States Use of the Responsibility to Protect - Essay Example

s’ use of the responsibility to protect as a reason not to act rather than a reason to act Submission Introduction In International relations, states are drawn in various war fares. An example is the War on Terror initiated by the American Government. It targets members of various terrorists groups among them Al-Qaeda. The American government argues that its pursuit of the members of the terror groups is to protect the American Civilians from terrorism and in so doing; it fulfills its responsibility to protect. On the global stage, there is no international police. Because of this, states use their own troops to carry out the Responsibility to Protect Role1. For example, the Americans used their own troops to attack Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq on March 2003.The principle of the state responsibility to protect is a norm and military interventions are the last resort and permission from the United Nations Security Assembly is a requisite before use of force. Discussion In this article, I will define the meaning of responsibility to protect and will discuss the state’s responsibility to protect norm by providing instances where the states used international organizations to advance this norm. I will also provide instances where the state failed to effectively intervene. I will analyze the states responsibility to protect role in view of Bosnia and Darfur Sudan as well as the impacts of their actions, for example intervention as in the case of Bosnia and limited or lack of it in the case of Darfur. This article will equally analyze the notion of legitimacy in the intervention of states in pursuit of their responsibility to protect role and it will answer the following questions: Why have states intervened in regions where there is a humanitarian crisis? Why have states not intervened in regions where there is a humanitarian crisis? Is the responsibility to protect role of the state used to protect the civilians or is it used to advance the interests of the states? The Meaning of the States Responsibility to Protect Responsibility to protect is a set of principles that defines the ideals of Sovereignty as a responsibility2. The Basic principles of responsibility to protect are to prevent four kinds of crimes: Genocide War Crimes Crimes against Humanity, which has the following elements, forcible circumcision, rape, and many more. Ethnic Cleansing This concept of responsibility to protect has its own principles and guidelines. For instance, The major role of the state is to protect its citizens from in human atrocities such as, war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and inhuman acts/crimes against humanity. In case a state is unable to provide the above services, the international community has a duty to assist the failed state. If a state is a failed state, and is unable to protect its citizens from the above crimes and peaceful measures are not working, then the international community has an obligation to prevent such crimes through diplomacy or coercive means. In September 2000, The Norm of Responsibility to Protect got a major boost from the Canadian Government. The Commission on States Sovereignty and Intervention, formed by the Canadian Government released its report on December 2001. The report noted that the Global Community has a responsibility to prevent mass atrocities by using diplomatic means or a more coercive means and use of military interventions should be as a last resort. Security should be emphasized while enforcing this role and justice should be carried out to victims of mass atrocities. The African Union, in its founding charter observed the fact that the global community has a duty to intervene in crisis situations if states cannot provide security to its citizens. The African Union passed a resolution to protect people and promotion of human rights would be its prime objective and the African Union had a right to engage in a country under its jurisdiction after the approval of The African Union General assembly. The Legitimacy of International Humanitarian Intervention in Bosnia Humanitarian Intervention is a concept of the States Responsibility to Protect. Governments all over the world have no right to violate the territorial integrity and political independence of other states in order to assist, or prevent an act of aggressions on the citizens of the other states. Scholars have argued on the legitimate and legality of states to intervene on the following facts: The states right to self defense. When a state is threatened by another state, it has a right to protect itself against any threats posed by the enemy state. This is usually requires a unilateral approach and the state does not require authority from any organization in defending itself. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for the right of self-defense for any state. The second legitimacy invokes chapter VII of the UN Charter which involves the participation of the United Nations. The international community is involved in this aspect and thus it has a more legitimate perspective as opposed to the states right to self defense. This notion of invoking the Chapter VII of the UN charter is very useful while carrying out the peace enforcement measures which require a wider acceptance as in United Nations Intervention in Bosnia under the UNPROFOR and later on NATOs Military intervention in Bosnia. Yugoslavia had six republics and they were Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia Herzegovina among others. Of these republics, each had a majority ethnic group apart from Bosnia. In 1991, Muslims comprised of 44 percent of the population, Serbs 31 percent and Croats 18 percent and the remaining percentage was a mixture of the ethnic groups of the Yugoslavian state. In March 1992, Bosnians voted for independence and war broke out between government and Bosnian Serbs.3 The United Nations intervened in these crises to provide humanitarian assistance. Under the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), this was created by the Security Council in June 1992. The United Nations expanded its mandate to Bosnia in order to protect the Sarajevo airport and keep it open. As war spread to Bosnians three ethnic groups, the mandate of UNPROFOR was extended to protect Bosnians in designated areas. In 1994, efforts to end the war proved futile and International Humanitarian operations by United Nations in Bosnia increased to a higher level. This situation forced the United Nations Humanitarian Agencies to provide relief support in a war zone. The United Nations achieved success in averting starvation among the Bosnians. In 1993, The United Nations led an international effort where food was airlifted to zones in Bosnia which required aid and UNPROFOR helped to provide security for these actions. While conducting this protectionist role, The United Nations mission in Bosnia suffered causalities during this period. About 11 UNHCR officials were killed and 36 UNPROFOR officials were killed. However, the United Nations was limited in achieving its objective. For instance, in 1993, only 54 percent of UN food requirement for Bosnia was delivered and this is because warring factions in Bosnia obstructed the delivery of such rations of food. UNPROFOR forces could not move freely in Bosnia a prerequisite for protecting Bosnians and in other areas, human rights were violated and civilians killed. This limitation by the United Nations in achieving its protective objective was as a result of gaps in overall leadership and inadequate resources in conducting its operations. At then, the United Nations Secretary General estimated that the UNPROFOR needed 40,000 but only 17,000 were provided by the states forming the United Nations4. Several lessons can be learned from this Role of the United Nations to advance the States Responsibility to protect on behalf of the United Nations Security Council. They are: Humanitarian intervention, without a political settlement is a risky affair and thus it requires adequate resources and extensive training I order for the policy to succeed. Leadership is important while providing humanitarian assistance and thus lack of it, weakens military and humanitarian efforts. Assertive actions need not only involve use of force. Use of coercive actions such as forcible negotiations is a prerequisite. Consistent use of assertive methods is necessary so that opposing sides cannot take advantage of security lapse to frustrate the efforts of providing humanitarian assistance. For Humanitarian interventions to be effective, coordinated planning for humanitarian and military activities must be factored in. The Non-Intervention Policy by the International Community in Darfur The Darfur conflict is a civil war occurring in the region of Darfur in Sudan. The war began in February 2003 when the Southern Liberation Movement Army (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movements (JEM) Groups in Darfur took up arms in Darfur accusing the Sudanese Government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Sudanese Arabs. The Sudanese Government recruited and armed the Janjaweed Militia to fight its proxy war. These militias were recruited from the Arab Abbala tribes of Northern Reizegat region in Sudan and are mainly cattle herding nomads5. The other combatants, the JEM and SLM were from the Non-Arab tribes of Darfur regions, the Fur, the Zaghawa and the Masalit ethnic groups. On May 2006, the Government of Sudan signed a peace accord with Justice and Equality Movement which was facilitated by US deputy Secretary of State, Robert Zoellick and an African Union Representative Salim Ahmed Salim. This accord advocated for the disarmament of the Janjaweed and the militias members integration into the Sudanese Army. On 31st August 2006, The UN Security Council announced plans to send about 17000 troops. The Sudanese Government opposed it as a result the United Nations halted the plan. On September 15th, the Sudanese Government forced the African Union to leave the region arguing that it had no mandate to transfers its obligations to the United Nations; however the AU announced that it would extend its presence till December 31st 2006. The African Union lacked inadequate resources to conduct its mission. They were limited on the financial aspect and human hence they could not effectively carry out the protectionist role. In February 2010, Justice and Equality Movement together with the Sudanese government signed a ceasefire agreement but after a serious humanitarian crises in Darfur. Based on the above analysis, I can deduce the fact that the international Community was not serious into providing humanitarian assistance in Darfur. The Sudanese Government should have been forced to comply with the wishes of the International Community in avoiding humanitarian crises in Darfur. The failure by the International Organizations to use coercive means in Darfur is the reason as to why the Sudanese Government refused to halt all its operations in the region, which caused serious humanitarian crises6. Conclusion In the above two instances, we find that in Bosnia, the United Nations was active in providing humanitarian assistance while in Darfur, the United Nations was reluctant in providing such services. Based on the above arguments, UN active involvement in Bosnia was due to the pressure from the Veto powers of the United Nations Security Council while in Sudan, the states controlling the United Nations were reluctant to provide humanitarian support, partly because they had no interest in Darfur7. American government was reluctant to provide troops to assist in humanitarian affairs in Darfur so was China, France, Russia and Britain which are the major states controlling the UN Security Council. Bibliography AJ Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse?’ The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq (2005) 19 Ethics and International Affairs 2 PD Williams and AJ Bellamy, The Responsibility to Protect and the Crisis in Darfur (2005) 36 SAGE Publications 1 AG Hurwitz , The collective responsibility of states to protect refugees ( Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) J Mangala , New security threats and crises in Africa: regional and international perspectives ( Palgrave Macmillan New York 2010) Woodward and Susan, Balkan tragedy: chaos and dissolution after the Cold War ( Brookings Institution, Washington D.C 1995) Read More