Responsibility to Protect: Chinas Version

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was accepted as a global norm at the World Summit
Conference held at the United Nations in 2005. The Outcome Document of the
Conference in paragraphs 138 and 139 accepted that all states have the responsibility to
protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity. It also empowered the international community, through the United
Nations, to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in
accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter. They also expressed their
preparedness to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the
Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-bycase

basis

This principle and consensus came about after the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty, established by Canada in 2000, came out with its
report, commonly known as Responsibility to Protect, in December 2001. This was a
consequence of the massacres in Rwanda in 1994 of over 500,000 mainly Tutsis, and in
Srebrenica, former Yugoslavia in 1995 of 8,000 Muslim men. The respective states
were either helpless or collusive and the world stood by silently. This was a blot on
humanity. In turn it called for norms to legitimise humanitarian intervention to prevent
such

atrocities

in

future.

The norms set out under the Outcome Document are necessary commitments and no
nation in the 21st century can afford to take these responsibilities lightly.
Understandably, world leaders came to extend their support unanimously. But, some
doubts lingered regarding how these were to be implemented in practice. How would it
ensure that state sovereignty would not be trampled at will? In a world where national
interests generally seemed to trounce over genuine humanitarian concerns, would the
R2P be used to ride rough shod over sovereign states? Would R2P provisions be used to
bring

about

regime

change?

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in September 2011, PM Manmohan Singh had

said, Actions taken under the authority of the United Nations must respect the unity,
territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of individual states. It believes that

use of force under R2P should not be the first response and used only when all other
means

have

been

considered

and

exhausted.

Libya became a test case of the use of R2P, and UN Resolution 1973 laid down the
provisions of intervention. Regrettably, most of these were violated in practice;
particularly pursuit of ceasefire, arms embargo, and no-fly zone. Instead the focus was
on

bringing

about

regime

change.

Hence, while there is agreement on international responsibility for protecting civilians

in internal conflicts, there is insufficient clarity over the means to bring this about. In
turn,

this

has

led

to

an

active

international

debate.

Brazil has suggested adopting a policy of Responsibility while Protecting

(RwP).While accepting the need to protect civilians in danger, international response,
according to it, should be guided by caution, minimum use of force and after due
deliberation. It should be exercised after exhausting all peaceful means and it must
produce as little violence and internal instability as possible. Military action must
adhere to the letter and spirit of the mandate and in the event that force is actually used,
this must be judicious, proportionate and limited to the objectives established by the
Security

Council.

China recently has expressed major reservations about R2P and has proposed
Responsible Protection as the means to ensure this mandate. The China Institute of
International Studies, its senior most think-tank reporting to the Foreign Ministry, called
a small international group of experts to consider this at a conference in Beijing in
October

2013

(at

which

this

author

was

participant).

It was clear that Chinas response is in the backdrop of the strong recommendation for
intervening in Syria, which Beijing and Moscow opposes. It is also important as China
is demonstrating its willingness to stand up to norms which are in the process of being
established by the West. It feels that as an emerging global player it needs now to set its
own norms or be actively involved in setting new terms. In the process, it recommends
four principles. Responsibility primarily vests in the government concerned, the concept
of R2P applies only to the four international crimes, intervention must be proportionate,

and

use

of

force

must

only

be

authorized

by

the

UNSC.

Amplifying this, Beijing recommends six principles that should be adhered to under
what

it

calls

Responsible

Protection:

Object of intervention must clearly be to protect the people of the target country
The

legitimacy

The

means

of

the

of

protection
protection

executors
must

must
be

be

established

strictly

limited

Purpose of protection must be clearly defined; the patient must not be killed as a
result

of

Protectors

must

be

responsible

intervention
for

post

intervention

reconstruction

The UN should establish mechanisms for supervision, outcome evaluation and postfactum

accountability.

This position of China on an issue of major international concern today reflects both
Chinas emerging thinking and its likely role in international issues in future; a concern
that the international community will be wise to take in to account.

Fonte:

BANERJEE,

Dipankar.

http://www.ipcs.org/article/china/responsibility-to-

protect-chinas-version-4176.html. 14 de novembro de 2013.