The Liberal government of Jean Chrétien followed a strand of policy based on the human security concept – putting the protection of individuals as a key goal in foreign policy.
The Ottawa Treaty on land mines, perhaps the most well-known of our human security initiatives, taught Canadians and other middle-power countries about their capacities for leadership in a new kind of foreign politics: they could capitalize on their diplomatic soft-power strengths, and work in partnership and collaboration with NGOs, international institutions and private foundations to produce both new norms and initiatives.
In the past, advocating for the protection of individuals from new global threats was usually seen by hard-nosed critics as nothing more than the posturing of a country as an international do-gooder. Kosovo changed that. The ultimate test for a human security policy was a willingness to exercise military force to uphold the principles of protection.
That is why human security and its most direct outcome, “The Responsibility To Protect”, have such relevance to the kind of threats and risks we face today, and why in situations such as we now face in the Middle East with extreme terrorism that we need to more comprehensive approaches based on sound principles of the rule of law. The use of force possibly yes but as part of a broader multi-pronged, multi-literal framework.
Mr. Chrétien’s Cabinet gave approval to establish an International Commission to come up with such a set of prescriptions as a basis for actions against those who used their positions of power to commit crimes against humanity, including rulers who sanctioned the killing of their own people.
The Commission became what we had hoped for—a catalyst for change. Its central theme of Responsibility to Protect, a principle adopted at the UN world Summit in 2005, has become an international focus for debate and decision. Three elements set the prescription for international action: when a state could not protect its citizens, would not protect its citizens, or itself was the predator. The basic formula for action was to Prevent, React, and Rebuild. This became a fundamental guide for international involvement.
That does not challenge the nation state as a bedrock of today’s international governance, but it certainly alters the philosophical base upon which the principle of sovereignty can be used. This is pivotal to the resetting of future global governance possibilities.
I stress that the Commission emphasised that military intervention was the least desirable option – to be considered as a last resort in only the most severe of circumstances. What the Commission promoted above all else is prevention, a concept that is much too often neglected in the debate on intervention.
However much of the discussion on intervention/prevention has been distorted by the questions raised on the NATO mandate to stop Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi, from exterminating a large numbers of his own people. The United Nations Security Council invoked the words “responsibility to protect” when it authorised a military intervention aimed at forestalling potential mass atrocities and crimes against humanity in Libya. The Security Council decision was a high point of application of R2P.
The air campaign was successful in stopping the Gaddafi plan of mass killing. However, Libya is currently facing bloody factional conflict, which resulted, partly, from the lack of effective follow-through after the R2P intervention.
What is important is to build on the R2P framework so that it can form the basis of effective international action in the protection of people, and get away from loose coalitions of the willing with limited rules of agreement, and sporadic coordination.
Elsewhere, I’ve written more extensively how the reform and improvement of R2P should be a priority for liberals around the world. Altering the use of the veto on humanitarian action, substantially improving early warning capacity of the UN, involving women actively in peace-keeping missions, the development of a rapid reaction force to meet a variety of risks, much more effective utilization of financial forensic tools to cut the supply of money to those engaged in crimes against humanity.
This should be a serious source of debate and action for Liberal international in helping to mobilise support for the application of the R2P paradigm as the model for international collaboration.
There is a longing for a different kind of order. It’s the ”Affirmation of Ordinary Life”, as described by The Canadian political philosopher Charles Taylor, in his book The Secular Age. The right to choose, without fear, to raise children, to find employment and to appreciate and respect our natural world. That’s the dream that is now spilling over into the consciousness of a global community.
With this, however, come the responsibilities to share that affirmation and work towards values of human security, well-being and justice beyond our borders, to reach beyond the parochial in defence of human rights. To use the insights of Charles Taylor once more:
Our age makes higher demands of solidarity and benevolence on people today than ever before. Never before have people been asked to stretch out so far, and so consistently, so systematically, so as a matter of course to the stranger outside the gates.
