Mr. Secretary-General,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

As I begin my address, I would like to first of all give my warm thanks to Archbishop Migliore. He is a unique, warm outreaching and universally respected, liked and loved diplomat, by all in the UN community in New York-crisscrossing all faiths, groups, caucuses and member states. The Holy Father, the Vatican and the church at large have all reasons to be proud of him.

I would also like to thank the Archbishop and the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See for inviting me to speak today. I have been asked to give a few remarks on the ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ and to reflect upon the address delivered by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the General Assembly in April of last year.

As you recall, at the 2005 World Summit almost four years ago, Heads of States and Governments gathered to decide on bold steps to revitalize the United Nations.  They did not agree on many things.  However, they did manage to unanimously adopt two detailed paragraphs, number 138 and 139, outlining the concept of a ‘responsibility to protect.’

Since the 2005 consensus, the responsibility to protect has emerged on top of the agenda of the international community, and as a key-priority for the UN.  Indeed, it has been the subject of countless speeches, debates, and academic initiatives across the globe.  It has even acquired the ultimate emblem of UN-importance: its own distinct acronym, known as “RtoP.”

In February 2008, the Secretary-General appointed my colleague Dr. Edward Luck as his Special Adviser on RtoP.  Like myself, Professor Luck has two hats – one at the UN, and the other as the Senior Vice President and Director of Studies at the International Peace Institute (IPI).  Since then, IPI has become somewhat of an institutional home for RtoP, a venue for the UN community to come together to discuss both the political and institutional dimensions of the concept.

In the next coming months, the General Assembly is expected to convene a special session to discuss the first major SG-report on RtoP.

We expect a heated debate. 

Yet, despite these recent developments, and as His Holiness Pope Benedict so wisely pointed out in his address to the General Assembly exactly one year ago, the responsibility to protect is really nothing new. 

While it was only recently defined, it was already present implicitly at the origins of the United Nations. Indeed, the preamble to the UN Charter explicitly outlines the duty of every member state to protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It points towards the common responsibility of States to establish conditions under which peace and justice can be maintained. This common responsibility to protect human life and to safeguard human dignity lies at the heart of the United Nations. The concept of RtoP has revitalized this early understanding, and brought new life to these founding principles.

However, for RtoP to be truly meaningful, we need to move from rhetoric to action and from words to deeds. 

It has been said, that RtoP remains one of the most powerful but less understood ideas of our times.  The seemingly simple question of “who should protect whom, and from what?” continues to generate a variety of different responses.

The first step, therefore, should be to establish a common understanding of what RtoP is, and more importantly, what it is not. 

Fortunately, several UN documents – including the recent SG’s report – provide both conceptual and strategic guidance on how to move forward. In particular, the three pillars of RtoP, as outlined in the SG’s report, provide a sound basis for constructive dialogue.

Let me briefly describe the three pillar concept.

(1)The first pillar rests on the 2005 Summit Outcome, affirming the primary and legal obligations of States to protect their populations – whether citizens or not – from four specific crimes, namely, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. 

This pillar firmly restricts the scope of RtoP’s protection mandate to these specific crimes. Extending the concept to cover other atrocities would risk undermining the 2005 consensus. It would also entail stretching the concept beyond recognition or operational utility.

(2)The second pillar emphasizes the importance of building the capacity of States to meet these obligations.  The SG has identified several types of capacities needed to prevent RtoP violations. Some of them are: conflict-sensitive development analysis; mediation capacity; and local conflict-resolution capacity, to name just a few.  However, for the second pillar to be truly solid, we need to know more about the specific causes and indicators of RtoP situations.

Here, additional analysis and research is required to better define what capacities States need to live up to their promise.

(3)The third pillar is much discussed, but generally poorly understood.  It outlines the range of possible responses by the UN system to be employed when States are unwilling or unable to respond to an RtoP situation.  Here, it is important to emphasize that the response should not focus exclusively on Chapter VI or VII actions, but rather, it should draw on the whole spectrum of the UN machinery, including Chapter VIII measures.  The key lies in an early and flexible response, tailored to the specific needs of each situation and drawing on the strengths of both the UN system and its partners.

Much of the controversy surrounding the third pillar lies in the concern that powerful states would abuse RtoP by citing it as a pretext for intervention. But, by sticking to the Charter based definition of RtoP as outlined in the SG’s report we can avoid such a misinterpretation of the term, and the suspicion that comes with it.

Ultimately, turning the rhetoric of RtoP into action will require not only a conceptual framework, but also bold practical steps to apply the concept.  In this regard, I’d like to once again revert to the words by His Holiness Pope Benedict, who stated that when “faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.”

As we continue to implement the concept of RtoP, we should keep these words in mind. 

Continuing to build trust around the term will take conceptual discipline, but also political courage.

And last, but not least, it will take leadership. Not only from the UN Secretary-General, but from sovereign states themselves.  Only then will the concept of RtoP reach to its full and intended potential.

Thank you.