, hinted that Congress may retaliate against the United Nations if it failed to take steps toward improving the way it conducts business. He later told the General Assembly that the United States would oppose any effort to expand the Security Council beyond 20 members and would insist that states meet criteria -- including a commitment to democracy and a record of combating terrorism -- to become permanent members.

"The United States supports an expansion of the Security Council that can contribute to its strength and effectiveness," Bolton told the 191-member General Assembly. "We must . . . ensure that new permanent members are supremely qualified to undertake the tremendous duties and responsibilities they will assume."

(...)

In his subsequent address to the General Assembly, Bolton dismissed a new initiative by Switzerland, Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein to change Security Council procedures.

The proposal would grant the wider U.N. membership a greater say in council decisions. It would also call on the council's five permanent members -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- to agree never to cast a veto in cases where forceful council action could halt genocide or other crimes against humanity.

"We believe that, as clearly stated in the [U.N.] Charter, the Security Council alone will determine its own working methods and procedures," he told the assembly.

link to full article



Uganda worst place on earth for children

Austrailian Associate Press
10 November 2005

Olara Otunnus birthplace of northern Uganda is the worst place on earth to be a child today, according to the winner of the 2005 Sydney Peace Prize.

Delivering his Sydney Peace Prize Lecture last night, Wednesday 9th November, entitled Saving Our Children from the Scourge of War, Mr Otunnu described the human rights catastrophe unfolding in his homeland in Ugandas north as ethodical and comprehensive genocide.

n entire society - the Acholi - is being systematically destroyed hysically, culturally, socially and economically in full view of the international community. This has been going on non-stop for almost 20 years but Western governments have turned a blind eye to a pliant regime and dictatorship under President Museveni that practices genocide, Mr Otunnu said.

Olara Otunnu, the former United Nations Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, was awarded the 2005 Sydney Peace Prize for his lifetime commitment to human rights and his ceaseless efforts to protect children who are the primary victims of war.

He described the situation in northern Uganda as much worse than Darfur n its magnitude and the scope of its diabolical comprehensiveness. For over 10 years a population of almost two million people (95 percent of the Acholi) have been herded into about 200 concentration camps where they live like animals. An estimated 1,000 people die in these camps each week; 41 percent of children under 5 years have seriously stunted growth due to malnutrition and two generations of children have been denied education as a matter of policy by the government.

Mr Otunnu compared the forced relocation of people in northern Uganda to the systematic genocide of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

On the other side of the conflict thousands of children have been abducted by the rebel Lords Resistance Army (LRA) and recruited as child soldiers and sex slaves. n Uganda HIV/AIDS has become a deliberate weapon of mass destruction. Soldiers who have tested HIV-positive are especially deployed to the north with a mission to commit maximum havoc on the local girls and women, Mr Otunnu said.

(.)

Mr Otunnu used his Sydney Peace Prize address to make an urgent appeal a cri de Coeur - to the leaders of the Western democracies to take action to stop the genocide in Uganda.

Olara Otunnu will use his Sydney Peace Prize money ($50,000) as seed money to establish a new international foundation the LBL Foundation for Children to provide healing and education for children devastated by war.

The foundation will also lobby for full implementation of the groundbreaking UN Security Council Resolution 1612 which was adopted unanimously by the UN in July. Resolution 1612 establishes a structured compliance regime to monitor and report serious violations against children in armed conflict situations.

link to full article



State Department Briefing
Prepared Remarks Of Deputy Secretary Of State Robert Zoellick (As Released By The State Department)
Subject: Sudan: The Hard Work Of Peace
Location: University Of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan



When I represented the United States at the inauguration of the new unity government, it occurred to me that the ceremony marked both an end - and a beginning. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) negotiated by Garang and Taha at Naivasha is an historic accomplishment. The CPA ended the long and bloody North-South conflict. And it created the opportunity for a future of development, democracy, and Sudan's return to international acceptability.
(.)

Yet the delays in implementing the CPA have raised questions about the parties' commitment.

Equally worrying, in recent weeks the fragile ceasefire in Darfur has been fraying. Sudan's conflicts are closely intertwined: Continued violence in Darfur will undermine the implementation of the CPA, while a collapse of the CPA will lead to more violence in Darfur and other parts of the country. In Sudan, when one piece of the mosaic cracks, there is a danger that everything else could fall apart. And when that happens, those who suffer most are the poor, the displaced, and the dispossessed. They are the soul of Sudan, and they have already suffered far, far too much.

A lasting solution to Sudan's conflict must be political, not military. But Sudan is at a critical juncture, and all of the key actors need to take specific steps to regain momentum.

()
The credibility of a political solution for the future depends partly on accountability for what happened in the past. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591 imposes an arms embargo on Darfur and an asset freeze and travel ban on individuals found to have committed atrocities or impeded the peace process. Other U.N. resolutions call on the government to disarm the Janjaweed, and refer the atrocities in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The United States will support the Sudanese people in seeking accountability - and prevent impunity - in order to close this sad and violent chapter of their history.
()
It is also important that events within Sudan's neighbors do not destabilize the situation. We are working with Eritrea to lessen the risk that violence erupts in Sudan's East, and Chad has an important role to play in ending violence in the West. To minimize the danger, the Government of National Unity should also negotiate with the Beja to address their concerns within the CPA framework. The United States has reached out to the Beja, who seem willing the join the process for peace.

Students in Khartoum and Juba must wonder what the future holds in store. I will share my view: If the CPA is fully implemented, and the new unity government resolves other conflicts in Sudan, the future holds the possibility of peace, respect for human rights, democracy, and economic development for all parts of Sudan. These are central goals of U.S. policy.



Politics: Deterioration In Darfur Brings Calls For Stronger Force
By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON, November 9 2005

Increased fighting and instability in Sudan's western region of Darfur are spurring renewed calls for the United States, NATO and the U.N. to urgently provide more support to the African Union's peace mission (AMIS) there and strengthen its mandate to effectively defend innocent civilians against the violence.

In a new report released here Wednesday, Refugees International (RI) charged that the administration of President Bush, who himself labeled the violence by Khartoum and Arab militias against the African residents of Darfur as "genocide," has so far failed to provide adequate diplomatic and military support to stop the killing.

()
In a letter sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, 109 Republican and Democratic lawmakers accused the administration of "engaging in a policy of appeasement" toward the National Islamic Front (NIF) government "...when the violence in Darfur grows worse and the plight of its victims more terrible."

Critics have argued that Washington is eager to normalize ties with Sudan, an emerging oil exporter and a key potential ally in the administration's "war on terror." Last spring, the CIA secretly brought the head of Khartoum's main intelligence service, a man widely accused of masterminding the attacks in Darfur, to Washington for talks.
(.)

While international observers, including Zoellick himself, voiced confidence last summer that the violence was indeed winding down, the last six weeks have seen an upsurge in deadly attacks both by the Janjaweed and by rebel forces who themselves appear increasingly divided

"People are dying, and dying in large numbers," Antonio Gutterres, the U.N.'s refugee chief, said last week.

"(The) rising violence shows what can happen when there aren't enough troops on the ground, and when these troops are hamstrung by a weak mandate and logistical and organizational constraints," the RI report noted.

It added that because "the U.S. has shown little interest in sending its own or NATO troops in response to a human emergency that it has declared to constitute genocide, the U.S. has an enormous responsibility to make sure that AMIS is a success."

U.S. officials have suggested that the renewed fighting represents jockeying for the best possible position before a final deal in Abuja is struck, but the violence is in danger of spiraling out of control, as Zoellick himself noted last week. "Any spark could set off a wildfire, so all of the key parties have important work to do to keep things on track."

(link to source is unavailable)


Rise Of Intolerance Clear Danger For Peace, Social Cohesion Refugee High Commissioner Tells Third Committee

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees


ANTONIO GUTERRES, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said he was heartened by the recognition in the World Summit Outcome Document that the international community had the responsibility to protect civilian populations against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. As the Secretary-General had recently noted, most of the mass displacements of people over the past decade and a half had been sparked by such crimes. Reasserting that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was, above all, a protection agency, he stressed that protection must inform all actions and be the starting point for the solutions sought for people in the care of Member States.

ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), recognized the importance of preventive measures -- that is addressing social, economic and political issues - to complement protective measures, he said. The Community was committed to strengthening local capacity to protect and assist refugees, and give effect to the concept of burden sharing The smooth transition from emergency relief to long-term development remained a key priority, particularly in post-conflict situations.

MICHAEL SCHULZ, representing the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said There was now increasingly a call for the national societies of his organization to accept responsibilities in the field of population movement. The call was not just from vulnerable and marginalized people, but more often from Governments and international agencies, which saw the organization as equipped to take on responsibilities for certain conditions of uprooted people living in an irregular situation.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Qatar introduced the draft on the establishment of a United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for Southwest Asia and the Arab Region (document A/C.3/60/L.32). He noted that the Gulf Cooperation States had welcomed the offer by Qatar to house the Centre. The Centre aimed to contribute to the promotion of human rights in the region through training, documentation, information dissemination and best practice exchange, as well as to encourage States to adopt human rights policies and ratify international human rights conventions. It would work to train law enforcement officials to better protect human rights and promote the creation of national human rights commissions and the independence of such commissions.

The representative of the United Kingdom introduced the draft on the situation of human rights in Sudan (document A/C.3/60/L.47). He noted progress in recent months in the Sudan to implement the peace agreement and commended the cooperative spirit in which the Government of National Unity had welcomed the Special Rapporteur and Special Advisor. However, the European Union continued to have grave concerns regarding widespread violation of human rights in the Sudan, particularly in Darfur. The draft called on the Government of National Unity to protect human rights and end the prevailing culture of impunity against violators. The international community must send a strong signal to Sudanese officials to do the same.

He then introduced the draft on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/60/L.51), as orally amended, saying that this was the first resolution on the situation in Uzbekistan introduced in the General Assembly. The human rights situation in that country remained grave. The scale of deaths, human rights violations and the continued refusal of the Uzbek Government to cooperate with the United Nations all required the General Assembly to address this issue.

 

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