Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Comoros + 7 more

The responsibility to protect (RtoP) and genocide prevention in Africa

Attachments

Executive Summary

Within the United Nations, the concept of the responsibility to protect (RtoP) has regained considerable momentum after nearly two years of stasis following the 2005 World Summit. Outside the corridors of the world body, discussions about RtoP and its application to specific regional situations, as well as the mandate of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, one of the crimes specified in the Summit's Outcome Document, are still at a nascent stage. In order to contribute to rectifying this imbalance, the International Peace Institute, the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and the InterAfrica Group convened an expert roundtable on "The Responsibility to Protect and Genocide Prevention in Africa" in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on October 23 and 24, 2008.

The roundtable brought together the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General working on RtoP (SASG) and the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (SAPG) with high-level African policymakers, academics, and practitioners from government, regional and subregional organizations, the UN, and civil society to (1) foster an interactive dialogue; (2) elaborate the scope and meaningofRtoP in anAfrican context; (3) consider UN work on the prevention of genocide; and (4) flesh out the parameters of the relationship between global and regional arrangements for operational-izing RtoP and genocide prevention. The discussion largely focused on the Horn of Africa and the multiple sources of instability there.

The discussions began by clarifying Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's three-pillar approach to RtoP, based on the provisions of the Outcome Document: (1) responsibility lies first and foremost with the state to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity; (2) the international community has a responsibility to help states fulfill this responsibility; and (3) where states are manifestly failing to protect their population from these four crimes and violations, the international community should take collective action, in accordance with the UN Charter.

There had been a tendency to equate RtoP with humanitarian intervention, reflecting fears that RtoP could be used as a façade by the powerful to

meddle in the affairs of the weak. The roundtable highlighted the fact that RtoP is the product of consensus at one of the largest gatherings ever of heads of state and government. Moreover, Africa has been ahead of the curve by enshrining in its Constitutive Act the right of the African Union to intervene in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Article 4(h)). The discussions also noted that, by emphasizing state responsibility and highlighting the importance of prevention, capacity building, and early warning, RtoP is a more comprehensive and multifaceted mechanism for averting egregious crimes than humanitarian intervention. The roundtable concluded that

- a multilateral rules-based framework that defines the parameters of collective action would help to discourage the unilateral abuse of RtoP.

The many high-level experts convened for the roundtable provided considerable nuance to discussions about the conceptual implications of applying RtoP in Africa. They emphasized that any discussion of sovereignty as responsibility should be rooted in an understanding of state weakness and the role of the international community in eroding state capacity. In Africa, states are rarely responsible; globally, actors are rarely disinterested and benevolent. Participants argued that looking inward to the causes of violence and oppression is as important as looking outward to the mixed motives of international intervention. Such an analysis implies that

- RtoP cannot be disconnected from the fundamental need for governance and judicial reform and that donors and international organizations should take significant steps to limit the domestic distortions created by international assistance.

Operationally, the roundtable focused on the regional and subregional levels and their relationship to the UN. Although there was a clear preference for regional responses to RtoP situations, discussions noted that a purely regional response is not always politically appropriate and is rarely logistically feasible. Subregional and regional actors may not always be impartial with regard to events in neighboring countries. And, capacity shortfalls will continue to hamper regional and subregional mechanisms for the foreseeable future. Therefore,

- the UN and regional organizations should clarify and elaborate the parameters of their relationship in the areas of capacity building, early warning, prevention, and enforcement. The UN and other international actors, as well, should ramp up efforts to improve the AU's prevention and early-warning capacities.