Responsibility to Protect Conference Report

Table of Contents General Overview and Participation ...... 3 First Panel: R2P as a Concept ...... 5

Excerpts from the debate ...... 6 Second Panel: R2P in Action- Seen From Different Perspectives ...... 8

Excerpts from the debate ...... 10 Third Panel: Challenges of Implementing R2P: Who is to Authorise and Whose is the Action? ...... 11

Excerpts from the debate ...... 12 Conclusion ...... 13

Responsibility to Protect Conference 15 October 2011

General Overview and Participation: The Conference on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) hosted by Liberal International was co- organised by the Liberal Democrats Party (LibDems) and the Liberal International British Group (LIBG) and supported by ELDR and ALDE. The Conference was held on 15th of October in Central London and it was opened both to LI members and the wider public. The total number of attendees reached about 80 delegates from LI member parties such as Liberal Partry of Andorra (AD), Liberal Party of Canada (CA), Rassemblement des Républicains (CI), Union Liberal Cubana (CU), Sam Rainsy Party (KH), Radikale Venstre (DK), Swedish People’s Party (FI), Free Democratic Party (DE), Liberal Party of Gibraltar (GI), Union des Forces Républicaines (GN), Israeli Group of LI (IL), Italian Radicals (IT), Centre Party (SE), Liberal Party of Sri Lanka (LK), Dutch Liberal Party VVD (NL), D66 (NL), Union Constitutionelle (MA), Liberal Democratic Party (MK), Civil Will Party of Mongolia (MN), Folkpartiet (SE), Democratic Alliance (SA), Parti Démocrate Sénégalaise (SN), Democratic Progressive Party (TW), Democrat Party (TH), Catalan Group of LI (CAT), National Democratic Institute (US), IFLRY, INLW and the hosting Liberal Democrats Party (UK). Attendees from outside of the LI membership included representatives from the Free Egyptian Party (EG), Democratic Alliance (GR), Union pour la Majorité Républicaine (CD), National Islamic Society (BH).

The Conference was organised in the context of the recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and the liberal dimension of the Arab spring. Its objective was to discuss the concept as a liberal approach and to bring attention to several R2P issues which have arisen as a result of the UN-backed NATO mission in Libya. Jonathan Fryer, a member of the LibDems party and ELDR Council Member, who lectures at SOAS, presented a special report on R2P. In it, he discussed at length concepts such as liberal interventionism and precautionary intervention1. There were 3 discussion panels each focusing on the different aspects of R2P. The first one addressed R2P broadly as a concept. The second one went from a theoretical to a practical review of the concept. The last one focused on the future and the challenges that come with implementing R2P. A few of the prominent speakers included LibDems Convenor in the House of Lords and immediate past LI President Lord Alderdice, Former Minister of EU and

1 The complete report is enclosed in the Annex at the end of this document

Integration Astrid Thors MP, the foreign affairs spokesperson of the governing Dutch Liberal Party Han Ten Broeke MP, Former Minister of Defence of Canada and LI Treasurer Art Eggleton, the Minister of Regional Integration of Zimbabwe Priscilla Mushonga as well as former D66 leader Lousewies van der Laan.

The President of Liberal International, Hans Van Baalen, welcomed the participants of the Conference and spoke at length about what R2P means to liberals around the world. He stressed that the concept “must also incorporate the concepts of the responsibility to intervene and rebuild since these are essential for the successful resolution of any humanitarian crisis.” Thus, he noted that there are really three pillars of the R2P concept: responsibility to protect, intervene and rebuild and therefore one cannot really be implemented without the other.

Richard Moore, a Patron of LI, gave the introductory remarks to the Conference by giving examples of several atrocities that have occurred and continue to occur around the world as a result of the autocratic regimes in countries such as Belarus, Bahrain, Chechnya, Darfur, Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe. As Moore underlined in “such places mass murder is a constant threat.” He pointed out to one of the speakers, Sam Rainsy, who has to live in exile because the government in Cambodia has been trying to silence him for years being the leader of the main opposition party in the country. As reminiscence to past atrocities, Moore brought up the Holocaust in which around 12 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped and religious and political dissenters from Nazism were killed in an extremely cruel way. He praised the Bulgarian people for prevailing above the Nazi policies of genocide and opposing the deportation of around 48,000 Bulgarian Jews. “This is the most remarkable example of a mass recognition of the Responsibility to Protect (although it was not so called at the time) in the 20th century and possibly the whole history.” At the same time Moore reminded the participants that there is still widespread anti-Semitism in Europe, especially against the gypsy Roma and Sinti population in the South-East part of the continent. Thus much remains to be done to remove such instances of discrimination. This is not to say that progress is not possible. As an example, Moore referred to the recent progress shown by Burma as a result of the great leadership of democracy fighter Aung San Suu Kyi and her resistance to the tyrannical Burmese regime. Moore concluded stating that “it is the duty of Liberal International and its member parties to remind people, all over the world, of their Responsibility to Protect, and that is the priority of the new LI Human Rights Committee.”

PANEL ONE: R2P AS A CONCEPT

The panel was chaired by Professor Ingemund Hagg, a Patron of LI, and featured the following speakers: Dr. Meierhenrich from the London School of Economics, Medard Mulangala MP and Leader of the Union for a Republican Majority (CD), Senator Art Eggleton from the Liberal Party of Canada (CA) and Lord Alderdice, Convenor of the Liberal Democrats Party (UK) in the House of Lords.

Dr. Meierhenrich gave an academic overview of the R2P concept stressing that R2P is just a language and it is not a norm or a legal concept as it does not impose obligations. He explained that part of the reason for this is that the original language of R2P which was introduced by the Canadian International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was significantly watered down when the concept was adopted by the UN at the World Summit in 2005. Thus, R2P remains as an underdeveloped norm which is no more than rhetoric. He cautioned the participants Dr. Meierhenrich: about jumping to conclusions that the international intervention in “society’s understanding of Libya was a case of successful R2P implementation as there is no sovereignty has improved quite a lot but there is still proof that the language of R2P was actually the reason behind much resistance to be such an action (as he put it “correlation does not mean causation”). expected on evoking R2P in It was only after the Second World War that sovereignty as a the future” “juridical statehood based on recognition” really took off. Prior to that the empirical statehood mattered more (or the de facto control over a territory). Thus, society’s understanding of sovereignty has improved quite a lot but there is still much resistance to be expected on evoking R2P in the future. The main questions raised were whether the language of R2P has influenced the behaviour of states and has managed to instil new values into the international community. Bridging the gap between scholarship and practice was also mentioned as an issue that needs to be addressed. Dr. Meierhenrich concluded by indicating two main problems that still remain as a major obstacle to the advancement and development of the R2P theory: states convey their own national interest in interpreting the R2P language and they also use it in contexts which are not in line with the traditional meaning of the concept.

Medard Mulangala spoke of the importance of having an UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to secure the safety of the civilian population and to also ensure that the upcoming elections are conducted according to all of the legal procedures in the country. He reminded the audience that more than 6 million people had been killed in the DRC during the conflict. Thus it is important for the UN mission to stay in the country in order to provide support and sustain the peace and order that has been re- Mulangala: established. Mulangala expressed a concern that in the past “The UK is one of the elections had been manipulated and there had also been logistical largest donors of the DRC issues. Therefore the support of the international community during and thus the UK the upcoming elections in the DRC is crucial. The UK is one of the government must exercise scrutiny in order to put largest donors of the DRC and thus the UK government must exercise pressure on the country to scrutiny in order to put pressure on the country to have transparent have transparent elections” elections.

Senator Art Eggleton spoke of Canada’s leadership role in

developing R2P as a concept. Defending human rights is one of the key issues that liberalism stands on. Canada played a big role in preventing genocide in Kosovo where more than 470 000 people ended up being displaced. Canada demonstrated that while sovereignty of states is important protection of innocent civilians is essential. As Senator Eggleton explained “preventing mass murder is an act of repugnance, not the privilege of the sovereign state”. Thus, preventing genocide should be a core national security principle and a moral responsibility. Therefore, simply intervening at the precipice of the crisis is not enough. There needs to be a commitment to avoiding conflict at all times by using peaceful means and putting the primary objective on prevention not intervention. The international community needs to build a universal Senator Eggleton: “Human rights are not the capacity for prevention as this will be much more cost-effective and privilege of citizenship but it will end up saving more lives. Development, economic capacity the birth right of and building democracy in fragile states were mentioned as a first humanity.” step to preventing mass atrocities. As Eggleton stressed “human rights are not the privilege of citizenship but the birth right of humanity”.

Lord Alderdice put an emphasis on implementing liberal principles as a first step to preventing atrocities. The key issue is to move from the right to govern to the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians from their own governments when necessary. Two important questions were addressed: Is any intervention a legal one in R2P situations? When is an R2P intervention a legitimate one? He gave five criteria for the legitimacy of an action when implementing R2P:

 Seriousness of the risk  The real purpose of the intervention should be to avert risk and prevent harm

 Physical force should be used as a last resort  The physical force used has to be proportional Excerpts from the debate: The discussion started up with the notion that even though R2P has evolved as a concept it must also incorporate further dimensions such as the responsibility to intervene and to rebuild: two dimensions essential for the successful resolution of any humanitarian crisis. The role of women in bringing these dimensions to reality is important and therefore they should be allowed a greater role and participation. It was also pointed out that military intervention as a policing operation is not an outright application of force when implementing R2P.The use of force under the R2P concept should reflect a view of “sovereignty to protect”, which means that each state has a positive duty to protect its own citizens. If there is no capacity or intention to intervene and prevent atrocities then a law on R2P does not matter. R2P should be implemented as a last resort and prevention should come first. Collective action must be taken only when “peaceful means are inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” Several participants raised the fact that the international community cannot act as a world’s policeman but it can certainly focus on building economic capacity and democracy in fragile states as a first step to preventing mass atrocities. The United Nations should be pressured into bringing back the more demanding aspects of R2P as a concept.

Lastly, LI Vice President on the Bureau and the Chair of LI Human Rights Committee, Abir Al- Sahlani MP raised the point that R2P should not be approached as a Western value but rather as a universal one. As she noted “we as liberals need to find a way to promote the principle without being accused of being imperialists pushing Western values.”

PANEL TWO: R2P IN ACTION-SEEN FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

The panel was chaired by Sir Graham Watson, MEP and former ALDE President, and featured the following speakers: Sam Rainsy, leader of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party (KH), Gianni Vernetti MP from Allianza per Italia (IT) and Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Italy, and Issiaka Konate, RDR UK Representative (CI).

ELDR Vice-President Graham Watson discussed Kosovo, Iraq and Libya as examples where the responsibility to protect had evolved from a theoretical into a practical concept. It was agreed that Libya was probably the only case where there was a clear link between R2P and subsequent action. Watson discussed at length how important of an issue R2P is to liberals all over the world. He pointed out that “we need to keep pressuring for action not on grounds of “Realpolitik” but on grounds of “Moralpolitik”.

Sam Rainsy started off the discussion by applying the concept of R2P to the case of Cambodia. He wished the concept of R2P had existed back in 1975 when his fellow Cambodians faced massive genocide and more than 2 million people were killed for opposing the despotic regime of then ruling Communist Party, Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, the world community ignored the deteriorating situation in Cambodia and it was only in 1991 when the United Nations intervened based on the Paris Peace Accords Treaty. Initially, the UN Peacekeeping Mission proved successful but upon its withdrawal efforts to restore a free and democratic society fell Sam Rainsy: apart. The main reason was that there was no mechanism in place “it is important to not only to assure respect of the treaty in the absence of UN presence on intervene in situations the ground. Rainsy concluded that it is important to not only where mass violations of intervene in situations where mass violations of Human Rights occur Human Rights occur but to also assure that the but to also assure that the duration of the actual military duration of the actual intervention is sustained for as long as it is needed. Furthermore, all military intervention is neighbouring countries and regional organisations have to be sustained for as long as it is involved in the stabilization of a particular country or else it will be needed” difficult to establish security and peace. In the cases of Iraq and

Afghanistan this was not done which explains why the military intervention there was not successful.

Gianni Vernetti pointed out 3 key reasons why evoking the R2P principle in Libya should be considered a success:

 There was a clear justification for intervening as the civilian population was a target of Gadhafi’s military forces and not intervening would have most likely led to a massive loss of civilian lives  Military intervention by NATO was used as a last resort  There was a successful coalition and consensus among the world community on how to intervene: it was the first time that the Arab League, along with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, decided to support the Gianni Vernetti: international community’s decision to intervene in Libya “The UN Resolution authorizing a on humanitarian grounds “no-fly zone” over Libya is a historical document and a new Vernetti stressed that the “Libyan case was an innovative chance for R2P ideas” expression of R2P.” He called the UN Resolution that authorized a “no-fly zone” over Libya a “historical document” and “a new chance for R2P ideas.” However, it remains to be seen if it will be a success story as in the long term it is the institutional and economic rebuilding efforts in the country that should be used as indicators for success. Much like Sam Rainsy, Vernetti also spoke at length about the importance of reaching a wide consensus among both regional and international actors when evoking R2P in situations of mass atrocities. This is why for example the military intervention during the first Iraq War of 1991 was a success while during the second Iraq War of 2003 it was not.

Issiaka Konata spoke at length about the situation in Cote D’Ivoire and the struggle for democracy which had been on- going there up until recently. He gave the country as an example where peaceful means have been successfully used by the international community to protect the civilians from the autocratic regime of Gbagbo. Shortly after the Presidential elections in 2010, the country was engulfed in violence as Gbagbo refused to step down in favour of the democratically elected President Ouattara. The international community imposed sanctions as a result of which all exports Issiaka Konata: out of the country were banned. The African League of “More consistency in the Nations as well as the military forces of Cote D’Ivoire also implementation of the R2P policy is agreed that Ouattara was the real winner in the election as much needed” a result of which they supported international efforts to remove him. Konata stressed that this played a crucial role in the successful restoration of peace and order in the country. In his concluding remarks, he urged for “more consistency in the implementation of the R2P policy is much needed.”

Excerpts from the debate: Participants agreed that R2P should be at the centre of policy intervention before it becomes necessary to use military action. The notion of R2P is generally as an international extension of a national concept. Also, authoritative regimes should not be given legitimacy by the Western world. To break the cycle of violence in Cambodia it is crucial to implement the prevention and re-building aspects of the R2P concept. Sam Rainsy emphasized that democracy in Cambodia is the way to successful R2P implementation. The United Nations allows the current regime of Cambodia to intervene in the decision of the International Criminal Court and prevent the prosecution of those responsible for atrocities in the country. Another issue brought up was the fact that the right to protect is much easier to implement in Africa than in China. In addition, because of corruption, African countries succumb to China’s cheap deals in view of exploiting African resources. Dr. Rajiva mentioned that one should also not confuse the right to protect with the responsibility to protect. Many authoritative regimes for example were supported by Western governments. The democratic regimes of the so-called BRIC countries are open to implementing the R2P concept until the question of regime change comes up. In Bahrain the opposition does not want to topple the regime. However, the state responsibility to protect the people is non-existent in the country. A serious and credible dialogue with the king of Bahrain is much needed. The report of the Observer Commission in the country needs to be objective and its implementation is essential. Yet, it is necessary to have an international pressure applied in order for the country to uphold the R2P principles there.

The role of regional organisations was brought up as important in situations where intervention on humanitarian ground is necessary. In fact, several participants stressed that R2P should not only be the responsibility of the UN Security Council but also the responsibility of regional organisations. The involvement of the Arab League in Libya was quite important for example. ASEAN is considering taking an action in Burma. In Cote D’Ivoire it was the regional organisations that tried to deal with the post-election violence in the first place and only after these efforts failed did they turn to the UN.

PANEL THREE: CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING R2P: WHO IS TO AUTHORISE AND WHOSE IS THE ACTION?

The panel was chaired by Astrid Thors, Former Minister of Integration for Finland (Swedish People’s Party), and featured the following speakers: Lousewies van der Laan, Former Chief of Cabinet of the President of the International Criminal Court (NL); Priscilla Mishairabwi-Mushonga, Minister of Regional Integration and International Cooperation and Secretary-General of MDC (ZW); and Han ten Broeke, MP and Spokesman on Foreign Affairs of VVD (NL).

Han ten Broeke opened the discussion by noting that the R2P principle is a liberal one and thus “growing support for liberalism is growing support for R2P.” Libya is a great success story both for NATO and the UN as large scale genocide in Benghazi has been avoided. Broeke struck a chord with most of the attendees by asking a very important question: “Why did the international community intervene in Libya but not in Syria?” As he explained the primary responsibility to protect rests with governments of sovereign states. Thus, to ensure political legitimacy all peaceful means should be exercised first. Broeke concluded that Libya has replaced the Han ten Broeke: negative obligation of responsibility to protect with a positive one “Growing support for to take an action. liberalism is growing support for R2P” Lousewies Van Der Laan spoke about the importance of international law in implementing R2P. She explained that even though the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not a political institution which thus makes it more objective, there are still various limitations to its mandate.

The following limitations to the ICC’s mandate were pointed out:

 The Rome Statue Treaty has been ratified only by 119 countries which excludes key players such as USA, China, Russia and India Lousewies Van Der Laan:  ICC deals only with three issues: ethnic cleansing, crimes “There will always be political against humanity and war crimes. In addition, there have to interests in place which prevents the universal evoking of R2P principles” 11

be consistent violations for ICC prosecution to be evoked. Yet, there are many atrocities that are not branded “crimes against humanity” and thus cannot be prosecuted by the ICC but are still very serious  ICC holds accountable only state leaders when in fact there are many other individuals who have participated in committing atrocities but yet who cannot be prosecuted  There are always political interests in place which prevents the universal evoking of R2P principles  The system of the ICC applies only to states which leaves out occupied territories like Palestine for example where many atrocities have occurred

Priscilla Mushonga provided a critique stating that a lot of African countries consider that the principle of R2P is to protect Africans from the world but not vice versa. Africans have to take the responsibility to protect in their own hands and not depend on the West to always step in. During the late 1980s Zimbabwe experienced significant ethnic cleansing. Yet, the country got the international attention only when white farmers started being killed there. Mushonga stressed that evoking R2P can only succeed if the principles are applied by regional organisations as well: Priscilla Mushonga: “Africans have to take the  The R2P principle should be regionally placed and responsibility to protect in their own hands and not depend on the West there has to be consensus about the particular issue to always step in” in place  There has to be the capacity to provide international monitoring during the re-building stages of a country’s recovery from mass atrocities  Regional bodies have to create norms and proper executive arms in order to ensure that authoritarians like Mugabe will not take power again Excerpts from the debate: Several important questions were raised in regards to the situation in Syria and the possibility of evoking the R2P principle there. Participants agreed that in general it is desirable that a UN Security Council resolution is triggered before any intervention actions are undertaken. The problem however is that no consensus can be reached by the UN Security Council on whether to intervene in Syria or not. It is true that trade sanctions have been imposed but these have been watered down by some European powers to such an extent that they are no longer efficient. Therefore, unless there are tighter sanctions results will be limited. The international community has to ensure that autocratic leaders like Assad are no longer able to engage in diplomatic prolonging in order to avoid military sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The concluding remarks of the Conference were given by LibDems Foreign Affairs Critique in the House of Lords Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on International Affairs (UK). She put an emphasis on the concept of prevention since every conflict which has broken out or is on-going is the recurrence of previous conflicts. She also noted that intervention should be longer lasting as pulling out too quickly might cause authoritarianism to return. Afghanistan was a case in point where we had taken our eye off the ball in 1989 and we had been paying the price since.

Baroness Falkner: Regional bodies have to be empowered to take responsibility but “Prevention of a conflict is unfortunately there is too much rivalry going on between them for where we should work that to happen. harder” Two schools of thought emerged towards the end: those who wished to see R2P applied more broadly to cases of autocracies and dictatorships and those who did not wish for it to be interpreted too legalistically. As a final note it was stressed that there is a certain moral relativism inherent in the West's selectivity in intervening in one instance versus another.

Baroness Falkner also cautioned about the limitations of the R2P principle since it is only an emerging norm and the West can certainly not act as the “world’s policeman.”

Her final thoughts were that the development of international law is slow as are the institutions which support it. As the ICC has existed only for a few years it is difficult to say how successful it will be. However, at least state sovereignty no longer presents a shield behind which governments can act with impunity as they know that they will be held accountable by the international community.