Reflections from the 10th annual meeting of the Global Network of R2P Focal Points
Rebecca Barber (University of Queensland) offers some reflections from the 10th annual meeting of the Global Network of R2P Focal Points.
On 15-16 September, State representatives and civil society observers gathered in Washington, DC, for the 10th annual meeting of the Global Network of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Focal Points. The meeting was hosted by the Global Centre for R2P, the Secretariat of the Global Network, at the Organisation of American States (OAS).
The persisting commission of atrocities in many parts of the world today, and the inadequacy of the response to those crimes, might prompt one to question the impact of the commitment made by States in 2005 to protect populations everywhere from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. But what was striking throughout two days of discussions was the strength not only of support for the R2P in general, but of the consensus regarding certain key aspects of the R2P, and priorities for the way ahead. This post highlights just five of the most firmly reiterated points of consensus.
1. The Responsibility to Protect is about peace
The point was made time and again that the R2P is about peace – or ‘starts and ends with peace’, as was said in the opening session and subsequently reiterated in the discussions that followed. Participants stressed the importance of dismantling the persisting misperception that R2P is primarily about intervention, and of appreciating that if we could only get better at prevention, the question of military intervention need not ever arise.
Conversely, though, it was also stressed that the inspiration for R2P in the 1990s – that we must never again fail to respond to a Rwanda, or a Srebrenica – should not be forgotten; and that to pretend, with an eye to political pragmatism, that R2P has nothing to do with the use of force would be to dishonour the agreement reached by States in 2005. In short, while the R2P if properly honoured is all about peace, we cannot ignore the fact that if we fail at prevention, in extreme circumstances the use of force may sometimes be warranted.
2. Atrocity prevention starts at home
Participants stressed that R2P is not just about preventing atrocity crimes in other countries. Thus, R2P focal points should not just be concerned with shaping statements made about other countries in international forums. One participant suggested that we need to ‘harmonise the way we address identity-based violence domestically and in foreign policy’; others suggested that we need to get better at understanding how R2P focal points can be ‘orchestrators and facilitators’, bringing together different stakeholders across different government departments and agencies to strengthen the political, legislative and institutional framework for atrocity prevention – and the promotion and protection of human rights more generally – on the domestic front. Participants recognised that strong statements about atrocity crimes elsewhere will always be important, but that the impact of those statements – and the credibility of the individuals issuing them – will be undermined if ‘issues at home’ are not at the same time rigorously addressed.
3. We must get better at listening to civil society and picking up early warnings
Participants stressed that atrocities ‘don’t start their life as mass murder’. They begin as, among things, marginalisation, intolerance, hatred, and identity-based violence. Civil society sees these things, and knows when they are dangerously escalating.
By way of example, participants discussed the antecedents of atrocity crimes in Myanmar and Venezuela. In both contexts, civil society had the information that should have prompted a response. Some civil society groups were actively documenting the escalating violence. But the early warnings did not prompt a response – not by NGOs (at least, not adequately), not by donors, and not by the UN. One speaker commented that we owe it to the victims of atrocity crimes in these contexts to learn from what we failed to do.
The point was made time and again that atrocities are not inevitable. They are not random acts, and should not take us by surprise. There are always early warnings, and there are always actors on the ground alert to those warnings. We just need to learn to listen.
4. The role of regional organisations
Participants stressed the critical role of regional organisations. It was recognised that regional organisations are typically much better placed than other actors to identify and respond to early warnings, including through preventive diplomacy and mediation, and that they are also well-placed to guide multilateral action. It was also observed that while not all regional organisations have explicitly embraced R2P, most have policies, principles and values that align with the R2P – such as those relating to atrocity prevention or non-indifference – and that more can be made of these alignments.
During the meeting the OAS launched its new report on the role of regional organisations. That report proposes that the OAS can do three things to better prevent and respond to atrocity crimes in the Americas: establish an early warning mechanism; hold an annual dialogue in the OAS General Assembly on the R2P, mirroring the annual debate in the UN General Assembly; and affirm its commitment to the R2P through a Permanent Council or General Assembly resolution. Several participants suggested that other regional organisations might also consider these same steps.
5. The importance of accountability
Participants emphasised the importance of accountability, both as a response to atrocity crimes but also to prevent their reoccurrence. Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of fact-finding missions, commissions of inquiry and investigatory mechanisms. Participants stressed that without evidence, there can be no accountability; thus, even in the absence of an immediately available avenue for accountability, there is an immediate imperative for evidence to be collected, preserved and analysed, so as to pave the way for perpetrators to one day be held to account.
Reference was made to the extent to which States have rallied behind and supported an expansive suite of options in pursuit of justice for Ukraine. One participant suggested that the response to atrocities in Ukraine signalled the end of the ‘era of impunity’. This remains to be seen; however, what can be said is that the response to atrocities in Ukraine highlights what can be achieved with the requisite political will. Participants expressed hoped that the same level of support might be shown in relation to atrocities elsewhere.
***
The meeting provided strong affirmation of support for the R2P, and a wealth of ideas – not new, necessarily, but reaffirming the convergence of opinion regarding key priorities for the way ahead. In that sense, the discussion echoed many of the statements made by States at the General Assembly’s annual debate on the R2P in June 2022, at which there was similarly broad support for core aspects of the R2P, and priorities for prevention.
The focal points meeting was timely, coinciding with the opening of the General Assembly’s 77th session. The challenge for R2P Focal Points, and for members of the Group of Friends of the R2P in New York, is to ensure that the ideas are reflected not only in the statements of their delegates in the General Assembly, but in General Assembly resolutions on country situations.
Rebecca Barber is a senior research fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the University of Queensland. She is also completing her PhD with the School of Law, University of Queensland. Her research focuses primarily on the competence of the UN General Assembly in relation to atrocity crimes, as well as the law of state responsibility, international human rights and humanitarian law, and the responsibility to protect.
Photo source: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.
If you are interested in submitting a blog post for the ECR2P’s Fresh Perspectives series, then please contact Dr Richard Illingworth by Email (r.illingworth@leeds.ac.uk) or Twitter (@RJI95).