Sweden, the United Nations, and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Today, Ambassador Anders LidÃ©n, Sweden’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, addressed the general debate about the Responsibility to Protect and Sweden’s role in R2P to roughly 75 attendees at the House of Sweden in Washington, D.C. The two discussants included former Ambassador Princeton Lyman with the Council on Foreign Relations and Tod Lindberg with the Hoover Institution. Will Davis, the Director of the United Nations Information Center in Washington, D.C., served as the moderator. The discussion included reflections on the legitimacy and legality of R2P and its applicability to Darfur, the eastern DRC, Burma, Chechnya, Ossetia, and Tibet.

The event was co-sponsored by the Embassy of Sweden and the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area. This event marked the third in a series of UNA-NCA events on R2P. The first was with Edward Luck in 2007. The second was with Gareth Evans on 28 October 2008.

Luncheon Seminar: Sweden, the United Nations, and the Responsibility to Protect
12 November 2008, House of Sweden, Washington, D.C.

Event Summary

The following event summary recounts what the speakers said but is neither verbatim nor comprehensive.

Ambassador Anders LidÃ©n
Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations
12 November 2008

Ambassador Anders LidÃ©n
Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations
The most recent foundations for R2P began in the 1990s. In Rwanda, 800,000 people were killed. In Srebrenica in the former Yugoslavia, thousands were killed. In both cases, UN peacekeepers were present but unable to halt the mass killings. With these atrocities in mind, Kofi Annan called upon the world leaders to re-think state sovereignty and the responsibility to protect the world’s citizens from intentional harm. International action historically has focused on military intervention rather than prevention. In 2001, the newly created International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty released The Responsibility to Protect Report as a means to address the scope, state responsibilities, thresholds for international action, and the Security Council’s role. (For additional history, see the Background Fact Sheet on Responsibility to Protect.)

The World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 endorsed R2P but proved difficult to achieve politically. Support for its adoption relied heavily on African leaders, who embraced the emphasis on capacity building and prevention.

Two paragraphs of the Outcome Document — paragraphs 138 and 139 — support the concept of R2P. Paragraph 138 invokes the responsibility of each state to protect populations within its boundaries from harm. Paragraph 139 outlines the responsibility of the international community, acting through the United Nations, to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and to foster capacity building.

World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 – Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This
responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement,
through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act
in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate,
encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United
Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the
responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means,
in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and
decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter,
including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant
regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and
national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the
need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to
protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and
international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate,
to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which
are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

Source: World Summit Outcome Document of 2005

Limitations of and Threats to R2P

Security Council Unable or Unwilling to Act
The Outcome Document of 2005 did not address adequately what to do in situations where the UN Security Council does not act or is politically deadlocked. Must the Security Council take action? Should the Security Council take action?

Sweden believes that the Security Council is the right authority and the first place to bring a dispute. Further, regional organizations should be the primary actor, wherever possible, to address the dispute. History has demonstrated that there are always negative consequences of unilateral action without the UN Security Council.
State Sovereignty and R2P
The basic principle of sovereignty is that, if you can’t protect your own people, you do not have a right to sovereignty. Yet, smaller countries, such as Sweden, are concerned with the potential absue of power under the guise of R2P by larger countries against smaller countries. Notably, the right of sovereignty does not extend to the right to unilaterally protect one’s citizens in other countries. Extraterritorial protection of citizens should be brought before the UN Security Council for action. Thus, Russia does not have the right to intervene unilaterally in Ossetia, Georgia under the justification of protecting Russian citizens abroad. Russia would need to take the issue to the Security Council.
Overly Broad Definition of R2P as a Concept
Some proponents of R2P seek a broad application of it and thus increase the risk of abuse of power through the creation of affirmative right of coercive action in sovereign affairs. Sweden supports a narrow defintion of R2P, limited to preventing and responding to the mass atrocities of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Thus, criminal culpability is required. Burma during the Cyclone would not have satisfied the trigger of international action because no crime was committed. (Note: Amb. LidÃ©n agrees with Gareth Evans on the criminal culpability threshold to trigger the use of force under R2P.)
Defining R2P
Sweden’s policy on R2P is to “define what it is not.” It is unclear whether R2P is a legal obligation, norm, emergent doctrine, principle, or other concept. Amb. LidÃ©n argues that R2P represents “added-value” to existing diplomatic measures because it serves as a political reminder to leaders of the potential consequences. Accordingly, the articulation of R2P and focus on potential criminal prosecution serves as a deterrent.
Focus of the Efforts of R2P
R2P promotes capacity-building, early warning systems in domestic and international institutions, and participation by civilian observers.
Military Response as the Last Resort, the Dilemma of Rapid Response, and R2P
Some situations will require a rapid deployment of military forces to respond to the threatened harm. The UN and the international community must be ready. For example, in the DRC, there are 17,000 peacekeeping troops, too few for a country of such large scale and too few to respond to the crisis of eastern DRC.

In summary, the time is ripe for the international community to define R2P and to reach consensus on guiding principles. Edward Luck, the UN Special Representative on R2P, is drafting — and about ready to release — a working paper that could serve as the catalyst for consensus building. Amb. Liden is optimistic for political and pragmatic progress to be made in 2009.

Ambassador Princeton N. Lyman

Ambassador Princeton N. Lyman, Council on Foreign Relations
12 November 2008

Former Ambassador Princeton N. Lyman, Council on Foreign Relations
No one is sure what the Outcome Document of 2005 represents. It has been called: evolving trend, strong political commitment, an emerging norm, and, his favorite, “an obligation with legal significance.” The discussion on R2P is opening up again.

There are advantages to defining R2P narrowly. The greatest advantage is that it will keep the coalition of political players together. To focus on international crimes will exclude the situations of: Chechnya (Russia), Tibet (China), Zimbabwe (African countries), and Darfur (China, African countries). Thus, those countries will be more inclined to support R2P without the risk of interference in those situations. The situation of Darfur in the Sudan is excluded because the crimes began before 2005. One of the problems with Darfur was slow political will and the lack of early warning systems.

Currently, the eastern DRC could be a candidate for R2P, but it is unclear what type of response should be or could be authorized. First, the African Union, as the regional actor, remains overstretched and divided politically. Further, there is no clarity within the UN on whether peacekeepers should take offensive maneuvers to suppress armed rebels. The EU also is divided, particularly with the tensions between France and Rwanda and the relationship between Rwanda and the DRC. Also, the United States is resistant to additional funding. The international community, if unified, could use multiple “sources of leverage.” He did not specify what those sources could be nor was it raised in Q&A.

Tod Lindberg, Hoover Institution

Tod Lindberg, Hoover Institution
12 November 2008

Tod Lindberg, Hoover Institution
He kept his remarks brief. He recommended reading the upcoming report from the Genocide Task Force, to be released 8 December 2008. The Task Force is co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace. The purpose of the upcoming report is to generate practical recommendations to enhance the U.S. government’s capacity to respond to emerging threats of genocide and mass atrocities.

He also reflected upon the philosophical underpinnings of sovereignty by which citizens surrender their individual sovereignty to the sovereign in exchange for protection, giving rise to the sovereign right in the first place.

He highlighted four implications for the United States. First, the Security Council is the first stop, not necessarily the last stop. Second, the U.S. concerns over sovereignty may be addressed pragmatically. The principle of R2P would not create legal mandates for the United States to send troops or to finance a coercive intervention. Conceptually, R2P is a tool for thinking about sovereignty and how to take action. It is not primarily a military question. Third, American diplomacy is capable of explaining the concept of R2P and the sovereignty issues to smaller countries. Lastly, no action is without costs.

Resources

House of Sweden, Washington, D.C.

InsideJustice.com

Event Sponsors and Speaker Providers

R2P Organizations

R2P Documents

Articles