As Canada marks its 150th anniversary, it is high time the country renewed its commitment to mass atrocity prevention and response. One promising way to demonstrate that commitment is by re-engaging with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). R2P is a pledge by states at a United Nations 2005 world summit to carry prime responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Canada played a vital role in the creation of R2P by establishing a commission to address the issue of when state sovereignty must yield to protection against the most egregious violations of humanitarian and international law. In 2000, the Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to respond to the international community’s inadequate prevention of and response to mass atrocities. A year later, ICISS produced the “Responsibility to Protect” report.
Under the leadership of the Conservative government, however, Canada rarely used any R2P language. During this period, civil society organizations and experts in the field continued to highlight the need for Canada to recommit to the norm.
The current current government has an opportunity to re-engage Canada in this framework. In October 2016, for instance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referenced R2P when discussing the crisis in Syria.
The government has also increased “security, stabilization, development and security assistance” in response to the Syrian crisis, which are aligned to pillars of R2P. Canada has also demonstrated support for refugees, many of whom are fleeing areas in which atrocity crimes and violations occur frequently.
Those steps by the Canadian government are commendable; yet, the response by the international community to crises across the world remains inadequate.
Difficult to measure the impact of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine on the ground
This raises the question of whether R2P has actually had an impact where it matters most- preventing and stopping mass atrocities. I think one can clearly argue that R2P has contributed to the way in which actors discuss conflicts in which mass atrocities take place as well as states’ responsibilities in protecting civilians from atrocity crimes and violations. The United Nations Security Council, for instance, has referenced R2P over 50 times in its resolutions since 2006.
What is less clear and harder to measure is how and if R2P has had added value to atrocity prevention and response on the ground. There are a few initiatives and tools that R2P has influenced, including the establishment of R2P Focal Points and the creation of the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. However, there is still much more that different actors, particularly states, can do to prevent mass atrocities.
Gareth Evans played a leading role in the development of R2P as co-chair of the ICISS and chaired a conference, The Responsibility to Protect: Re-Energizing the Key Players, organized by The Simons Foundation and the Simon Fraser University Centre for Dialogue on Wednesday. He recently highlighted the necessity to move beyond “thinking of national interests in just the two bundles of security and prosperity.” Instead, he argues that we need to start thinking of a third national interest: “being, and being seen to be, a good international citizen.”
One way for Canada to demonstrate its commitment to global citizenship is by taking a leading role in advancing the implementation of all three pillars of R2P. This can be done by identifying an R2P focal point; further increasing humanitarian, security and development assistance; as well as by leading discussions on how to support civilians impacted by mass atrocities, such as examining the link between the refugee protection regime and R2P.
As many states continue to fail to protect their civilians and others fail to support those impacted by mass atrocities, many will be looking to countries like Canada to take a leading role in protecting, supporting and empowering those most impacted by grave human rights violations.
Comments