Conference notes EGMONT

Summary; this is not an official record of proceedings and specific remarks are not necessarily attributable.

Q & A Session

1. Questioned on the big five’s veto (members UNSC) as an inhibiting factor in a rational response, Mr Evans acknowledged there is problem, as well as regarding the weight we want to give to the UNSC. There is no simple answer to this. He stressed that there is a lot of talk about the code of conduct, so that hopefully the chances of consensus will be greater in the future. Not only the criteria of legitimacy have been put on the table, but also the desirability of getting some kind of gentlemen’s agreement among the permanent 5 members of the UNSC that they would not use the veto with thei r own perceived vital national interest in mind.  

2. Admiral Rosiers asked Mr Evans details about his statement that Chapter 7 is a condition. He added that when the military had to intervene, the media immediately focused on them. “Whatever happens, it is seen worldwide and the “wrongs” are easier to sell than the rights. It puts the military in a difficult position when they have to decide to intervene. From a military point of view, intervention should be under Chapter 7 which is difficult to obtain”, stated Rosiers. Furthermore,” soldiers need the rules of engagement and if you don’t have Chapter 7, then they tend to protect themselves before taking action. Belgian troops in Libanon have a self-protection unit”.

Mr Evans responded that the military is blamed for things when policy makers have made mistakes by not clearly lying out a mandate, not clearly giving the appropriate authority or supplying the capacity to employ effectively the rules of engagement. Indeed, in the current ambigious peace operations, where issues such as genocide, crimes against humanity, violence may become an issue, you have to give a full Chapter 7 mandate, he stresssed. "You have to spell out the rules of engagement. Part of the object of the exercice is the civilian protection, this requires much more effort when it comes to defining doctrine etc. and supplying the capacity needed.

Admiral Rosiers also asked about the support needed for the troops to be deployed and to be able to take action, as Mr Evans said the African Union has no mobility, no communications, no planning cells and so, they are not present on the theatre.
Mr Evans said Western countries can help the international community by using the power of the purse to supply the heavy lift capability and the C&C systems, the communication systems, which are part of the peace operations. He uttered that looking for more human power to do the job, China could be a part of the solution.

3. On the question of human rights violations, persecution of the Falun Gong practioners in China, Mr Evans commented that issues of this kind arise in many regimes. According to him, these also should be subject of international discourse or pressure and in the more extreme cases, international coercive actions through santions etc. should be taken.
He added "it is very important to keep the R2P concept defined because it is not applicable in every circomstances. The particular problem is the one where we fail catastrophically as an international community, in the holocaust, in Cambodia, in the Balkans, maybe now in Darfur". He stressed that not every problem can be solved at once. The international community must make it impossible to say 'never again, yet again' and get a genuine consensus about the nature of the response that is required in the extreme situations.

4. He agreed with the participant asking to be more focussed on addressing the underlying causes of conflict and on capacity and nationbuilding as tools to prevent crises. He reiterated that these tools are part of the broader concept of what R2P is all about.

Further info:

* Gareth Evans, International Crisis Group, President and CEO, Brussels, Belgium: his biography

* Report: "THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty": View Document (HTML) (http://www.iciss.ca/report2-en.asp)

This report is about the so-called "right of humanitarian intervention": the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states for take coercive - and in particular military - action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state. The Commission was asked to wrestle with the whole range of questions - legal, moral, operational and political - rolled up in this debate, to consult with the widest possible range of opinion around the world, and to bring back a report that would help the Secretary-General and everyone else find some new common ground.
The report's central theme is "The Responsibility to Protect", the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states. We hope very much that the report will break new ground in a way that helps generate a new international consensus on these issues.