Transcript
How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Adama Dieng
Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide, UN Secretary-General
Matthew Rycroft CBE
Permanent Secretary, Department for International Development, UK Permanent Representative, United Nations (2014-18)
Dr Kate Ferguson
Director of Research and Policy, Protection Approaches
Chair: Dr Champa Patel
Head, Asia Programme, Chatham House
20 February 2018
The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the speaker(s) and participants, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the author(s)/speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the date of the publication or details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event, every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions. The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2018.
10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T +44 (0)20 7957 5700 F +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Patron: Her Majesty The Queen Chairman: Stuart Popham QC Director: Dr Robin Niblett Charity Registration Number: 208223
2 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Dr Champa Patel
Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us today for this event on how to prevent mass atrocities. It’s quite a timely event. I’m sure, if you’ve heard the stories and images coming out of Eastern Ghouta today in Syria, to see the kind of bombardment, the horrific violence that’s been on display today. We’re lucky to be joined by three experts, who are able to talk about, you know, what’s possible in terms of early prevention. I’m not going to read out their very extensive biographies, because you will have had the information already. What we want to do is leave as much time for conversations and have a debate, as much as possible.
But just briefly to introduce our panel. So, we’re joined by Adama Dieng of Senegal, who is the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide. We also have Matthew Rycroft with us, who’s a Permanent Secretary at the Department of International Development in the UK. And also joining us is Kate Ferguson, who’s the Director of Research and Policy at Protection Approaches and also co-founded the organisation. So, what we’ll do is, have short presentations from our speakers before we open it up for a question and answer session. So, over to you.
Adama Dieng
Thank you very much. I mean, I would like really, to thank Chatham House and in particular, Ellie Groves, I mean, over there for the warm welcome and chance to take part in this panel, which is also a great pleasure to be along with my good friend, Matthew, and to be joined by Kate.
The subject of the panel: how to protect population better, goes to the core of my mandate and it is one of the topic that most frustrate me, as I meet with Government officials, members of the Security Council and victim of atrocity crimes, by which I mean genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. And why are we still not doing more to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect people? It is not because we do not know how to. So, it must be because there is not sufficient motivation to do so, which is neither acceptable, nor in our interest. How can we shift this dynamic? I will speak briefly about what we know and look further into what I think could be done.
But first, I would speak briefly about my mandate. As I’m sure all of you know, my role as a Special Advisor is a role of a catalyst for action by providing early warning of the risk of atrocity crimes wherever we see it and advocating for early preventative action by the United Nations system, the member states, including through the Security Council and the Human Rights Council and regional organisation. And I do so by speaking out publically, through public and private advocacy and by visiting countries when I feel that direct advocacy and the weight of my mandate can encourage preventive action.
My office works with a range of actors to strengthen prevention and response capacity. We have developed many partnerships to extend our reach, particularly with civil society, including here, in the United Kingdom. But getting back to why we are failing to prevent atrocity crimes. As I said, it is not because we do not know or recognise the warning signs. We do. We know which factors increase the risk of atrocity crimes.
My office has developed a framework of analyses to assess the risk of atrocity crimes in a way that is consistent and evidence-based and to tailor response majors through specific risk factors. This tool was developed on analyses of past cases of atrocity crime, with jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunals and the growing body of academics. Our framework of analyses, which is here, you would see 3 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
the tool for prevention is held as a standard for this kind of risk assessment and work issue as an official United Nations document in 2014.
So, we have early warning tools and we have access to the information we need to make a credible risk assessment. We also know that it is less costly, both in terms of human lives and in terms of resources, to act early. Preventive action makes sense, no doubt. However, although states have repeatedly emphasised their support for the idea of prevention, this is still not being sufficiently translated into concrete support for preventive strategies when we see early warning signs, or even when there are imminent threat to populations.
In Myanmar, for example, my office raised the alarm about the situation of Rohingya back in 2010, seven years ago. But we were continually told that the focus should be to bring about change through political engagement with the Government of Myanmar, even after it became clear that that strategy was not going to work.
This commitment of state has not translated into an honest assessment of national vulnerabilities. I have always insisted that no state or region can consider itself immune to atrocity crimes and that prevention must start at home. Too often, Western democracies see the prevention of atrocity crimes and their responsibility to project as a foreign policy agenda. National atrocity prevention or R2P focal points, where they exist, are located within Ministries of Foreign Affairs and their focus is on assistance to states in the global staff and not on aggressing national vulnerabilities, and there is no link to domestic policymakers.
The responsibility to protect must be seen as domestic, as well as a foreign policy priority. Each society must internally assess its own resources of stress and sources of resilience and respond in the ways that makes most sense. One of the key indicators of societal stress is the kind of tension that we saw in Europe, following the influx of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa, and here, in the United Kingdom, following the Brexit vote. I was shocked by the xenophobia that came to the surface, the hatred and hostility directed at other population in public discourse and in the social media. Populist leaders have been actively cultivating both irrational sentiments and mobilising prejudice and ignorance. We need to find ways to reverse these negative trends.
Our first priority is to understand and response to the barriers to preventive action. I have already mentioned what I believe needs to be done in the national context. At the international level, let’s begin with the most obtuse obstacle: strong political interest on the part of powerful states that work against earnest action in situation where population are at risk.
The UN Secretary Council is often paralysed, and the post-Cold War romance is dead. Compromises in the interests of the common good are being replaced with a zero-sum game approach. It is time that Security Council was reform to reflect today’s geopolitical realities. In absence of reform, we need to find ways of expanding the political base within the Council for timely and decisive collective action. The two initiatives aimed at establishing a voluntary Code of Conduct on the use of veto are important, because all Council members, permanent and non-permanent alike, should be obliged to fulfil the commitment made by the Heads of State and Government at the 2005 summit, World Summit and it would be a prerequisite for election to the Council.
We also need to learn how to prevent atrocities in the absence of unity in the Council. At times, a stalemate, at the global political level, opens up opportunities for others’ actors, especially at the national and regional levels, and this was the case with the massive and co-ordinated efforts to provide 4 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
humanitarian assistance to Syrian by different actors, working together when the Security Council failed to take action.
Finally, we need to hold the state accountable for their commitment, their action or inactions. This is a role that civil society has traditionally played, but it is also important role for other actors, including parliamentarian, who can use their legislative, budgetary and oversight powers, to hold Government accountable. I was very happy to see the reports of the United Kingdom Foreign Affairs and International Development Select Committees on the UK Government response to developments in Myanmar.
And I could say much more, but I will stop here, as I’m very interested to hear the views of my friend, Matt, who was a great ally, I should say, of my office, during this time in New York and of course, he has first-hand experience of the challenges pursuing preventive action through the Security Council. And I just reminded the Presidency in Bosnia, the great role he played when he tabled the Draft Resolution on Prevention for Genocide, which unacceptably, was vetoed by Russia.
Dr Champa Patel
Over to you, Matthew. I think that’s a good segue into the Select Committees, both Foreign Affairs and International…
Matthew Rycroft
Yeah.
Dr Champa Patel
…Development did release quite strong reports on the situation in Myanmar in analysing the UK’s response to that crisis. But in terms of the role that the UK can play, and should play, what are your thoughts on what should be done?
Matthew Rycroft
Well, first of all, many thanks to you, Champa, and Chatham House, for having me here, to everyone for coming along. For Adama, my friend from New York, for coming here and rekindling our friendship, and for Kate, who has real expertise on this issue and a passion to drive change for the better.
So, before answering that question, I’d say a few things more broadly about how the UK seeks to approach the, sort of issues, and I should do so by – I should preface that by saying that I’m just three weeks into my new job as the Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Development and almost all of those three weeks have been dominated by the Oxfam crisis, which is a – really is a huge crisis for the whole of the aid sector. I was giving evidence to the International Development Committee this morning and the Secretary of State, Penny Mordaunt, has just given a statement to the House of Commons this afternoon. So, this is really a very big issue indeed. I’d be very happy to talk, in answer to questions about that, if anyone wanted to.
But coming to the issue at hand and how to prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity, and the first thing to say is that the British Government sees this very much as part of our prevention agenda more broadly. We do a huge amount, in terms of preventing conflict and this, the most serious type of conflict, is at the heart of that set of approaches. So, let me say a few things about what we are doing at 5 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
the moment and then give some signposts to things, which we might be able to do more of, or differently, in the future and then, after Kate has spoken, I would be very interested to hear the views from everyone in the room.
So, if you take a holistic view about preventing conflict, about how everything is connected, essentially, to everything else, about how goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals really changes the overall approach, not just to development, but also, to preventing conflicts, to building up institutions, to ensuring that there is good governance, thinking about the role of justice of civil society, all of those things are interconnected. And goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals sets that out, I think, for the first time and in a way that the British system, British Government, the then British Prime Minister, were very influential in security. That is a way of thinking about the world that allows people, whether they are, you know, in development, as I now am, or in the Security Council, as I was, until recently, all using our different instruments to the same ends. So, this idea that whatever – wherever we work in this space, we might have different instruments, but we can have the same overarching objective, that objective being to prevent conflicts and to prevent mass atrocities, in particular.
When I was on the Security Council, and I will talk about this, if there’s time, and constantly trying to do that, and Eastern Ghouta, you mentioned today, is the horrific next phase in the war in Syria. Everything that we tried, in the Security Council, failed to change Russia’s voting. I don’t think it – I don’t think it was a total failure. I think that, at the very least, we were able to shine a spotlight on the sorts of things that they were doing there, which do absolutely amount to war crimes, to crimes of a very, very serious character and they demonstrate that it’s now too late for prevention, and I totally agree with what Adama said about we know that prevention works. Prevention works, in terms of saving lives, above all. It also works, of course, in terms of saving money and all of us, from our different walks of life, can get involved in it, and the more inclusive we can be, the better. So, there’s a lot of evidence to show now that, for instance, if peace processes involve women, they are more likely to be sustainable in the long run and you’re more likely to prevent some of these most extreme forms of conflict if you’re able to do so.
So, if that theory is so positive about prevention, why is it so difficult to do in practice? And I think there are to different types of reasons. One is a slightly internal reason, it’s very difficult to prove that prevention has worked. It’s never possible to run history twice. You can’t say that such and such actions led to such and such a conflict being prevented, partly ‘cause you don’t know the causality and partly, you just don’t know how big a problem we would have had if we had failed to prevent the conflict in areas where I think we have. So, it’s very difficult to draw the line. So, I think that there are good examples, which I’ll come onto, which we can call on, but it is quite hard to make the case, including for Finance Ministries, about funding this sort of activity.
And then the second, totally different type of challenge that we face, is the one that Adama has already touched on, I’ve already mentioned, about the role of some of our colleagues, on the Security Council, which is that when we say prevention, what they hear is intervention and what that triggers for them is a concern about sovereignty. So, we think that what we are doing, even if it’s just calling a meeting on the situation in Venezuela, never mind trying to pass the Security Council resolution that would condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, or do something else that would, I don’t know, improve the lot of Rohingya in Myanmar, what they hear, our opponents, is that we are breaching the sovereignty of another country. And for them, for Russia, but for China as well, and for their allies, and there are plenty, this principle of sovereignty has trumped many, or poss – all, of the other principles at play in the international order. And that’s particularly dispiriting to deal with day in, day out, at the UN, because the UN Charter, which they pray in aid was their rationale for sovereignty, we use the very same document to set out why we think it is legal, as well as moral, to intervene in these instances, and even if not, to prevent 6 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
in others. So, in my view, prevention should be an easier concept to agree on than intervention, but even intervention is explicitly allowed for, under certain circumstances, under the UN Charter. So, we have this real clash, which is a dividing line that goes through the – all of the live issues, all of the most divisive issues on the Security Council and it’s about sovereignty.
So, if you put those two things together, you see why it can be so difficult to do the actual action that Adama and his office are so good, and they’re absolutely brilliant, at putting under the spotlight. And one of the things that I want to pay tribute to Adama for doing is, to going to the places that are sometimes very hard to get onto our agendas on the Security Council and really putting them there and yeah, Burundi is a very good example. He’s been too modest even to mention it. But the fact that you went there, you went to Burundi, he’d spoke to me, but he came back, and he thought that there was a chance of a genocide happening. And one of the best ways to prevent a genocide is to call it out, to signpost it and to use that word and just using the word can be controversial in these circles. I’m sure you got a lot of criticism from the people who would’ve wanted to play the sovereignty card. Well, the authorities of Burundi are in charge of Burundi and they can essentially, do what they want inside their own country and that’s the attitude that you would’ve been dealing with, and I’m very, very glad that you didn’t do that. You came back, and you used the genocide word as a risk if we didn’t take action and I think that’s something absolutely to be commended.
Just to bring alive, finally, a little bit, the sort of problems that we have even discussing these issues sometimes. Adama, you’ve already talked about Myanmar. That’s an exam – that’s an issue where the Chinese position is very set. They have a huge amount of influence over the Burmese military. If we do want to be serious about doing anything in Myanmar, chances are the Chinese are going to be involved, and so, we took a decision, the UK, that it was better to go at the pace that China allowed, provided we could actually get somewhere, than to break with them and do more or less what we do in Syria, which is to, sort of, try and do our own thing and to shine a spotlight, but accept that we’re never going to get the unanimity required to drive things through. And you could argue, I’m sure some of you would think that we have, as a result of that, been too slow and too soft, in taking action in Myanmar. I would just say that having the Chinese on board does, on that occasion, bring a significant amount of benefit, in terms of our collective ability to get stuff done in Myanmar. Too late for the hundreds and thousands of Rohingya who have already fled. But if we want to keep an international consensus together, there is some value, and to be determined how big a value, but there is some value in keeping the whole of the Security Council together, including, on that occasion, China. So, I firmly believe that prevention can work. It’s just that we have failed to make it work through those one or other, or both, of those two big sets of issues.
I said earlier that I was going to just use a couple of examples of things, which might’ve been a lot worse than they were and again, it’s – but with a caveat that it is difficult, always, to prove the causality. Take two totally different examples, one from the Western Balkans and one from Africa. Macedonia is not a place that has had a war in the – since, you know, in the last 20 years, unlike most of its neighbours and a – and that’s not an accident. There was a huge amount of international and domestic-led, crucially, effort to make sure that the fragile new country that was Macedonia, emerging from the break-up of Yugoslavia, did not go the way of some of its neighbours.
They were very, very close in the 90s, but between us, the international community spent $250 million, including on a preventative deployment of UN forces, as well as on reforming the economy. So, that’s one example. Another totally different example, again, very hard to prove cause and effect, but the recent elections in Kenya could’ve gone in a totally different direction. The violence that did break out, straight after the elections, could have, in a worse case scenario, spiralled into something significantly worse than 7 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
we saw and again, it wasn’t accidental. There was a lot going on behind the scenes, largely, in that case, to help bring people together and to prevent the worst cases.
Do I need to stop now? Okay, I’ll stop now, but I’ve got lots of other examples, which are – I’ll try and weave into answers to your questions. Thank you.
Dr Champa Patel
Kate, I think moving on from that, we’ve heard from the UN perspective and, you know, a key critical country within the, kind of, global security architecture, international peace and security architecture. But what is your view on the broader role of different actors and the role they can play in preventing mass atrocities?
Dr Kate Ferguson
Sure. First of all, thank you so much to Chatham House for hosting this event with us, and for us, and for my esteemed panellists for coming and contributing, and for all of you for attending and I hope I will keep my remarks short, so we can then really get into the meat of the conversation.
I guess, there are very few of us here who would challenge the notion that the prevention of mass atrocities is desirable and that it’s something all of us can play a role in working towards. I think where sometimes we go wrong is in thinking that the atrocity prevention agenda is something narrow, or something specific and actually, that’s not really the case. The objective of trying to prevent these enormous crimes, the genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and the most serious of all crimes, actually, has implications for almost the whole of global security and stability. The incidence of mass atrocities has been rising year-on-year, since 2012. The majority of refugees currently fleeing homes and seeking sanctuary are fleeing situations of identity-based violence and the majority of them are fleeing contexts of mass atrocity crimes, so, either the consequences of atrocities, ongoing perpetration, or the imminent risk that those crimes will be committed.
It also costs the world a huge amount to respond, not just in the human costs, which are immense and ongoing, and continue throughout cycles of generations. It costs the global economy, I think, something around £14 trillion a year to contain violence and yet, about 1% of overseas development assistance from OECD countries, goes towards mitigating violence. I think around 7% goes towards peace building and other development initiatives and so, less than 10%, of what is quite a substantial budget, although I will always support and encourage that aid budget and maybe it can be increased, rather than attacked, I think we’re in a safe space, it’s fine, less than 10% is going towards prevention and so, prevention, as an approach, hasn’t really been given a chance. And yet, it is very clear that the approach we’re pursuing, both within the UK and collectively as an international community, isn’t working.
There are also a couple of other trends I’d like to point to. One is, we have more people displaced today than any other number on record and so, those refugees who aren’t fleeing identity-based violence, most of those people who’ve been forcibly displaced, are fleeing consequences of climate change. That context and situation is going to worsen and we are already seeing a correlation and relationship between identity-based conflicts and atrocities and worsening consequences of climate change. We also see, around the world, the fact that identity politics are deepening, and we see that in our own country here and we see that around the world. And so, those trends, I think, articulate this global challenge that is not really going to characterise this generation of decision-making, but the next era is going to be determined by how the international community respond to this challenge and so, atrocity prevention is a big agenda, 8 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
not a specific one. And yet, the UK, as yet, despite being a leader in international development, despite its place in the UN Security Council, does not yet have a clear strategy to respond to this form of violence. It doesn’t have a strategy with which to respond to the prevention, or even the effective prediction of a trustee prevention, because at the moment the UK considers its following, or implementation of its commitments to predict and prevent, as being covered through conflict prevention or traditional development. And yet, what we see with the crisis in Myanmar, and particularly with the inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the International Development Select Committee, both of those inquiries into the UK’s recent engagement with Myanmar, and with the violence in Rakhine State against Rohingya, highlighted explicitly, that the absence of an atrocity prevention strategy had hindered effective UK responses. And they pointed to the fact that this, sort of, three-way approach, which is quite a common one for the UK to adopt in its overseas work in developing countries, was the promotion of democracy, rather ironically, the promotion of an inclusive economy, which maybe we can talk about in the questions, and then the third one was traditional development. Now, it’s not to challenge the validity of those three objectives, but something was missing, and I really think the recommendations of those Select Committee inquiries are something we should hold onto.
I also think it’s worth noting that at the moment the specific agenda of the responsibility to protect as a UN norm, which the UK, along with all other UN member states, endorsed in 2005, so that’s the notion of a responsibility to protect populations wherever they are from these crimes, from the specific atrocity crimes, cannot be solely discharged via a national engagement through the United Nations. And on the one hand that is a responsibility to populations within national borders, but any country that engages internationally, as the UK most certainly does, there is an opportunity there for that responsibility to be discharged in multiple ways.
I would add too, although my esteemed panellists will know this context far better than I, but with a compromised UN Security Council, where you have Russia and China routinely abusing their veto power, specifically on issues and resolutions relating to the protection of populations from these crimes, I wonder if there is not even greater responsibility, for all nations, but perhaps particularly the UK as a permanent member, to really commit to integrating these rhetorical and normative and international commitments in its national mechanisms.
So, I guess what I really want to talk about is maybe just offer four or five ideas of how the UK Government might strengthen its contribution to the more effective prevention of these crimes. The UK cannot, and should not, shoulder this responsibility alone. And while I am, in this particular conversation, going to look at what the UK Government can do, there are other actors to and there are things that UK Parliamentarians can do and UK civil society and members of the public, can do. And my call for the UK to nationalise, or integrate, this agenda into its national mechanisms is by no means a desire to undermine the validity of the rules-based international order and of the work of the United Nations and to somehow suggest that it’s some kind of zero-sum game.
But I’m just going to go through some of these, kind of, menu options, maybe, and they’re, kind of, intended as talking points to, kind of, open up for conversation. What Protection Approaches does is provide a, kind of, a space to, I hope, look at these options. But I’m going to run through them quite quickly, so sorry. First thing is to acknowledge atrocity prevention as a specific policy priority and that it’s a – and identify it a matter of national interest. The UK currently doesn’t do that and yet, it’s an easy win and it signals to the public, to the international community, and it also sets things in motion behind the scenes. 9 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
The Conservative Party already does acknowledge atrocity prevention, as an objective, in its Kigali Declaration Against Genocide and Identity-based Violence, which it launched at an conference this year and is endorsed by the Foreign Secretary. In that there is a commitment for – from the perspective of the party, to acknowledge how important this holistic approach, as we’ve been hearing, is so important. But this has yet to translate from party policy, or party priorities, in international architecture. I think that that would be very important to indicating – integrating those specific indicators of identity-based violence and mass atrocities that are different from those indicators of conflict and we really have to separate the fact that conflict prevention does not always sufficiently respond to, or cover, the warning signs of identity-based violence and mass atrocity and is there a clearer example than the plight of the Rohingya now? That is not a state of armed conflict.
Integrating these indicators into existing mechanisms of horizon scanning and risk analysis that DFID and FCO carry out, simply as a way of, kind of, viewing UK policymaking and decision-making, would enable the UK to be better placed to have more information, resourcing embassies with the kind of understanding that these indicators of grievance, of social cohesion, of integration, of rumour, hate speech, that these can be very clear indicators that something is going awry, is actually not really to create new mechanisms. It’s to augment existing systems and make sure that when the UK eyes and ears and experts are in place, that they’re really looking at the right things.
Three: while I think the objective, the real long-term goal, must be a whole of Government, cross- departmental, joined up approach, that exactly draws on what Matthew was talking about, of this holistic approach to this agenda, of using different instruments, different opportunities to be consistent, in not just the prevention of atrocities, but in the human rights agenda more broadly, that’s where we’re, kind of, wanting to get to.
In the meantime, at the moment, we see atrocity prevention falling through the cracks between DFID and FCO. Traditionally, DFID’s position has been, you know, we prevent conflict and we promote development. We do not prevent atrocities, that’s not our responsibility and FCO traditionally has discharged its responsibilities via the United Nations. If we had a, kind of, joint analyses unit between DFID and FCO, or some kind of mechanism where you have DFID and FCO experts and personnel communicating, applying what is sometimes called an atrocity prevention lens, to UK decision-making, UK priority assessing, I think that the UK would be in a better situation when crises arise, such as the plight of the Rohingya. And when Adama’s office discharges a warning saying this is a crisis that you need to consider and flag, that there is a mechanism situated within Government that takes that information and is charged specifically, with then passing that up and disseminating that information.
I mean, I’m a realist, I realise we live in a political context, there’s not always opportunities to be fulfilled, but at least to have that position. I think any such mechanism must have ministerial oversight, to have a point of contact in Government responsible for how the UK is upholding its responsibility to protect and how it is upholding its responsibility to protect people from identity-based violence, is crucial, not just in accountability, but in having a point person when we – where we can communicate. Similarly, we, at the moment, have an R2P focal point, so a focal point, part of a global network, who is responsible for, in a sense, upholding the UK’s responsibility to protect. At the moment, it’s – this is a role that’s situated within FCO, is not well resourced, could be. Could be very – could be elevated and strengthened and that would enhance our contribution to this challenge.
And then lastly, unsurprisingly, I’m going to do a pitch for better civil society and Government relations on this. True, this is a growing voice in UK civil society, but it is there. Protection Approaches co- ordinates a working group of experts and likeminded organisations, many of whom, brilliant partners, are 10 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
in the room. Simply having regular meetings between our group or our members and the focal point would be better than where we are now, and I hope this is an example of such dialogue. So, thank you, and I will stop there and then, hopefully, we can have some rich conversations. So, thank you.
Dr Champa Patel
Thank you to our speakers. Before we open out to questions, I just wanted to ask the speakers to briefly expand on the point made about, you know, a compromised United Nations Security Council. Isn’t it fair to say that what we have is an international rules-based order that’s under strain at the moment? You see daily violations of international humanitarian law. Human rights bodies are under attack, which could tackle identity-based discrimination, whether, through the universal periodic review, or hate speech, etc. So, we have a system that’s under strain and under attack at the moment. So, this goes beyond the ineffectiveness of the Security Council. So, it’d be interesting to hear your views on the validity, actually, of the international rules-based order at the moment.
Adama Dieng
Matthew?
Matthew Rycroft
Oh yes, I’d very much agree with that. I think that the whole of the system is under strain and it’s incumbent on countries like the UK, where it was so firmly in our national interest to have an effective international system, to do something about that. So, for instance, just take one bit of it, which is the Security Council, and Adama was right to put that on our horizon, on our radar, you might think that it’s not in the UK’s interest as a permanent member, for us to have any other permanent members. But actually, the British position is that we do want other countries to become permanent members of the Security Council, mainly Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, and a couple from Africa as well, and for the Africans to decide which those should be. So, that’s, say, I would say, a forward-leaning position of the UK in order to try to increase the chances of the Security Council’s membership being reformed.
The biggest problem, though, day-to-day, with the Security Council, is the abuse of the veto, as we’ve already heard from my two panellists, two fellow panellists, and so, the UK has been very active in initiating others and getting others to initiate this voluntary restraint. So, we’re not talking about giving up our veto, but we’re talking about not using our veto in any case of genocide or any other crime against humanity, when there is a credible proposition on the table to either prevent that from happening or to resolve it if it’s already happening. I think that’s a forward-leaning position.
But I think your challenge is an even broader one than that, which is that the whole system is under strain and so, that’s why we need to get on and reform it and that’s why we selected António Guterres, who is a great reformer, and it’s why we back him and are encouraging him to get on with for that reform.
Dr Champa Patel
Did you want to add anything?
11 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Adama Dieng
Well, I would simply add that we need also, to pay maybe more attention to the regionalisation. You know, I mean, when it comes to, take for instance, the African Union, when it comes to address decent security issues, I think the AU has one of the strongest decent security architecture. However, the atrocity convention lengths was missing and today, my office is engaging, in fact, dialogue with the African Union and in April, we are convening a meeting with the REX to see how we can make sure that they incorporate the atrocity prevention lengths.
Why? The African Union Constitutive Act in 2001 included a principle that it will choose the principle of non-interference. You all remember that in 1963, when the African leaders established the known organisation of African Unity, the sacred principle was, at the time, the principle of non-interference, and we all remember what happened in Rwanda with the genocide of the Tutsis and that finally led to the establishment of the – to the adoption of the protocol of the [inaudible – 41:08] region. Still, we faced the situation in Central African Republic, you offered me an opportunity at that time, even also to sound the alarm for action, and South Sudan, another situation. And for the first time we noticed that the UN, in partnership with the African Union, and IGAD, they were very strong in voicing their concern about the atrocity crimes being committed. Not only that, but the African Union itself send a team to investigate, to enquire about the Atrocities Committee, including numerous cases of rape and yet, the Government of Slovaquie was very reluctant to go towards the establishment of the Hybrid Court on South Sudan. But and my sincere hope is that now, we can do – we can see, really, the new opportunity. Although, you will remember, Matthew, when I recommended to the Council to impose an embargo on South Sudan, I remember you were very supportive of the US amount of power, others who have not.
Matthew Rycroft
Yeah.
Adama Dieng
And recently, I made again another call, because we cannot allow that what is happening in South Sudan to continue and I was, however, disappointed that one of the neighbouring countries, which is hosting today more than 1.7 million refugees, mainly to Uganda, you know, which is, of course, a burden. I mean, I salute Uganda for opening the doors. But on the other hand, allowing a weapon to reach South Sudan through its territory is simply unacceptable, and that’s where I think it is very important that we pay attention to that dimension and I hope that the African Union will remain stronger in addressing the issue of atrocity prevention and working closely with the United Nations. And maybe one day what will need to be done is simply to, as I said earlier, reform the Security Council, give a permanent status to the African Union as a group, with stronger – I mean, it may sound idealistic. Maybe the EU will become, as a group, I don’t know, UK by that time maybe will remain alone or will no longer be part of the Security Council.
Dr Champa Patel
And across to Kate, before it becomes a Brexit discussion.
Dr Kate Ferguson
Yeah, I won’t add much to that, other than to, kind of, underline support for the need to look at reform, and not to make the conversation a grim one, because I want – I hope that this can be one of, sort of, 12 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
opportunity and spaces, but that actually, it’s not just the international system that’s under strain, it’s the very values are being questioned. And I think that it’s actually incumbent upon all of us to really reiterate why they’re so important and to communicate and not to underestimate how important it is in communicating the value of what that system brings and not only focusing on the areas that are in dire need of reform. And in the UK too, I think that that is an urgent conversation that needs to happen and Brexit or no Brexit, there is a challenge to the values of multilateralism and participation in a global community, from corners that should not be dismissed, but that we need to, sort of, be alive to, I think.
Dr Champa Patel
Okay, thank you. So, we’re going to open it out for questions. We’re going to take one at a time. If you could say who you are, or if you’re representing yourself or an organisation; we’ll go to you first. We’ll take one question at a time for now and then take ‘em in twos and threes, as time allows.
Member
Thank you. First of all, thank you so much, a very interesting panel. I just wanted to press upon particularly Matthew, maybe, possibly, if there are other ways to gain consensus in the Security Council? One of them being that potentially, looking at the UK’s preferred responses to a place like Syria, for instance, in the early part of the resolutions drafting humanitarian aid access resolutions were always linked to political transition in Syria and that was a pretty big trigger and red alert that both China and Russia would veto those resolutions. And potentially, anything that could look like exceeding the mandate, as what they perceived to have happened in Libya. So, I wanted to get your insight on maybe just simply changing the preference and looking at each situation holistically, as you said and…
Dr Champa Patel
Oh, sorry, could we leave it to one question, ‘cause we’ve…
Member
Sorry, yeah.
Dr Champa Patel
…got a few waiting.
Member
And also, I just wondered how – sorry.
Dr Champa Patel
Sorry.
13 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Member
Just part B of that, is that at the UN Security Council level, but on a national level, because there’s probably going to be a lack of consensus in future cases, given its past, on a national level, how is the UK discharging it’s R2P when its preferred options are not available?
Dr Champa Patel
Okay, thank you. Actually, let’s take two or three, ‘cause it’s – you’re very keen to ask and I don’t want you to keep your hand up much longer.
Euan Grant
Thank you very much. The name’s Euan Grant. I’m a Former Intelligence Officer, law enforcement, and I was three and a half years in Bosnia, although well after the war and remember visiting Srebrenica with my colleagues and the lady said, “My brother and three nephews are lying here.” Well, there’s not much you can respond to that, is there? My question is for all of you, based on Dr – some of Dr Ferguson’s closing comments, how ready, and this – I’m talking internationally, multilaterally, UK, and apologies for the quite shocking European Commission, which really, isn’t up to the job on these things, how well and ready do you see, do you all see, civilian agencies, NGOs and governmental, in dealing with military and quasi-military states organisations? And remember, in the light of Wagner, we’re now getting milit – private military companies. Because, in my experience, although the militaries are not blameless, many civilian NGO agencies really do have a hang-up at working with the militaries, and particularly in the concept of Dr Ferguson’s proactive risk indicators. Thank you.
Dr Champa Patel
Thank you. We’ll take one more. So, we have yourself next door and then I’ll come and do another round. If we could keep the answers brief and then we can get in more.
Nigel Hall
Thank you. Nigel Hall, member of Chatham House. As a citizen, I’m very happy that my country, I think, was an Architect and a major player, with responsibility to protect. But as a citizen, I would like to know now, what’s the, sort of, with hindsight, wisdom over the Yazidi crisis? I mean, that seems to me a crisis not as complex as Syria, with all the different issues, and an emergency 999 response was required. Why didn’t morally engaged countries, such as mine, why did not my United Nations agree that, whether it – you know, it doesn’t matter, but which of the major key nations around the world that were going to send their militaries, with civilian agencies, straight in to do the 999 protection? It’s not that difficult. Thank you.
Dr Champa Patel
Thank you. So, we have questions here around R2P, specifically, the Yazidi crisis in Iraq and around civilian agencies, NGOs, Government, with quas – military – quasi-military organisations. Who would like to go first?
14 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Matthew Rycroft
Okay, shall I go first again? Okay. Well, just a very brief comment on each of those. They’re all very good, different questions. First of all, on R2P responsibility to protect, I have to say that it is, sadly, a brand that is not at the height of its powers anymore, and the Libya intervention in Benghazi, I know we all think that – well, we do, we were all doing it in order to prevent an atrocity. But the alternative viewpoint that the Russians had at the time, and which they had, quite successfully, actually, spread to a lot of other countries, is that we were doing it in order to change the regime and that means that if you want the vote, you don’t go around talking about R2P anymore. So, just in terms of its branding, or its reputation, it’s on a downer.
The concept behind it is absolutely crucial and that’s what we’re talking about, in terms of a prevention. But just talking about R2P, I think, doesn’t work at the moment, very sadly, ‘cause you’re right that the UK was one of the Architects behind it. So, I think, thinking about the parallels of the first question between Libya and Syria, for instance, there’s – is that is really important and if you talk about R2P, thinking about Libya, you’re going to get an even worse reaction in relation to Syria that you otherwise would’ve done. So, that’s one thing that we can do.
In terms of civilian, I mean, I actually think that one of the good things about – one of the many good things about our own country is the strength of our NGOs, the strength of our civil society and the strength of our civilian sector, more broadly defined, in the terms of the second question. And I think that the – I very much hope that British Government is strongly in favour of increasing still further the links between Government and non-Government in this area. You know, if you look at a – any really big problem in the world, any big problem in the world, we are never going to solve it just within one sector or another. We’ve got to have a cross-sectoral approach and this is a classic example of that.
And just very finally, on the Yazidis, I mean, I don’t know, is the honest answer, as to why was there no – no military was prepared to come to the aid of the Yazidis and at the time that I was in New York, it was all about picking up the pieces afterwards and in particular, ensuring accountability. Actually, one of the interesting things that we have done, despite this climate, despite the threat to the rules-based system, is that we have got the whole of the Security Council to agree that there should be a mission to go to Iraq, working with the Government of Iraq, and to preserve the evidence of the crimes against the Yazidis, so that the – so that justice can finally be done for the survivors and the victims.
Adama Dieng
I simply add a footnote. I think it will be also very important, regarding the situation in Iraq, to ensure that all victims also are rendered justice. You know, ‘cause actually, I think it’s very important that accountability applies across the board. Otherwise, we will see again a lot of frustration and grievances, this is stating – but you did wonderful work, really, on accountability in Iraq during your term, yeah.
Dr Champa Patel
Okay.
Dr Kate Ferguson
Just to add maybe the question about this, sort of, relationship, which is in the civilian in what is often perceived as being a military space, even if it’s not necessarily. I think that goes to Matthew’s point at the 15 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
beginning of prevention is often seen as intervention and that there is a, kind of, anxiety there. Even if the interventions that you’re talking about are actually along the lines, very similar of traditional development, but perhaps what they’re, you know, going at is a slightly different route cause. And I think that, again, the importance of viewing these challenges as being holistic and crossing sector cannot be, I don’t think, overemphasised. And that goes as much for peacekeeping as it does for development and actually trying to break down these assumptions that different sectors have, and I think there are a lot of problems within civil society, if we’re going to be really honest about it. I mean, within the human rights sector, around what is sometimes perceived as an interventionist and that is sometimes seen as military interventionist agenda, which I mean, I personally find quite challenging, but it has real life implications. And actually, speaking to militaries doesn’t mean that you are somehow looking at solely military solutions, but sometimes, militaries are incredibly important stakeholders and peacekeepers can be incredibly important stakeholders. I think it’s something, correct me either of you if I’m wrong, is it something like 97% of UN peacekeepers are on the ground, tasked with a civilian protection mandate? And so, this agenda is hugely linked. But I agree that it is an area yet to be addressed and I think that the role of the MoD in talking about what the UK can do within its national mechanisms is also very, very important.
Dr Champa Patel
If I may take the liberty to add, I think it’s really important that countries that are not affected by crisis invest in civil society for those countries that are affected, because they are a critical stakeholder. You cannot build peaceful societies that are investing in human rights promotion and respecting civil society, whether it’s Syria, whether it’s Myanmar, etc., ‘cause they’re often at the sharp end of being – you know, dealing with identity politics, etc.
Dr Kate Ferguson
And any kind of development of a prevention agenda and of a civilian protection agenda will have to learn the lessons from Libya and whether – whatever language we call it, of responsibility while rebuilding, or the responsibility to rebuild once you’ve intervened, or the language we sometimes use as, sort of, greater engagement, brings greater responsibility, that has to be squared. And I have confidence that in the long- term that probably will be the case, because it makes sense. But we’ve not got there yet and it requires joined up conversations.
Adama Dieng
Well, I mean, on that point regarding Syria, I mean, at the time, we were hoping that the day D would come that the situation will return to the normalcy. That was in the early few years of the crisis and we decided to engage the Syrian civil society across the board, all religion, all ethnics, bring them together, because my concern was that there were some identification of the Alawite, you know, being back, which was not the case, from Libya, but make sure that they work together. And still, speaking about the civil society, what we are seeing also, is the shrinking of the democratic space in many countries, and particularly, the Asian region is one where we need, really, to encourage the fostering of inclusive societies, which is not the case. So, how can we manage to get the Asian Government to be more inclusive, you know, and how can we make sure that people are not being discriminated? Of course, Myanmar is the ultimate, I would say, form of discrimination one can see, but in other places also, minorities are really suffering. And 25 years after the adoption of the declaration on minorities, we need to revisit and see what we can do more, and, in that regard, I think the UK can do a lot in working closely with each civil society. 16 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Dr Champa Patel
Okay, we’ll open it back up for questions again. So, you were waiting from the first round, so if you could say your name. Then these two questions at the back. We’ll take those three and then I will remember your faces.
Zac Paykin
Hi, is this working? Hi there, Zac Paykin, PhD candidate at the University of Kent. I’m studying Russia’s impact on the contemporary international order and I think you guys have all hit the nail on the head there, when it comes to Libya, they were very much against any notion of regime change, that R2P should equate to regime change. My question then is, if it’s very clear that a regime is an author of mass atrocities against its own people, what does a military intervention, under the auspices of R2P, look like if not leading to regime change? What can be done short of regime change and can these differences between Western and non-Western countries, on the nature of the norm of sovereignty and the nature of intervention, and the very character of world order itself? Do you think that these need to be resolved by way of the creation of new norms at this point, or should it simply be a – well, should we simply find ways to sure up the existing international order through the existing norms and documents that we have?
Dr Champa Patel
I feel like you wrapped up…
Zac Paykin
Thank you.
Dr Champa Patel
…the key questions in your thesis there. So, we will…
Zac Paykin
Please do my thesis…
Dr Champa Patel
…do our best to address those.
Zac Paykin
…for me is what I’m saying.
Reverend Bonnie Evans-Hills
Yes, good evening. I’m the Reverend Bonnie Evans-Hills. I’m from the UK Coalition of Faith Based Organisations, that has been working with Mr Dieng’s office on the Global Plan of Action for Religious Leaders in Preventing Atrocities Leading to Genocide. My question is really focused around, you know, we’re standing up against identity-based violence and a lot of the identity-based violence that we’re seeing in the world today is based on religious identity and I would specifically say, a lot of the hate crime and 17 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
big fear within the UK and across Europe, with regard to migrants, in particular and displaced persons, is related to religious identity. So, how can, you know, how can we work together as faith-based organisations and faith leaders, with Governments, NGOs, civil society? We, you know, we can and have been, you know, not very good at this kind of thing, but also, we’ve – there’s been a lot of really good, positive support that we’ve given to minorities of other religions. So, yes, how can we work together?
Dr Champa Patel
Thank you.
Jack McConnell
Thanks, Jack McConnell from the House of Lords. I – and given the context that we’re in with the problem with the brand of R2P, which hopefully, is still a temporary problem and not a permanent one, and the problem with the veto, is it worth returning to the first thing that Matthew said, which was about goal 16, and using that as the context, the driver for international initiatives? And I’m just back from Gambia and I was, kind of, reminded there that, you know, there – where there are lots of bad examples in the world today of a lack of prevention, if you look at the ECOWAS region and the number of political crises that have been stopped there in the last decade by regional neighbourhood intervention, then, you know, it’s not all negative. And I just wonder whether perhaps, under goal 16, there could be some sort of global initiative to focus more on investment in the neighbourhood as the place where prevention might, at least for the foreseeable future, be more successful and I just – and I’d be interested in the reflections of the panellists on that.
Dr Champa Patel
So that’s around what could military intervention look like, identity, the role of faith-based groups and regional global solutions, perhaps using SDG 16 as a framing device.
Adama Dieng
Well, I mean, the SDG 16 is the one which is very close to my heart, I should say, and I’m glad that our sister, who was with us just last week in Vienna, discussing the implementation of the plan of action of religious leaders to play their role in preventing incitement to violence that could lead to atrocity crimes, which is a very important plan, and for the first time, we were able to bring such a large number from all our parts of the world. And in one-year time, we will measure what has been achieved and I hope that the UK will engage closely, also, with civil society, with those religious leaders, and I was very pleased that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury himself was behind – supportive of this plan of action. So, was Pope Francis 1st. So, that’s very important.
Now, regarding – and I’m glad that you mentioned ECOWAS, that’s an issue I was going to bring in the discussion. If you take ECOWAS, it is far in advance compare to the order like a study and it was not surprised, when you have Mugabe, Zuma, I mean, people who do not really believe strongly on the rule of law. What can you expect? Then you have ECOWAS, even the ECOWAS Court of Justice. I remember being with the Head of the ICTR, helping the court to strengthen the capacity of the court. We saw the result, for the first time, the Abuja Court passed a judgement condemning an African state for violations of woman’s rights and we saw the same court condemning another state for practice of slavery. Isn’t that important? So, that means we need to invest more on the role of law, and those two cases were brought by NGOs, by African NGOs, so which means that we need to work more trying to relegate the civil society. 18 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
Where – because, I mean, most of those Government will try to play the game, try to really hang on power, changing their constitution, as we saw in some places, including in Uganda, you know, extending the limit age in Congo Brazzaville and this has to come to an end, thanks to the civil society. We saw a Head of State being removed, finally. This is not a redemption by the Security Council, but by the will of the people. So, we need to invest there.
And finally, regarding military intervention, I mean, take Sierra Leone, at the time hadn’t the ECOMOG, at the time Obasanjo was there, and this situation would’ve been worse than it turned it and there was the use of force before even the Security Council provided to rescue the population. Now, of course, we know that the use of force can be only authorised by the Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. I say primary, which means others also have a responsibility and I think that’s where, in the case of the African Union, we hope that the apportionalisation of Article 4(h), which is, as I said, a pioneering principle compared to the R2P 2005, would say that Assembly of Head of States – of Heads of State and Government shall intervene whenever population are facing the risk of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. And we saw it at the time, in the case of Burundi, the peace and security adopted a communiqué, but a month later, the Heads of State stop it, the possibility of the deployment of 5,000 troops to Burundi.
The Council, the Security Council, adopted the resolution for the deployment of 228 Police Officers, which was the option, finally, which was tabled by the Secretary General. Yet, until today, it has not been implemented. So, to me, this is also a very serious, because it affects really, the respectability, the capability, of the Security Council at the end of the day. And so, where we need, certainly, to look more into those aspect, how can we really reinvigorate the Council, how can we make sure that the principles, the values we share, as a member of this UN family? ‘Cause, I mean, the Secretary-General mentioned it clearly. I mean, today you cannot speak about sustainable development without speaking about sustaining peace. I mean, development and peace, goes hand-in-hand.
I mean, in 2013, before I addressed the Council, we discovered, in South Sudan, that there were a lot of problems, which the international community didn’t pay attention, namely, the issue of reconciliation. There was a lot of hate among the South Sudanese. But everybody wanted to invest in this youngest nation, born in July 2011, and we saw December 2013 two down – two years down the road, it collapses and today, the situation is worse than ever.
Dr Champa Patel
Perhaps we could respond to the question around the role of faith-based groups, briefly?
Dr Kate Ferguson
Yeah, and actually, I think my answer to that is probably, vaguely linked, actually, to the answer about the challenges of intervention. I think the answer is both is one of inclusivity and actually, kind of, creating alternative spaces where legitimacy and moral legitimacy, rather than perhaps the, sort of, structural or legal legitimacy that is under strain, both in, kind of, the European context and at the Security Council. And in terms of the conversation around intervention or an R2P resolution, and what would it look like? It’s impossible to answer, because to do it right, you have to look through the lens that places, how best to protect lives at the centre and then you work out. But I think the real need is ahead of, but in parallel to, efforts to reform the Security Council and bolster and try and rejuvenate and reinvigorate that, is to really not underestimate the import of seeking a moral legitimacy in the General Assembly. And actually, prioritising opportunities where alternative forums of dialogue and inclusivity around what the right 19 How to Prevent Mass Atrocities
thing to do is, right as a, kind of, moral or in a guidance sense, that’s a challenge, but I think that that’s probably where we’ll have to go, actually, and Libya didn’t quite do that, and that was one of its chief failings, actually.
And I think in terms of the faith-based conversation, it’s the same challenge, but also, opportunity that I would say is more positive. Europe is really experiencing an identity crisis, an identity crises, and one is around migrants, newcomers, refugees and I completely agree that a lot of that is around, like, religious identity and there is a, kind of, shyness and a reluctance to articulate that. But there are other crises going on too, where you see religious identities being mobilised for ill and actually trying to use that moral – again, I mean, it’s not a word I’m always comfortable with, but guidance and legitimacy that some of these organisations have. So, I think there’s an echo there.
And in terms of goal 16, I couldn’t agree more. I think we’re really seeing a coalescing around goal 16. I am a pragmatist. If that is what is going to work, I am absolutely happy to get on board with that and I think there is something that goal 16 brings that R2P did not. That is not to undermine the validity of R2P at all, but I agree.
Dr Champa Patel
Unfortunately, we’ve run out of time. But I’d like to ask the two people who were waiting to ask the questions, please do come to us after the event to ask your questions. But if you could join me in thanking…
Adama Dieng
But just before, I just would like to say one thing. I mean, my office has been working with the European Commission. As you know, the European Commission has an early warning system. But they were focusing more on conflict prevention and finally, thanks to this engagement they had with my office, they have now really started developing further, the inclusion of an atrocity prevention led. So, just to say, you know, that we are at your disposal to help the UK to engage further and you have the greatest supporter with Matthew here. He’s a militant, you know.
Dr Champa Patel
If you could join me in thanking our speakers [applause].