The responsibility while protecting

  The general idea will be to compare the concept responsibility to protect (R2P) with the Brazilian presentation of responsibility while protecting (RwP), supported by the emerging countries. While the first one was presented in the 2005 World Summit Outcome, coinciding with the sixtieth United Nations anniversary, the latter saw the light in 2011 when the South American country circulated a paper about it in the Security Council.

  This idea makes more efforts to apply new advances in theories such as human security? There are great differences?

  There are several interesting points in the statement of 2011 delivered by Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, ambassador and permanent representative of Brazil to the UN, with the description including “elements for the development and promotion of a concept”. One example is in point 9, when it describes part of the motives of the criticism to the R2P and explain in part the necessity of the report; or in number 10, when it develops part of the polemic about the pressure of regime change in some old cases. It also has interesting parameters and principles, such as the ones that are connected to the last point, number 11: for example, (e), about the amount of force; (f), the proportion and limitation of force; (i), the accountability of the powerful nations.

  An attempt will be made to address other doubts about the proposition, such as: if it is a distraction from the correct utilization of R2P; if it is an impulse from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa) to try to obtain less outside intervention.

                                 

Part of Brazilian foreign policy

  Celso Amorim was the minister of foreign relations during Lula da Silva’s presidency, between 2003 and 2011; during both of Lula’s elections -the current presidential time is 4 years. Then, after August 2011, when the former minister of defense departed from his office, he took his place. His ideas have been -and are- of enormous importance for that reason.

  Amorim writes a lot about his ideas and policies, for instance, in journals. He wrote one article in 2006, whit the title: “Mission of Kofi Annan successor is to complete United Nations reforms”[1]. There he talks about the need for some modifications in the organization, especially in the Security Council area: he talks about changing it. “One of the two centrals problems in the Council function -Amorim wrote-, is the veto power; for a lot of people, an unacceptable privilege (...) But the biggest problem is the composition of the Council. Nobody from Africa or South America is represented among the permanent members”.

  There he clarified what kind of editions he considers in the nature of the multilateral space in the global order. Now, even more related with the topic of this paper, already in October of 2003, the same year that he assumed for the first time as minister of foreign relations, he presented an article for a debate about Defense and Security in Itaipava, Rio de Janeiro, with the title “Brazil and the new global and hemispheric concepts of security”[2]. He talked then about the importance of the then very recent concept of responsibility to protect, with a brief summary of its adoption, and about the definition of human security.  

  Regarding the first one, he established the importance of knowing that the State must maintain its sovereignty and the protection of the Nation, but with a window for the international community to intervene when it cannot protect its own people[3]. In the matter of the second definition, he wrote about the value of considering the individual, the persons, as the center of the concern in the security field, “transforming them in terms of international rights, to the level of States”[4].

  In these couple of interpretations, there is a seed of what would become the concept of this text, responsibility while protecting. The attempt, an essay, to reach a more accountable safeguard for civil persons if the necessity it should arrive to intervene against an external harm.

Brief background

  If there is a field where we can see a transformation in public international law it is in topics related to the humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping operations (PKO). There are norms in the present that are in constant change, or that could change; with discussion around them.

  After the Second World War, there was a new design of the collective security, which it isn’t what finally resulted. What was promoted in the United Nations Charter never ended up being a concrete plan: that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) would act trough its own military forces in direct disposition to the organization by the members states[5]. Certain improvisation was the result then, trough several years: “UN peacekeeping is not expressly provided in the UN Charter; it developed through practice during the Cold War[6]”.

   How was that necessity replaced at that point? Mainly in three ways: the authorization for some States to utilize the unilateral force, humanitarian interventions and the POC. Also, there were illegal interventions, such as the one of the United States and its “coalition” in 2003, attacking Iraq[7].

Responsibility

  One International Commission about Intervention and State Sovereignty was reunited in Canada between the years 2000 and 2001. From there it was created the concept of responsibility to protect (R2P). The report encouraged conceptual language change, specifying the obligation of each State with the security of its own citizens and the UNSC in a worldwide level, and explaining how -although not with much detail- a country should be intervened in a correct way[8]. The United Nations would adopt that work with new modifications in the past years.

  Some of the guidelines that define the R2P are simple to distinguish: 1) Situation of mass violation to the human rights, with the passivity of the State or because it is the causing force. 2) Anarchy situation that demonstrates that the State cannot answer. 3) Situations in which the UNSC is paralyzed. 4) Extenuated pacific channels.

  An as action criteria: 1) It must be decided by a group of States. 2) The force must be limited to stop atrocities. 3) It must not, as a remark, persuade others objectives. What the R2P also enriches is the stage post conflict, the importance to maintain the peace situation once it’s there.

  The responsibility while protecting (RwP) in some aspect could be seen as a supplement, a modification of some parts, an improvement; something that is in place to fill the spaces that R2P doesn’t cover in relation with the human integrity. Because, as is mentioned in the paper presented to the UNSC in 2011: “Even when warranted on the grounds of justice, legality and legitimacy, military action results in high human and material costs”[9].

  In the document there is underlined a common example of why the international community should do something in some cases, such as the example of 1990s in Rwanda. It was a terrible incident that left a mark in the world’s consciousness. Because of this, it could be utilized for political proposes, in the correct way or on the contrary.

  The next two points, after the remembrance of Rwanda tragedy, are the two central criticisms to the utilization of R2P and interventions in domestic matters of others countries. In point nine of the document the content is related to the result of some interventions, “that have aggravated existing conflicts”, and left the helpless civilians to suffer.  

  In the other one, number ten, there is introduced something known as a preoccupation for the BRICS emerging powers, the judgment to think around the political utilization that some status quo Nations can persuade, such as the regime change. With the mention that this suspicious idea, as in fact happened, could lead to complicate the search for some solutions.

  RwP, several of its guidelines, are described in point eleven of the paper’s concept. A pattern that could help for the fusion of both principles, R2P and RwP, to demonstrate bigger responsibility: 1) Impulse for the prevention. 2) More primary efforts related to peaceful resolution. 3) The obligation -mandatory in reality- to be authorized by the UNSC. 4) Hard framework, once utilizing the force, in the window time, legal and operational space, and the scope of the military action. Underlining the humanitarian and under conflict laws. 5) The search for the less use of force possible. 6) Watchdog control through the whole process. 7) Clearer procedures, established by the UNSC. 8) Accountability.

  This last point is very important. To have liability and being able to judge. And to be able to make the powerful countries to pay for their mistakes in the process; their countries and their responsible leaders. Something that it is not happening in the present.

  It could be noticed, the differences between the two concepts aren’t big. It could be say that in a sense the Brazilian proposal is an intensification of the R2P; it is not opposed of its nature, it is not a tool for avoiding all kind of intervention. On the contrary, it seems as being in the search for more consensuses related in this subject, something for the Russians and Chinese to be also in favor[10]. And reach interventions with more collective unanimity.

A way to conclusions                    

  From the South American region, Brazil is trying to enrich the debate. As it was mentioned about Amorim declarations, former foreign minister and present head of defense, the mixture between human security and interventions is present in their ideas.                                

   RwP is not opposing to the compulsion of intervene in certain situations. As one can see in the Brazilian declarations, is looking for an approach to the question, with more concentration in the how. This is related with the lack of consensus in the Security Council and, of course, with the Brazilian search for a sit as a permanent member. But they are not leaving aside the ideas that underlie the writing of Ken Booth; the difference among ends and means: 
  "The critical tradition seeks to prioritize treating humans ‘out of respect’ for their humanity, not just (occasionally) ‘in accordance’ with it; individual humans are the ultimate referent for policy, and persons should be treated as ends and not as means"[11].     

  Some new messages coming from others BRICS, as is the case of China that is showing more involvement in certain world crisis, leave less doubts about their commitment with international community. There is a popular acceptance of the R2P doctrine. And some Chinese scholars are mentioning the idea of “responsible protection”, that it has ties and inspiration in the Brazilian RwP.

  There is a language part of all this. The change of one word in the concept is not a little detail. The election of the word has a meaning behind; its changes in the sense. The fact is that "security professionals do not simply seek efficient and effective responses to existing and emerging threats. They compete over what are the security problems of our time"[12]. And in that contest, the communication is a central instrument. Even for a word.        

---

[1] “Missao do sucessor de Kofi Annan é completar reforma das Naçoes Unidas”, Folha de Sao Paulo, 17 de December de 2006.

[2] Speeches, presentations and articles of Chancellor Celso Amorim 2003-2010, Volume 1, Brazilian Foreign Minister, 2011, p. 233.

[3] Referring to this, he cited the paper: “The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, December 2001.

[4] Mentioning this, he cited the web site: The Human Security Network (www.humansecuritynetwork.net).  

[5] United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 47. 

[6] Gray, Christine, “The use of force and the international legal order”, en Evans, D. Malcolm (editor), International Law, Oxford, 2003, p. 610.

[7] Letter from the permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/351 of 21 March 2003. At the beginning it says: “Coalition forces have commenced military operations in Iraq”.  

[8] Thakur, Ramesh, “Humanitarian Intervention”, en Weiss, Thomas G. and Sam Daws (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on The United Nations, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 397.

[9] Letter dated 9 November 2011 from the permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, United Nation, 11 November 2011, p. 2.

[10] Evans, Gareth, “Protecting Civilians Responsibly”, Project Syndicate, 25 October 2013.

[11] Booth, Ken, “Is human security possible?”, Theory of world security, Cambridge Studies, 2008, p. 326.  

[12] Huysmans, Jef; Guillaume, Xavier, “Citizenship and securitizing”, Citizenship and Security, the constitution of political being, PRIO New Security Studies, Kindle Edition, 2013, Loc. 700.