105th Plenary Meeting of General Assembly 72nd Session

Speakers disagree over suitable level of intervention for stopping atrocity crimes, as General Assembly concludes debate on responsibility to protect at 105th plenary meeting.

• Categories: Meetings & Events / General Assembly
• Video Length: 02:44:56
• Production Date: 2 July 2018
• Asset Language: Arabic; Chinese; English; French; Russian; Spanish
• Personal Subject: LANA NUSSEIBEH
• Subject Topical: ETHNIC CLEANSING; GENOCIDE; RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT; WAR CRIMES
• MAMS Id: 2191737
• Parent Id: 2191194

Description

The General Assembly today concluded its debate on the responsibility to protect civilians, its first in nine years, with delegates continuing to wrestle with the extent to which States should step in to stop — and ultimately prevent — genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Views on the concept — endorsed at the 2005 World Summit — ranged from full support to scepticism, with differences emerging over whether to even include the item on the Assembly’s agenda. The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea outright rejected the day’s discussion as no consensus has been reached.

Speaking to the concerns of many, Iran’s delegate pointed to differences in the scope of application for the concept. The responsibility to protect has been guided by politicized interests, he said, rather than human dignity and rights, bringing its legitimacy into question as a tool used in times of distress. It is seen as paving the way for selective interventionist policies and he instead advocated efforts to make an abstract concept more concrete.

The representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the responsibility to protect concept sought to strengthen international peace and security, with powerful humanitarian potential. Today, however, it is associated with illegal military interference, regime change, State destruction and economic disaster. A group of States forced a vote in the Assembly as a way to compel consideration of the issue today. Such moves are destroying the consensus reached in 2005, he said, noting that the responsibility to protect has never been a norm or a rule.

Moreover, said Venezuela’s delegate, the concept should not be viewed on the same level as the United Nations Charter, calling for a resumption of informal discussion to build the required consensus on its definition and scope through a transparent and inclusive process, reflecting the views of all Member States. Placing conditions on and downplaying the importance of sovereignty and self‑determination are not constructive. Consensus is nowhere in sight.

Others drew attention to the consequences of inaction, with Bangladesh’s delegate recalling that the atrocities that had shaken the world’s conscience during the Rohingya humanitarian crisis were long in the making.

“The apathy or complacency of the concerned international and regional actors largely allowed it to reach its current proportion,” he said, citing the inadequacy of early warning from the United Nations presence in Myanmar amid reported preparations by Myanmar security forces and local vigilantes in Rakhine State last year. Those omissions enabled Myanmar to peddle “fabricated and toxic” narratives towards the outright denial or legitimization of any wrongdoing.

Myanmar’s delegate meanwhile expressed concern about the “existential” danger of abusing the responsibility to protect, rejecting labels of events in Rakhine as atrocity crimes. Efforts, including interfaith dialogue, can indeed help prevent conflict, however national ownership must be ensured. Judgment or categorization of a situation must be made on well‑founded information. His delegation supports the removal of the issue from the Assembly’s agenda.

To that point, the representative of the United Arab Emirates supported the creation of an agreed mechanism to collect “data that was beyond dispute”, as doubts about facts and figures could lead to impunity. Another way to verify that crimes have been committed is to reinforce legal frameworks. Including the issue on the Assembly’s agenda is a way to foster better understanding, she said. Shifting dialogue out of New York into regional capitals is also imperative, and the Secretary‑General has rightly highlighted the importance of regional arrangements in preventing atrocities.

In welcoming today’s debate, Rwanda’s delegate said the responsibility to protect is crucial. In her country’s experience, “we now understand that when the State is responsible for egregious violations of human rights, it should not prevent other actors from intervening.” Global efforts are working on early warning systems, but essential factors require accountability, with national systems holding the primary responsibility to end impunity.

Representatives of Chile, Luxembourg, Armenia, Libya, Ecuador, Indonesia, Panama, Andorra, Viet Nam, Philippines, Portugal, Azerbaijan, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, China, San Marino, Albania, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Fiji, Gabon, Palau and Mauritius also made statements today.

The representatives of Pakistan and India spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The General Assembly will reconvene at a time and date to be announced.