The Words of the Kajikuri Family
|
|
The Words of the Kajikuri Family |
Tokyo, Japan -- "Japan must join other countries in their efforts to help democracy and human rights be respected and promoted by all countries in general, and by China and Russia in particular," said Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and currently the President of the Foreign Press Center in Japan.
He was speaking about "Universal Values and Responsibility to Protect: International Cooperation and Japan's Role" to both foreign and Japanese diplomats, politicians, and Ambassadors for Peace at the Peace Diplomats Forum, sponsored by UPF-Japan on November 7 in Tokyo.
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted back in 1948, mankind witnessed horrendous atrocities in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina), as if we had not learnt the tragic lesson from the Holocaust. So a new concept emerged, following the end of the Cold War, to uphold the responsibility of the international community to act when a state fails to live up to that responsibility. This is the 'Responsibility to Protect,' or R2P, as dubbed among experts.
According to Akasaka, this guiding principle witnessed a great leap forward in March 2011 amid the violent uprising against the dictatorial rule in Libya. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 authorizing Member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack from the government forces. With this authorization, a no-fly zone was established, and NATO intervened bringing about the collapse of Col. Gaddafi's protracted regime.
The seasoned international diplomat explained why the R2P is not being implemented in the worsening crisis in Syria, where "We have been witnessing the immense human cost of failing to protect," according to Akasaka. In fact, the international body did act in a similar drive to that of Libyan crisis a year ago, applying the R2P argument.
In February this year, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution calling on the Syrian Government to cease violence and withdraw its armed forces, with 13 members in favor, only to find it vetoed by China and Russia. "At a time when unity is required, the Security Council has been thus deeply divided," he lamented. The Turkish Prime Minister was quoted by Akasaka as warning that the world powers were repeating the mistakes they had made in Bosnia in the 1990s.
Akasaka claimed that the vetoes by some of the UN's main members is "a symptom, not the real cause of the problem," which is, according to his observation, 'the deficit of democracy and belief in fundamental human rights'. Hence, his appeal referred to earlier on China and Russia.
"We should not be much disillusioned about the R2P because of the inability of the Security Council to act," he asserted. At the same time, he added his voice to the growing calls for the reform in the Security Council in terms of its membership, composition, and the veto power. "Japan should be given a permanent or semi-permanent seat on the Council in view of its ability to contribute," he insisted.
The event commemorated the fifth anniversary of UPF-Japan's Peace Diplomats Forum, which has held regular sessions roughly in every season, promoting expertise and experiences of leading diplomats and peace activists.
Gentaro Kajikuri, Co-Chairman of the UPF-Japan, emphasized the historical juncture of critical choice for freedom, away from dictatorial temptations abound. "Our ideal society will emerge only when humanity can live up to genuine freedom coupled with responsibility," he asserted. He offered his encouragement to those who are involved in international affairs, including the UN. To mark the occasion, some entertainment was offered, as if to comfort the attendees as they face the arduous tasks ahead.
I would like to thank the Universal Peace Federation for inviting me to talk on the timely topic of the development and application of a concept, responsibility to protect (R2P), that some might call new and revolutionary, others old and vague.
The R2P has been much talked about by diplomats, academics and journalists, and this is just about the right time to clarify what we are talking about. A clearer understanding of the concept and its background will help policy makers in translating it into actual foreign policy and concrete actions.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", according to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. I know the year very well as it is the year when I was born.
Therefore, to live in safety, liberty and security is a fundamental human right recognized by all states. In return, the sovereign state has the responsibility to protect its population. There is nothing new about this obvious statement. But the responsibility of the international community to act, when a state fails to live up to that responsibility, through the United Nations, is new. This is a new concept and we call it R2P.
And while the R2P concept was endorsed at the 2005 World Summit and reaffirmed by the Security Council, these are still early days in the transition from theory to practice. The world has struggled with how to protect – and how to look after the welfare of citizens – for a long time. The Holocaust, and the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in the 20th century, are a few horrific examples of our failures. Attitudes towards the responsibility of states to intervene in the affairs of another country to protect fellow human beings have changed considerably since these brutal tragedies.
The task of human protection is complex. Over the past 20 years, since the end of the Cold War, there have been a number of different approaches, and different schools of thought, about how to deal with this vital question of saving peoples' lives in another country.
One of the most prominent approaches has been put forward by international development experts, including those in organizations like the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – the OECD. These organizations have focused on what they described as "failed states" or "fragile states," and have tried to work with them to implement special economic and development strategies.
Another prominent approach to deal with the issue of human protection has been put forward by political and security strategists. Their contributions and ideas have largely focused on how to handle the political challenges faced when states fail to protect their citizens. Some of their ideas are referred to as "humanitarian intervention," the "right to intervene," "human security," and, now, "R2P."
Generally speaking, development experts have tried to cope with the difficulty of helping people in a failed or fragile state through the creation of a set of common principles among donors -- so that their aid can be effective -- and do no harm to nation-building. States are fragile when state structures lack political will or the capacity to provide the basic functions needed for poverty reduction, development, and to safeguard the security and human rights of their populations.
One of the agreed principles for dealing with failed and fragile states is to support the legitimacy and accountability of states by addressing issues of democratic governance, human rights, civil society engagement and peace-building.
Another principle is to strengthen the capability of states to fulfill their core functions, such as ensuring security and justice, mobilizing revenue, and delivering basic services – like health and education.
Interestingly, in 1994, the Human Development Report, produced by the United Nations Development Programme, introduced a new concept of security -- one that moved away from security as defined solely for the nation-state, to one defined by security for the people – "human security."
The Human Development Report's definition of human security included threats in seven areas: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.
Since the introduction of the concept of human security in 1994, two distinctly different schools of thought have emerged. One, promoted chiefly by Canada, focuses on the protection of individuals from violent conflicts, through measures such as conflict prevention and resolution, and peace-building.
The other, promoted chiefly by Japan, focuses on root causes of human insecurity, including hunger, disease and natural disasters.
I was directly involved in the very first days of establishing the Japanese foreign policy on human security in the late 1990s – when the question of human protection was at the top of the international agenda. Former Ambassadors Hideaki Ueda, Yukio Satoh and Yukio Takasu were original harbingers of the human security concept a la Japonaise.
As you would have detected, the Japanese approach deliberately avoided entering into the delicate sphere of humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty. Rather than directly dealing with the issues of "freedom from fear", Japan focused more on the issues of "freedom from want" – want of such basics as water, food security, poverty, education and health care. Canada tried in vain to woo Japan.
Indeed, the concept of humanitarian intervention – the use of military force by states against another state for the purpose of ending extreme violations of human rights – was a burning issue in the 1990s, and particularly in the context of NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999 – an intervention without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council.
The "right to intervene" for humanitarian objectives has continued to be hotly debated since the 1990s, and its legitimacy, and selective use, remain controversial.
In the Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary General Kofi Annan put forward a challenge to Member States, saying "if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?"
In response to this challenge, the Canadian Government established the International Commission on the Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in December 2001, and the Commission's report, "The Responsibility to Protect" proposed that when a State fails to protect its people – either through lack of ability or a lack of will – the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.
In the light of intense international discussion and suspicion about intervention, the outcome of the 2005 World Summit held at the United Nations endorsing the concept of R2P was indeed a remarkable achievement. The General Assembly adopted the Summit Outcome and the Security Council reaffirmed the provisions relating to the R2P.
Here we saw, for the first time, the unambiguous acceptance by all governments of their individual and collective responsibility to protect populations from four heinous crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Since 2007, United Nations Secretariat has worked diligently with Member States, regional and sub-regional organizations, civil society, and the academic community on ways to translate R2P from words to deeds, from concept to real, early, and coordinated action for the prevention of mass atrocities.
Here, I would mention briefly the UN's approach to the implementation of R2P, namely, the three pillars on which it rests, based on the UN General Assembly resolution:
The first pillar is the responsibility of the state to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;
The second pillar is the commitment of the international community to assist states to meet these obligations, including through national capacity-building; and,
The third pillar is the responsibility of the international community of states to respond collectively in a timely and decisive manner when a state is manifestly failing to provide such protection. When non-coercive measures fail, enforcement under Chapter VII of the UN Charter will need to be considered by the Security Council. This means carefully crafted sanctions, including the use of force.
Using this approach as the guide, the following years saw the application of R2P in several cases, including for example in Kenya and Guinea. These cases involved political mediation and national capacity building. The application of R2P was, therefore, limited to the first and the second pillar, not the third one. During the period from 2007 till early 2011, there were intensive discussions inside the UN Secretariat about how the concept could be effectively operationalized. There were some serious difficulties in the exercise due to varying views among member States of the General Assembly.
Then the concept was given a great leap forward in March 2011. Security Council Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011 on Libya was indeed a historic step forward in fulfilling the responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated by their own government.
Resolution 1973, which passed with 10 votes in favor and five abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia), recalled the responsibility of Libyan authorities to protect its population, and, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, authorized Member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.
The establishment of a no-fly zone and the intervention of NATO completely changed the course of battle, and the regime of Colonel Gaddafi subsequently collapsed.
In his speech in Sofia, Bulgaria in May 2011, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon triumphantly proclaimed that the age of impunity was dead. He said, "Today, we are moving decisively towards a new age of sovereignty as responsibility, an era where those who commit crimes against humanity and violate the human rights of their people will be held accountable." "We can expect that in the future the Security Council will increasingly place civilian protection at the center of the UN's peace and security agenda."
While the Security Council resolution and its swift implementation were acclaimed by many as welcome developments, an analysis of subsequent international reaction including media coverage of Libya, also showed a number of issues of concern and questions about R2P and its application.
Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1973 in mid-March 2011, the Council came in for some favorable praise for its "historic" decision to use force to protect civilians. At the same time, some in the media also began to wonder if R2P was being applied equitably and fairly, citing other flash points such as Syria and Cote d'Ivoire.
In April 2011, charges of double standard, hypocrisy and selectivity mounted, with commentators pointing to the glaring absence of calls for R2P in Bahrain and Yemen. An editorial in the Washington Post noted that the West tended to intervene "only against regimes that are incapable of hurting us when we strike," and pointed out, "If you are weak but vicious, expect to be bombed."
While the UN got high praise from many for its robust action in Cote d'Ivoire to "save lives" and end the political stalemate there, there were also comparisons of R2P to neo-colonialism, and questions about whether the UN military intervention in that country was to protect civilians – or to force political change. On the persistent question of inconsistency, John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, wrote a piece asking why there hadn't been interventions in other countries such as North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe and Iran, and complained about R2P's "political vagueness."
Nicholas Kristof, a journalist of the New York Times, meanwhile, argued that it was "better to inconsistently save some lives than to consistently save none."
In May 2011, with the turmoil continuing in Libya and violence in Syria, some journalists began to see links between regime change and R2P. Others equated the concept with military intervention. Questions were also raised about whether the quagmire in Libya had compromised R2P's future.
It appears that for Russia and China, the steps taken in the case of Libya apparently exceeded the resolution's intent, and they have become increasingly hesitant to take the same path again in other conflicts.
In Syria, at a time when unity is required, the Security Council has been thus deeply divided. On February 4 this year, the Security Council voted on a draft resolution supporting an Arab plan to resolve the crisis in Syria. At that point the UN estimated that over 7,500 people had been killed since the uprising started in March 2011. The draft resolution called on the Syrian Government to cease violence against its citizens and withdraw its armed forces. Thirteen members of the Council voted in favor of the draft, but China and Russia exercised their vetoes. The death toll in Syria has been mounting drastically since then. More than 30,000 people including thousands of children have reportedly been killed, and millions of people displaced within the country. We have been witnessing the immense human cost of failing to protect.
The inaction of the Security Council to deal with the crisis in Syria has been criticized and many see a real danger that all the progress made so far on the R2P may be undone. For instance, in mid-October this year, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, reportedly criticized the UN's inaction, saying that world powers were repeating the mistakes they had made in Bosnia in the 1990s. He called for a change in the structure of the Security Council, where the reluctance of any one member can stymie action.
Indeed, Syria is a critical test of the will and capacity of the international community to implement the third pillar of the R2P. Criticism against the inaction of the Security Council is warranted, but it should not be confused with criticism of the application of the whole concept of the R2P itself.
The criticism against the R2P shows that much of public opinion has focused on the third pillar of R2P implementation -- timely and decisive response by the UN Security Council -- and not enough on the other two -- prevention -- which lie at the core of R2P. And the R2P has not been about Libya and Syria alone. You may recall that Security Council resolutions on Libya and Yemen referred explicitly to the R2P. General Assembly resolutions cited the R2P with regard to Syria, and the Human Rights Council did so on Syria and Libya.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights and the two Special Advisers for the Secretary-General on the R2P have issued statements calling for compliance with the R2P in Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The defense of democracy in Cote d'Ivoire and the protection of Libyans were indeed spectacularly successful. The case of Libya was so successful that people in the world may have thought that the R2P would solve any other conflicts just like that. In retrospect, the Secretary-General's proclamation in May 2011 that the age of impunity was dead and that the Security Council would increasingly place civilian protection at the center of the UN's peace and security agenda was premature. Because, while the concept of the R2P gained more acceptance among UN member States, reform of the Security Council to be more effective and legitimate has not made any meaningful progress yet.
The responsibility to protect has become a reality in some cases, but we do not yet have all the answers, including the vital reform of the Security Council. The conceptual, political, and operational development of R2P needs to continue.
Recent history has shown that each case, each situation is different, and that the application of R2P is a work in progress under the current setup of the Security Council which we all know has serious flaws.
We must remember that the R2P has three pillars, and that inability to apply the third pillar due to the inherent flaw of the Security Council should not be identified as the total failure of the R2P.
It must also be noted that thanks to the development of the R2P, Governments are taking steps to build up their own national capacity to help prevent genocide and other mass atrocity crimes. For example, in April this year, US President Obama announced the establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board and other steps to help the United States prevent and respond to mass atrocities. And countries from Costa Rica, to Denmark, and Ghana have established networks of focal points in Member State capitals for the prevention and halting of mass atrocities, under the R2P framework. International, regional, and sub-regional organizations are also helping states to meet their sovereign responsibilities to their populations.
We must all, through dialogue, training, education, and public awareness-raising, work harder to prevent genocide and mass atrocities and to protect civilians from such crimes.
Here I see the important role to be played by Japan in the light of its initiative on human security. Various activities under the initiative, including the use of the Human Security Fund, can be directed towards the prevention of mass atrocities. For example, the Fund may be provided to reduce civil insecurity and to strengthen intercultural communication and improve interethnic relations, as has been done in a recent project announced in July this year for Nicaragua with over 3 million dollars from the Fund.
Despite the current difficulty in applying the third pillar of the R2P in Syria, I am confident that the R2P will continue to be a guiding principle in helping people in disparate needs of protection.
While the R2P should not be identified as the action of the Security Council alone, it is indeed true that the Security Council's paralysis is doing a lot of harm to the Syrian people. It also damages the credibility of the Security Council and casts a serious doubt on the future of the R2P that was hailed so much in the case of Libya last year. Hence the urgent need to reform the Security Council.
Reform of the Security Council is overdue. The membership and its working methods must be reformed so that the Council can be more effective and its decisions more legitimate. Japan should be given a permanent or semi-permanent seat on the Council in the light of its ability to contribute and its own initiative on human security.
I will not dwell on the subject as you are all aware of the problems involved in the reform of the Security Council. However, even if the composition of members of the Security Council is changed in the reform, it is most unlikely that the vetoes of the current five permanent members of the Security Council would be removed. Rather, additional vetoes may be bestowed on new permanent members in the reform.
Then, unless something else is changed, we would continue to have the problem in activating the third pillar of the R2P in a situation like Syria. In my view, that will require that all countries should embrace and share the fundamental values and principles of democracy and human rights which place the ultimate priority on the lives and security of people. These fundamental values are the backbones of the R2P as we saw in its historical background.
The current impasse of the R2P clearly demonstrates that some important members of the UN Security Council do not put the highest priority on human security due to other factors which they consider more important than the lives of the people in the conflict.
The problem of the vetoes of some members of the UN Security Council is a symptom, not the real cause of the problem. The real cause of the problem is the deficit of democracy and belief in fundamental human rights in some important members of the Security Council.
If all countries agree on the fundamental values of democracy and human rights, then the initiation of the third pillar of the R2P would be possible even if some members still hold veto powers in the Security Council. They will find it difficult to use their vetoes if that runs counter the fundamental values they believe in.
There is some hope for the future. For example, in September 2010, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao gave a television interview in the U.S. Prime Minister Wen summed up his political ideals into four principles: to let everyone lead a happy life with dignity, to let everyone feel safe and secure, to let society be one with equity and justice and to let everyone have confidence in the future. This is what I call the backbones of the R2P.
In conclusion, let me sum up my arguments on the R2P. First, the R2P has come a long way to becoming reality. Despite the current setback in Syria, the R2P will keep moving on. We should not be too disillusioned about the R2P because of the inability of the Security Council to act. It is the problem of the Security Council, not the concept of the R2P itself. For the second pillar of the R2P, there is much Japan can do from the point of view of its own human security initiative.
Second, Security Council reform is vital, and urgently needed for the full realization of the three pillars of the R2P. Japan should be given a permanent or semi-permanent seat on the Council in view of its ability to contribute. However, if the vetoes of the permanent members remain, the third pillar of the R2P may continue to face difficulty in its application.
Third, the fundamental problem may not be the vetoes, but the deficit of democracy and human rights in some important members of the Security Council. The fundamental values of democracy and human rights are the backbones of the concept of the R2P. Japan must join other countries in their efforts to help democracy and human rights being respected and promoted by all countries in general, and by China and Russia in particular.