News

In a world of failed and failing states, does the international community and Canada have a responsibility to intervene, including militarily, in the affairs of nations that grossly fail to protect their citizens' human rights?

That was the question asked in the second Munk Debate, that took place Monday at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Itwas also be broadcast live in Cineplex Theatres across Canada.

The debate aimed to explore the merits and pitfall of humanitarian interventions by debating the resolution: "If countries like Sudan, Somalia and Burma will not end their man-made humanitarian crises, the international community should."

The debaters were Mia Farrow , Gareth Evans , John Bolton and Rick Hillier .

Mr. Evans, firmly on Pro side of the argument was online Monday and answered reader questons ahead of the debate.

Mr. Evans is the President and Chief Executive of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), an independent multinational non-governmental organization with 90 full-time staff on five continents which works, through field-based analysis and high-level policy advocacy, to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.

A member of the Australian Parliament for 21 years, Mr. Evans was one of Australia's longest serving foreign ministers, best known internationally for his roles in developing the UN peace plan for Cambodia, bringing to a conclusion the international Chemical Weapons Convention, founding the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and initiating the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

He has also served as a member of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, co-chaired by Cyrus Vance and David Hamburg (1994-97), and is currently a member of the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com writes: Dear Mr. Evans: Thanks for taking the time to answer reader questions about humanitarian intervention. This topic is perhaps never been more part of our collective consciousness. Even mainstream media uses it as a plot device in some dramas (the new season of 24 comes to mind). In many cases, the UN gets a pretty rough ride as it is portrayed. I thought I should open the discussion with a question about how the so-called Bush Doctrine has affected the public's willingness to accept military intervention and peace-keeping as an approach to reach humanitarian objectives?

Gareth Evans writes: The Bush doctrine, with its willingness to use military force - and outside the UN system -- to advance human rights and democracy objectives, most spectacularly and counterproductively in Iraq in 2003, has been one of the biggest crosses advocates of the responsibility to protect have had to bear. It's critically important that the new administration reposition the U.S. on these issues, and try to generate a genuine international consensus on how to respond to major atrocity crime situations.

Don H from Windsor Canada writes: It is interesting to note that all members of the panel, who are white (3 of whom are male) and come from developed nations, are those chosen to lead this discussion about intervening in far more racially diverse nations. Can you speak a little bit about the legitimacy of such discussions without the integration of perspectives outside the white Anglo-Saxon persona?

Gareth Evans writes: Some elderly white Anglo Saxon males are not entirely without sensitivity on these subjects! But point taken. When we were developing the responsibility to protect doctrine with the Canadian sponsored Commission in 2001, we took care to do a lot of outreach in the developing world, and some of the strongest support for this came from sub-Saharan Africa.

Loki Wils from Canada writes: Do you think these horrendous genocides are being ignored due to the fact that the inhabitants are from poor nations? Also, the perpetrators appear to be Arabic, fully bent on colonizing Africa. Why is the Islamizing of entire countries being ignored?

Gareth Evans writes: There's no direct correlation between poverty as such, and either deadly conflict in general or atrocity crimes in particular. There have to be other variables in play as well, for example an ethnically based set of grievances or history of discrimination. Nor is there any justification for suggesting that genocide has anything inherently to do with Arab/Islamic sentiment: Hitler's Germany, Cambodia and Rwanda are enough examples to make that point.

Robin Collins from Ottawa Canada writes: We consistently hear of a commitment-capacity gap, where those with the capacity (the North) are unwilling to help and those without advanced capacity (the South) who are carrying the heavy burden in UN peacekeeping operations. As this two-tiered system risks failure, isn't there an urgent need for a dedicated UN emergency service to cover the critical, initial six-month period of demanding operations?

The UN is only as good as the sum of its parts. With the UN Secretariat always having a struggle to borrow or rent standby resources from the member states, why not provide a dedicated UN emergency service as a more dependable part -- and cost-effecive -- immediately available when needed?

Gareth Evans writes: The idea of a UN rapid reaction military capability has always been hugely attractive. The trouble is to get any of the major players to support it in principle or practice: they are too worried about losing control to the UN Secretary General, or a governing collective of some kind. It's been floated on multiple occasions but finishes dead in the water each time. The answer has to be dedicated standby capability which can be mobilised at very short notice, straight after the political decision to deploy. But the trouble is we are going backwards now even on that front, with the recent announcement that the Denmark initiated (and strongly Canadian supported) SHIRBRIG standby high-readiness brigade is going to be disbanded next year. Bad news.

Parthi Kandavel from Scarborough Canada writes: Hi Mr. Evans, I was wondering if you could comment on the R2P possibility in Sri Lanka, as the island descends back into brutal war, and the withdrawal of NGOs from the war affected areas.

Gareth Evans writes: Sri Lanka is a country on just about everbody's atrocity crime watchlist, because of what has happened in the past, on both the Tamil Tigers and government sides, in this civil war of ever increasing ferocity, and what is feared will happen in the weeks and months ahead. There is every reason for close international scrutiny of the evolving situation, with strong pressure being maintained to ensure that basic principles of international humanitarian law are respected.

Robin Collins from Ottawa Canada writes:To what extent would you say that the Darfur crisis has escalated because the response has been non-existent, let alone, late?

Assuming an intervention is required (into Darfur, for example), then under what authority and using what existing or (down the road) what future force capability?

Gareth Evans writes: The international response when the Darfur violence was at its height in 2003-04 was lamentably weak, and has not improved much since. When the international community, with 11,842 helicopters in its global inventory, cannot find 22 to give the hard-pressed AU/UN peacekeeping operation even the most minimal support in meeting its human protection mandate over the last six months, there's not much to be proud of. The better news is that the recent threat of indictment of President Bashir in the International Criminal Court does seem to have done more than any other form of international pressure so far to concentrate the Khartoum regime's mind on the need to stop government initiated violence in Darfur and to put a serious proposal on the table. All that said, the conflict is much more complex than it was at the outset - with rebel groups fragmenting and multiplying and themselves being responsible at least as much as the government for continuing violence. Coercive military action as distinct from government-accepted peacekeeping -- 'humanitarian intervention' in the traditional 1990s sense -- has never really been a practical option in Darfur, and isnt now: apart from anything else it would wreak havoc with the humanitarian relief operation keeping alive more than 2 million people, and probably reignite the still-simmering north-south conflict, which was hugely more destructive than even Darfur.

Daniel Yang from Toronto Canada writes: Mr. Evans, The international community clearly should have acted by strengthening and not withdrawing its forces from Rwanda. However, with the lack of political will embedded in each country, how are we to get around to putting our words (R2P) into real action when needed?

Gareth Evans writes: Political will is not something you find if you look in the right cupboard. It has to be laboriously crafted, case by case, using the resources of both insiders and outsiders, bottom up from civil society and through peer group pressure from those in positions of influence nationally and internationally. To move decision makers you have provide information about the problem, understanding of the policy options, good arguments (including national interest ones - easier to make now in this globalised, interdependent age) for taking difficult or resource intensive action. It helps if you also have insitutional structures - early warning and reaction focal points for example - that can actually help move decisions through the government system in question. None of this is easy to pull off. But good, old fashioned grass roots agitation - making the press and politicians aware of what's at stake - remains an important piece of the picture in ensuring we dont repeat the debacle of Rwanda. Kenya is a good recent example that international attitudes are changing, and decision makers getting more sensitive to these issues, but we have a way to go.

Sasha Nagy writes: Dear Mr. Evans: Thanks so much for your time and insights. How important are forums like the Munk Debate to further understanding of your organization and the issue in general. Can talking about the issue lead governments to act. And lastly, is there middle grounf on this question of intervention?

Gareth Evans writes: I'm surprised and impressed at how much interest there is in the Munk Debate. Maybe there's something in the Canadian water which makes people more sensitive to international issues of this kind: certainly without the government sponsorship of the original International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty we would not have made the global advances we have, with the responsibility to protect concept, in moving away from the old notion that sovereignty is, in effect, a license to kill. The debate format itself, as distinct from the usual lecture/panel/followed by Q&A, can be a much better way of getting quickly to the nub of key issues.

There are many routes to getting governments and intergovernmental organisations to act faster and better to both prevent and react to mass atrocity crime situations, and conflict more generally. Many non-governmental organisations (including my own International Crisis Group , and the recently established Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect in New York) are important sources of information, advice and advocacy energy at the higher levels of government; many others again are effective in mobilising activity at the grass roots activity, as my partner in the Munk debate, Mia Farrow, for one has so done (a bunch of them are mentioned in the Appendix to my book, which I'll mention in a moment). And there are a number of governments - traditionally Canada, Australia and the Scandinavians (although the vagaries of which party is in power have made quite a difference in recent years) - who have traditionally played leadership roles on these issues. It is to be hoped, again, that the new U.S. administration plays the leadership role that will make such a difference if it is done properly.

The 'middle ground' on intervention is really summed up in the whole Responsibility to Protect doctrine (on which I've just published a substantial book if anyone's interested - The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All: published by Brookings Insitution Press and available through Amazon). Whereas 'humanitarian intervention' doctrine - the focus of all debate in the 1990s - focused purely on coercive military intervention, 'R2P' is a much more nuanced and multi-dimensional approach. Sending in the Marines is maintained as an option of last resort - if a whole set of prudential and legal criteria are satisfied -- but the alternative is not doing nothing. There is a big toolbox of other measures, diplomatic, economic, legal and police/military, which can and should be available for deployment at the prevention, reaction and post crisis rebuilding stage. It's not only national interest, but our common humanity, that demands that all these tools be used as appropriate in the face of genocide or other mass atrocity crimes, occurring or likely to occur. We never again want to find ourselves in the position of looking back and asking ourselves, with a mixture of anger, incomprehension and shame, how we could ever possibly allowed another Rwanda to happen.