In the 20th century, far more people were killed by their own governments than by any outside forces. The Final Solution. The Great Leap Forward. Collectivization. Cambodia. Yugoslavia. Rwanda. And now we greet a new century with Darfur.
Whatever happened to The Responsibility to Protect? That is a title to a 2001 report, sponsored by the Canadian government, that sought to define the circumstances in which the United Nations, or a coalition of willing states, could override the doctrine of non-interference in a nation's internal affairs.
Those circumstances included a “large-scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act.”
Under such circumstances, the document declared, the UN Security Council had an obligation to intervene, authorizing military force if necessary. Should the Security Council fail to act, the document preferred “collective intervention to be pursued by a regional or sub-regional organization acting within its defined boundaries.”
Many international observers believe that The Responsibility to Protect could be the template for a new doctrine of international collective security against rogue or failed states, promising relief for millions of our planet's citizens at risk from their own governments. But the Iraq situation, coupled with Third World suspicion that R2P (as it's called) is really neo-colonialism in disguise, diminished the report's initial promising reception.
Darfur is a perfect example of what R2P set out to address. The Sudanese government, faced with yet another rebellion, has unleashed a murderous militia, the janjaweed, on the population of western Sudan. The UN estimates that 50,000 people have been killed in the past 18 months, countless women raped, and 1.2 million people forced to flee to refugee camps.
The responsibility of the international community is clear. The Sudanese government is a threat to the population it is charged with protecting. It should be punished, beginning with economic sanctions aimed at its oil industry.
The people of Darfur, meanwhile, need protection. Yesterday, the Security Council received the latest report on Sudan's failure to honour previous UN resolutions. The council must now act swiftly to help the African Union augment a small force already in place. Thousands, rather than hundreds, of troops will be needed, with authority to make and keep the peace. While the AU must lead and manage the intervention, Western nations, including Canada, should foot the bill.
Canada, in fact, was one of a consortium of countries that pressed the Security Council to address the situation in Darfur. Now Canada has an opportunity to take the lead in committing whatever funds are necessary to help the AU do its job.
But it remains unclear whether the Security Council will act. China, which counts on Sudanese oil, and Pakistan (which is currently on the Security Council) are reluctant to intervene and have watered down earlier resolutions. France's position is also unclear, although yesterday the French Defence Minister endorsed expanding the AU's mandate and offered the support of French troops in Chad.
If the Security Council fails to act, then a consortium of nations will need to work directly with the AU. Prime Minister Paul Martin is well-respected on the world stage. The Responsibility to Protect is a Canadian creation, and this is a golden opportunity to put its principles into action. The Prime Minister must know that the whole nation will support the federal government if it takes the lead in ensuring that Rwanda is not repeated in Darfur.
Mea culpa: Yesterday's column erred in saying that the Auditor-General could be given new powers to audit Crown corporations, including the CBC. The Auditor-General already audits some Crown corporations, the CBC being one of them, though many others are currently exempt.
jibbitson@globeandmail.ca
5
