This House believes the United Nations has a responsibility to protect.

Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on this responsibility to protect people when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so, in order to prevent mass killings, genocide and other atrocities[1]. If we believe human rights have any meaning at all, then they must be universal and therefore our obligation to protect citizens from such horrors must apply regardless of state boundaries. Moving from a situation where the UN placed the rights of states above those of their people, to one where individual rights are given the greater priority is surely morally essential.

[1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop#sg_report

There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be right for individual states, or coalitions of the willing to take action to protect innocent life elsewhere in the world, even if the Security Council refused to deliver on its promises. Under the proposition, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1998/99 was wrong, and so was Vietnam's in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania's in Uganda to stop Idi Amin's bloodshed, etc. - none of these had Security Council support.

Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring swift action from the international community. Only once their ability to hide behind claims to absolute sovereignty has been removed will human rights have to be taken seriously by dictators and extremist regimes. Thus by adopting a strong UN position on the Responsibility to Protect, we can hope to make states take their own responsibilities more seriously and make the need for any actual intervention rare. For example, Omar Al-Bashir of the Sudan has committed horrible atrocities against his own people. He is complicit in committing genocide against Darfur populations, yet remains in power. There is a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, but they have little ability to act upon their threats[1].  A strong commitment to the responsibility to protect would ensure leaders like Bashir think twice before permitting such atrocities to take place, through fear for their own grip on power.  

[1] New York Times (2011), “Omar Hassan al-Bashir”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/omar_hassan_al_bashir/index.html

An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi responded by strengthening the crackdown on protestors and preparing for an all-out assault on the Eastern town of Benghazi[1]. The intent to protect civilians in this case served only to increase the will of the leader to harm them. Furthermore, many of the nasty or failing regimes who might be fearful of intervention have a Security Council patron whom they can rely upon to prevent any action being taken against them. If the UN has an obligation to act to prevent atrocities such as genocide, then vetoes will be used to prevent the Security Council recognizing that such a situation exists in the first place. Though it has recently joined UN resolutions on Sudan, China blocked moves to impose sanctions on Sudan before 2007, largely due to favorable economic ties with the state[2]. Finally, this proposal may make atrocities more likely, by encouraging rebel groups to provoke ill-disciplined government forces into committing gross human rights violations, such as massacres, in the hope that such a response will draw in international forces on their own side.

[1] Buck, T. & Clover, C. (2011), “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi”, Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4a0f746-5200-11e0-8a31-00144feab49a.html#axzz1XS8E2lxz

[2] BBC News (2007), “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6323017.stm

Al Jazeera, 'China bolsters economic ties with Sudan', 29 June 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html

We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified[1]. For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi[2]. As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action[3]. Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.

[1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop

[2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624

[3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times, http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/in-libyas-west-signs-of-growing-frustration-with-nato/?scp=2&sq=libya&st=cse

That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the government no longer sovereign, then who is in charge? Is the UN going to set up a new government and country in the aftermath? That is a large commitment that such a large organization may not be able to execute no matter how ideal. 

It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives.  The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur are all horrible examples where genocide and other appalling violations of human rights were inflicted upon civilian populations while the UN failed to act[1]. Clearly in all the past cases where action might have saved lives and delivered hundreds of thousands of people from evil, no action was taken by the Security Council. Therefore those who argue that future challenges should be considered purely on a case-by-case basis must accept that this is likely to mean yet more refusals to act decisively and so more needless suffering. We must place an obligation to act on the Security Council so that they are predisposed to respond seriously and swiftly in future. If there is a known atrocity going on in the international community, the Security Council should no longer be allowed to ignore it based on their individual ties. For example China could not defend the Sudan even though they have close financial ties when intervention for human rights abuses is the norm[2]. The world responded to the holocaust saying ‘never again’, yet similar ethnic cleansing has happened over and over again, and in defense of human rights the UN needs to adopt a no tolerance policy. Countries who are not prepared for this obligation should step down from the Security Council.

[1] Prevent Genocide, “Past Genocides”, http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/

[2] Aljazeera (2011), “China Bolsters Economic Ties with Sudan”, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html

Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the deep seated tensions in countries like the Sudan and Somalia[1]. Talk of prevention and of using non-military means to ensure states protect their own people properly is little different from existing UN commitments. The UN has failed in the past to head off humanitarian crises and there is nothing in the new Declarations to make it more likely to be successful in future. If the responsibility to protect means anything, it is to weaken the concept of sovereignty and make military intervention more likely.

[1] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, http://www.genocideintervention.net/area_of_concern/sudan

Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on this responsibility to protect people when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so, in order to prevent mass killings, genocide and other atrocities[1]. If we believe human rights have any meaning at all, then they must be universal and therefore our obligation to protect citizens from such horrors must apply regardless of state boundaries. Moving from a situation where the UN placed the rights of states above those of their people, to one where individual rights are given the greater priority is surely morally essential.

[1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop#sg_report

There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be right for individual states, or coalitions of the willing to take action to protect innocent life elsewhere in the world, even if the Security Council refused to deliver on its promises. Under the proposition, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1998/99 was wrong, and so was Vietnam's in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania's in Uganda to stop Idi Amin's bloodshed, etc. - none of these had Security Council support.

Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring swift action from the international community. Only once their ability to hide behind claims to absolute sovereignty has been removed will human rights have to be taken seriously by dictators and extremist regimes. Thus by adopting a strong UN position on the Responsibility to Protect, we can hope to make states take their own responsibilities more seriously and make the need for any actual intervention rare. For example, Omar Al-Bashir of the Sudan has committed horrible atrocities against his own people. He is complicit in committing genocide against Darfur populations, yet remains in power. There is a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, but they have little ability to act upon their threats[1].  A strong commitment to the responsibility to protect would ensure leaders like Bashir think twice before permitting such atrocities to take place, through fear for their own grip on power.  

[1] New York Times (2011), “Omar Hassan al-Bashir”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/omar_hassan_al_bashir/index.html

An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi responded by strengthening the crackdown on protestors and preparing for an all-out assault on the Eastern town of Benghazi[1]. The intent to protect civilians in this case served only to increase the will of the leader to harm them. Furthermore, many of the nasty or failing regimes who might be fearful of intervention have a Security Council patron whom they can rely upon to prevent any action being taken against them. If the UN has an obligation to act to prevent atrocities such as genocide, then vetoes will be used to prevent the Security Council recognizing that such a situation exists in the first place. Though it has recently joined UN resolutions on Sudan, China blocked moves to impose sanctions on Sudan before 2007, largely due to favorable economic ties with the state[2]. Finally, this proposal may make atrocities more likely, by encouraging rebel groups to provoke ill-disciplined government forces into committing gross human rights violations, such as massacres, in the hope that such a response will draw in international forces on their own side.

[1] Buck, T. & Clover, C. (2011), “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi”, Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4a0f746-5200-11e0-8a31-00144feab49a.html#axzz1XS8E2lxz

[2] BBC News (2007), “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6323017.stm

Al Jazeera, 'China bolsters economic ties with Sudan', 29 June 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html

We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified[1]. For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi[2]. As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action[3]. Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.

[1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop

[2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624

[3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times, http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/in-libyas-west-signs-of-growing-frustration-with-nato/?scp=2&sq=libya&st=cse

That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the government no longer sovereign, then who is in charge? Is the UN going to set up a new government and country in the aftermath? That is a large commitment that such a large organization may not be able to execute no matter how ideal. 

It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives.  The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur are all horrible examples where genocide and other appalling violations of human rights were inflicted upon civilian populations while the UN failed to act[1]. Clearly in all the past cases where action might have saved lives and delivered hundreds of thousands of people from evil, no action was taken by the Security Council. Therefore those who argue that future challenges should be considered purely on a case-by-case basis must accept that this is likely to mean yet more refusals to act decisively and so more needless suffering. We must place an obligation to act on the Security Council so that they are predisposed to respond seriously and swiftly in future. If there is a known atrocity going on in the international community, the Security Council should no longer be allowed to ignore it based on their individual ties. For example China could not defend the Sudan even though they have close financial ties when intervention for human rights abuses is the norm[2]. The world responded to the holocaust saying ‘never again’, yet similar ethnic cleansing has happened over and over again, and in defense of human rights the UN needs to adopt a no tolerance policy. Countries who are not prepared for this obligation should step down from the Security Council.

[1] Prevent Genocide, “Past Genocides”, http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/

[2] Aljazeera (2011), “China Bolsters Economic Ties with Sudan”, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html

Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the deep seated tensions in countries like the Sudan and Somalia[1]. Talk of prevention and of using non-military means to ensure states protect their own people properly is little different from existing UN commitments. The UN has failed in the past to head off humanitarian crises and there is nothing in the new Declarations to make it more likely to be successful in future. If the responsibility to protect means anything, it is to weaken the concept of sovereignty and make military intervention more likely.

[1] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, http://www.genocideintervention.net/area_of_concern/sudan

From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but the nation state has a good record of delivering responsive, accountable government to which individual citizens can feel a strong personal commitment, and which is able to meet their particular cultural, religious, environmental and economic needs[1]. International institutions are at best impersonal and remote and at worst an unaccountable and undemocratic imposition. It is right to oppose any language and commitments which would advance the cause of those who would turn the UN into a world government.

[1] The Economist (1999), “Garibaldi and the 1,000”, http://www.economist.com/node/346847   

The UN is the organization best equipped to deal with these types of interventions. If individual countries take action there are automatically thoughts of motive, and they can never be seen as a pure unbiased actor. Further, countries don’t want to take action because they do not want to become tied to the countries that they helped, whereas the UN does not have an aversion to commitment[1]. Having a strict framework directing intervention can prevent the UN from becoming the international government.

[1] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ir317/clark.htm

A blanket commitment could lead the United Nations and the word into great dangers. It must be considered whether intervention with force is always practical. For example, in the past China's government has committed horrific human rights abuses, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacre. These surely show a state unable or unwilling to protect its citizens and would have invited intervention under this proposal. Or perhaps you feel these are purely historical examples - but what if the Chinese regime in future used horrific force to put down future risings by Uighur or Tibetan ethnic minorities? Or what about present Russian behavior in Chechnya? Would the UN really deliver on an intervention in members of the security council? Where do they draw the line? How do they decide which countries have revoked sovereignty with their actions? How many people have to die? One of the concerns with the NATO invasion in Libya is that it sets a dangerous precedent[1]. The UN would very likely be taking far too much on if they truly adopt the “responsibility to protect” particularly because it is difficult to justly define when a government has gone too far.

[1] Bajoria, Jayshree (2011), “Libya and the Responsibility to Protect”, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480

It is not difficult to set up basic guidelines as to determining when a situation has gone too far. Even proponents of Responsibility to protect agree on certain criteria particularly right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable

Prospects.[1] The last of these criteria will rule out any intervention against a great power such as China where there would not be reasonable prospects of success unless disproportionate means (something like a preemptive nuclear strike) was used. Questions like ‘how many have to die?’ are therefore not asking the right questions because the loss of life could be relatively small (it also assumes that only killing matters) if all the criteria are fulfilled. While this would regrettably constrain any ‘responsibility to protect’ it would at the same time mean that R2P would not become an excuse for starting large scale wars.

[1] Evans, Gareth et al., The Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, p.32 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf

The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time[1]. At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems[2].  This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to.

[1] Schaefer, Brett, (2005) ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/09/The-UN-Summit-Document-At-What-Cost

[2] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ir317/clark.htm

The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. Without a clear global commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, the UN will always be scrabbling scrambling around to meet its needs in dealing with individual crises. Once there is clear agreement on the kind of situation which will in future prompt intervention, the UN can begin to plan ahead to build up resources, create contingency funds, and seek pledges of military units from member states, to be activated swiftly as needed. This could most easily be done regionally through the regional security organizations such as NATO and the African Union that it was originally intended would provide this kind of security. If the member states of one organization lacked some necessary equipment such as transport capacity they could borrow them from neighboring organizations. 

We all have a moral duty to protect human rights and prevent atrocities, but we do not need to make a vague and open-ended commitment. In particular there is a big difference between a genocide pursued by a strong, centralized state victimizing its own people, and the inability of a failing state to protect its civilians in a time of civil war or ethnic unrest. For example the genocide in Sudan is inflicted by the government, yet the situation in Somalia is entirely different since they lack a government and violence stems from rebel groups in the country[1][2]. Making decisions on a case-by-case basis recognizes that every crisis is different in character and requires a different and proportionate response be it military or humanitarian.

[1] New York Times (2011), “Somalia”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/somalia/index.html

[2] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, http://www.genocideintervention.net/area_of_concern/sudan

Acting on a case-by-case basis does not establish an effective deterrent. If a leader does not know for certain that their action is going to lead to an intervention, they can’t be deterred. In order for them to be deterred, they need to know by which standards their actions will be assessed and acted upon. On a case-by-case basis, there is no such consistency established.

The UN needs to adopt an equal treatment of every country and situation under a responsibility to protect clause so that the least powerful in this world do not go unprotected.