Improper Application of “Responsibility to Protect” on Burma
May 17th, 2008
Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society
The R2PCS program has been following the situation in Burma as it relates to the Responsibility to Protect for the past year. The government of Burma’s systematic commission of violations such as forced labor, forced displacement, rape of ethnic minority women and recruitment of child soldiers are a few of the many crimes that fit within the four crimes stipulated under the Responsibility to Protect: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (for more on this, please see _ http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/pages/1182).
Last week, following Cyclone Nargis on 3 May and the resulting humanitarian emergency, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called for the use of the Responsibility to Protect. We believe, however, that the current humanitarian situation requires, first and foremost, attention to measures that can help the millions of people affected. Further, the current situation does not warrant the application of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and in all likelihood application could be counterproductive to alleviating the suffering of those affected by the cyclone.
On Tuesday May 7, 2008, Kouchner said, “We are seeing at the United Nations whether we can implement the Responsibility to Protect, given that food, boats and relief teams are there, and obtain a United Nations’ resolution which authorizes the delivery (of aid) and imposes this on the Burmese government.” His comment has aroused concern both because it does not adhere to what governments agreed at the 2005 World Summit and because it equates the responsibility to forceful military intervention. We do not advocate using the Responsibility to Protect at the current time with respect to the humanitarian disaster following Cyclone Nargis, for two reasons.
First, we take this view because of the difficulty of establishing that the regime’s actions before and after Cyclone Nargis constitute one of the four crimes to which R2P is meant to apply: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
Under Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document from 2005, governments and world leaders agreed that they have a responsibility to protect civilians from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. When a government is unable or unwilling to protect its civilians from these crimes, the responsibility to protect falls upon the international community to encourage and help the state to exercise its responsibility. If the State manifestly fails to protect civilians, the international community can act, first with peaceful measures (using economic, political, diplomatic, and legal tools) and with collective use of force through the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, only as a last resort.
While the impulse behind Kouchner’s suggestion is likely shared by those who first articulated the Responsibility to Protect - and by civil society groups concerned for the welfare of the affected people in Burma - governments agreed only to take action through the Security Council (and on a case-by-case basis) in the cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Governments did not agree to take forcible action when governments refuse to assist or allow others to assist victims of humanitarian or natural disasters. Britain’s UN envoy, John Sawers, clarified on May 8, 2008 the 2005 agreement “relates to acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and so forth, rather than government responses to natural disasters” and according to the BCC, Edward Luck, the Secretary General’s Special Adviser, has argued that “linking the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ to the situation in Burma is a misapplication of the doctrine”.
Although reports indicate that the regime has failed to protect its populations and is actually obstructing aid, the Responsibility to Protect as adopted in 2005 does not provide for the Security Council to act on the basis of neglect and obstruction. There could be a case that the government’s failure to accept assistance will result in massive loss of life and crimes against humanity, but it will be difficult to meaningfully demonstrate “intent” of the government to commit these crimes, especially given reports that the government is now accepting limited and conditional support from the UN and several donor governments.
Second, Kouchner equated the Responsibility to Protect with forced military intervention, which is more likely to close than open doors for cooperation with the authorities in Burma. There is a deep misunderstanding about the Responsibility to Protect in the international community, as many governments misinterpret the emerging norm as a Western or colonialist intervener’s charter. China, Russia and many countries in the Non-aligned Movement are fierce opponents of the Responsibility to Protect, and last year vetoed a Security Council resolution on Burma at a time when crimes committed by the regime could have been deemed crimes against humanity. In this political climate, applying the norm in Burma in order to force humanitarian assistance could be perceived as a ploy to bring about regime change. This most likely will not open doors for the delivery of aid, but instead might make the regime more fearful and more paranoid about cooperating with the UN and other countries. Urging military intervention as an application of the Responsibility to Protect is a counterproductive strategy that would not be in the best humanitarian interests of the people directly affected by the cyclone in Burma.
Many humanitarian organizations, including the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, have criticized Kouchner’s interpretation of the Responsibility to Protect. The doctrine/norm, in its true application to the four crimes listed above, requires that peaceful means be exhausted prior to any use of force. As United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes said on 7 May 2008, “I’m not sure that invading them would be a very sensible option at this particular moment. I’m not sure it would be helpful to the people we are actually trying to help.”
Rather than seeking Security Council action to forcefully intervene, which is likely to exacerbate the problems, urgent efforts should be made bilaterally so that humanitarian relief arrives unhindered.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
There are already 2 petitions that I know of calling for R2P to be implemented.
http://www.petitiononline.com/BurmaAID/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/nargis/petition.html
Really appreciate it if people can help spread the word.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The people of burma has suffered enough. Before i was born the country was already going towards becoming a third world. Unless you have lived in the country please do not tell us the Burmese people that the French request to invade under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine is improper. It is by far the best suggestion ever made. Please open your eyes and see the Burmese Govt for what it really is? China and Russia and most likely Thailand are fierce opponents of the doctrine because they are the only ones benefitting from the Burmese Military. Selling arms, supplying and educating the Burmese government in usage and preparation of mass weapons of destruction are the ways in which Russia and China has assisted in making the country more impoverished than it already is. For their assistance they are receiving gems, money, gas and oil. How does a rich country in the 60’s become the most impoverished in its region? Only with the help of the brainless and ruthless government together with the help from China, Thailand and Russia (in the last 10 years or so, the Burmese Military has been sending its soldiers to Russia for training & education).
In all these times more and more Burmese people depart to foreign land because they can no longer survive in an environment where working hard can gain you nothing in the short or the long run. They have not lived like human beings for as long as I can remember. All the resources that our country has, we could prosper more so than any country in the Asian region however, the government has used it all on themselves and showering their children with lavish lifestlyes while our people have been living like dogs, actually dogs in western countries have better lifestyles than our people.
So to go back to your theory of “Responsibility to Protect with forced military intervention, which is more likely to close than open doors for cooperation with the authorities in Burma”. I would like you to please ask yourself, when has the Burmese Government ever open its doors for any kind of cooperation? The doctrine in other circumstances should be the last resort but in the case of Burma, it might even be too late. The Burmese people have slowly been withering away and the world is only beginning to discover where Burma is? So as a citizen of Burma, i am behind the french government one hundred percent. It is not you who has to listen to the crys of our people, our family and our friends who in every way possible keep begging us to tell the rest of the world to intervene. It is not you who is afraid to open emails everyday because you might see a picture of your loved one taking their last breath and it is not you who in every way possible trying to plead with the world to help bring human rights to a country long been forgotten.
In contrast to what you have written, in the case of Burma, there is no such thing as improper application of responsibility to protect. Invasion is in the best humanitarian interest of the people of Burma because even without invasion, the government will never open its door for assistance, please don’t delude yourself. The increasing corpses after the cyclone should be evident of how much they are coopeating. You are talking about a country where they have ruthlessly murdered those they have worshipped for many years. Have you forgotten the monks who were killed while peacefully protesting for the people. The international community then also stood by and watched while innocent lives were mecilessly taken away. In a country where there’s no human rights and humanitarian causes have long been forgotten, invasion is and foremost necessay and required before our entire race withers away. Before the world forgets us again and the United Nations plays into the hands of the military, please help us, please help a nation dying way before the cyclone Nargis arrived.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Improper Application of “Responsibility to Protect” on Burma
Like much written by professional hand wringers and parasitic apologists this article means nothing. The UN so called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ resolution is a straw horse set up not to assist but rather to provide an excuse for doing nothing by setting out definitions to be argued over for the rest of eternity by the morally bankrupt.
The real ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is inherent in common decency - in the sense of brotherhood decent people feel for others, and the instinctive desire to help when needed. In Emergency Response situations where time is of the essence those with a moral sense of responsibility react - they don’t sit around looking at one another to see who can express the most indignation over a disaster they feel no personal empathy for.
The Burmese ruling junta is not the legitimate government of the people of Burma. It is an illegal group of murdering thugs who by force of arms have killed, jail, and illegally imprisoned the legal elected government, and countless numbers of its citizens. And even if the junta was a legally elected government it still would have no legal moral standing when it comes to denying aid to its population in this disaster situation which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands, and have put the lives and welfare of hundreds of thousands at risk.
Legal governments only obtain their validity through the will of the people of the country they represent. When the will of the people is ignored and they are abused, subjugated, or put at risk by force of arms or trickery or callous disregard, then the government, whether elected or not, loses its legitimacy.
There is no excuse for not delivering the aid the people of Burma need. There is a US naval fleet sitting 50 miles off the Irrawaddy delta right now - it has been in the area since before the typhoon hit. It is a military force with disaster relief capabilities, and the failure of the US government to order it to come to assistance of the people of Burma, to use force if necessary, is a reflection of the moral bankruptcy of not only the leadership of the United States but of our people as well.
I have never in all my life been ashamed to be a citizen of the United States, but I am now. When I hear the president of the United States mouth platitudes instead of issuing orders; when I see the representative of the US Navy’s Pacific forces holding hands with the murdering thug ruling the junta, and then mouthing more platitudes about how nothing can be done, and rejecting any suggestion of violating the air space of a sovereign country it makes me want to puke.
I’m not a fan of elitist posturing Teddy Roosevelt, but ‘Walk softly and carry a big stick’ demonstrated his understanding that when you deal with two bit thugs and murders you may smile but then you use that stick as it is all that those type of scum understand.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You really sent the message true and straight man!
Yes, all those so-called ’stalwarts’ of democracy led by the United States are just paying ‘lip service’ on the Burmese people.
This is the most opportune moment for the international community to help the people of Burma, not only from the cyclone Nargis tragedy, but also from their long held hostage situation by the military junta in Burma.
However, the golden opportunity has slipped away already, because Ban Ki-moon went to Nay Pyi Daw and shook hands with one of the ruthless mass murderers of the world in recent history, Than Shwe.
The military mongrel has cleverly took the hand of the diplomat from South Korea and agreed to allow ‘all aid experts’ into Burma, a shrewd and wily act and thus, thwart our vital “Responsibility to Protect” operation from being put into action - a golden opportunity - which we have lost and will hardly come by again in the near future.
Now Than Shwe has shifted his attention on grabbing US$ 11 billion price tag relief aid and planning to make himself and his cronies rich at the expense of the people of Burma and the international community this time. He has already commandeered the help of the likes of Pitsuwan and George Yeo of the ASEAN to convince that nitwit from the UN and others including the US to hand over the colossal sum to Than Shwe and I will bet my bottom dollar the military mutt will certainly pocket the money. Any bets?
I would be mistaken if Than Shwe did not cite SOVEREIGNTY or the like, as an excuse to get his hands on the money.
The best thing to do is NOT TO GIVE ANY MONETARY AID.
Just give the required and necessary relief supplies only and international aid and relief workers should be assigned to deliver or distribute the supplies directly to the affected people. Specifically, Than Shwe’s lackeys in the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and so-called Swan Ah Shin thugs should be kept out of sight and prevented from involving in delivering or distributing operations. Otherwise, all the supplies would end up in the BLACK MARKET and in the households of the regime’s cronies and lackeys and the people of Burma would be still starving, shelterless and dying like today.
By the way what do you think of the mug shot of the Secretary General of the United Nations and the world’s worst mass murderer who even brutalized, imprisoned and killed the revered Buddhist monks?
If I were in the South Korean’s shoes I would rather resign my post than travel to the dog’s den (Nay Pyi Daw) and get into conversation with Than Shwe, who has already ignored several phone calls by the UN Secretary General himself to settle the matter. I wouldn’t even look at his (Than Shwe’s) face, much less shake his blood soaked hands, and even less pose for mug shots with him, in public also.
It is not because of Ban Ki-moon’s trip to Nay Pyi Daw that Than Shwe has allowed all aid personnel and supplies into Burma. Obviously, it was the presence of the US, British, and French war vessels just outside the territorial waters of Burma and people are shouting out LOUD and CLEAR to INVOKE the RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT doctrine on Than Shwe’s regime.
The foxy former psycho warfare officer clearly sensed that he has no room to maneuver in this case and period, when the people were suffering. In case, the international community moved into Burma, the Burma Army (Tat-ma-daw) as a whole would not confront the “good samaritans” who have no territorial ambitions or others than to help the helpless people of Burma, an obvious and clear obligation of the armed forces personnel of the country in the first place.
The wily military mutt knew this and hence, he turned his attention on the US $ 11 billion aid package instead, with a ploy to make himself and his thugs rich using the likes of Pitsuwan and Yeo in the process.
Than Setkyar Heine
Anti-Dictatorship, People’s Freedom Movement in Burma
Washington DC
USA