Responsibility to Protect - but by what means?

We should be grateful to Claire-Marie White for drawing our attention to the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which is emerging in international thinking. The international community cannot stand back and watch while governments are committing crimes against the people who they claim to govern.

On the other hand, we need to take an interest in what kind of intervention the nations have in mind. Up to now, the discussion has been about what level of criminality will be sufficient to trigger a legal UN led military invasion. It seems that it will occur as the very last resort, and in response to genocide and ethnic cleansing. The example of Iraq should make us think twice before intervening in this way. It is pretty clear that we should be very careful not to shake the bottle before taking the cap off a repressive regime.

R2P is a sound doctrine, but the responsibility, and the protection, needs to begin much earlier than is currently being considered. By the time genocide is started, it is too late. The international community needs to have early warning of the activities of repressive regimes. Amnesty International produces excellent annual reports on all the states in the world. The problem with reports is that things get buried in them. The one thing that the world does not lack is reading matter. Politicians and statespersons need to have information presented in ways that they can take in at a glance. If these human rights reports were to be presented to the world as an official, UN based Index, with states' characteristics in terms of torture, political prisoners, free speech, free elections, the position of women and other activities rendered into a numerical figure (there are a couple of examples of this kind of Index in existence), then the world would be able to tell at a glance the relative position of any state.

This "Index of Human Rights" (or perhaps "Index of Governance") would bring about a slight general pressure on human rights abuses, because governments even tyrannical ones, do care about public opinion, as the success of Amnesty International testifies. More specifically, many regimes would appeal against their placement; the UN could send in inspectors, and the governments would release prisoners prior to the inspections. So the Index would directly cause prisoner releases. Low performing states could be offered advice and help in coming to terms with the fact that not everyone who disagrees with them should be incarcerated
and tortured. In the long run, the very worst performing regimes could be
taken to court and come under targeted sanctions, which are directed
specifically against the ruling elite of the country, and not against the
people.

This is a new initiative, and its unfamiliarity raises many questions in peoples' minds. There is a detailed document on the Web here
where the proposal is set out and questions answered. At present, it is at the stage of seeking support within the NGO community. The UK Boards of Amnesty International, UNA and Medact are currently considering it. Friends who wish to support the Index initiative might wish to write to QUNO asking them to evaluate it.

The international community has a clear and definite responsibility to protect people from oppressive regimes; but all peace loving people have a responsibility to find a way of achieving this aim in a non-violent way.

--
the Friend - www.thefriend.org
Independent Quaker journalism since 1843

Uh - oh.

Businessmen square up for a showdown with the environment

Sick of politics? Take a tea break!

There was an election last week here in the UK. Bliar got back in with the support of an underwhelming 22% of the electorate (36% of votes cast, 60% turnout).

The environment barely got a mention in the debate.

I am sick of politicians, sick of the political system, including the journalistic caste. Paxman deploys his old Harrovian sneer, but for all his rudeness, he lacks incisive questions. Once more in this election, it was the ordinary person in the street who made Bliar sweat, with her question about GPs stopping people booking appointments in advance in order to meet his bloody targets.

Not only do we have duff leaders, but the electoral system is shot.

Why Vote shows that turnout is inversely proportional to the size of the majority in the constituencies.

In other words, not all voters are stupid. In safe seats, some don't turn out, realising that it is a foregone conclusion. So if politicians want to reverse falling tunouts and apathy, they should reform the voting system.

Things will only change if we take direct action. Remember the fall of the Iron Curtain, and the Orange Revolution - people out in the streets for days on end. Well - we cannot achieve that here. But we could start small.

During the Iraq war, a small group of us in our village gathered around the monument in the centre of the village at 9 am for a 15 minute protest. A token strike. It did not catch on, but in time, it might.

The value of a small, short strike is that it is barely distinguishable from a tea break or a stuck-in-traffic lateness. It is non-provocative, and not worth the boss causing trouble by disciplining us. Because of that, others may feel safe to join in. And so it can grow, as a provocation to Government - the seed of what they fear worst - a General Strike. If Bliar can kill 100,000 Iraqis in pursuit of democracy, surely we, the British people, can take an extra tea break to achieve the same end?