"Towards a Culture of Protection" - Keynote speech for the International Symposium on "the UN and Japan: What is the role of Japan in the 21st century UN"

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
By Kenzo Oshima
United Nations
Under secretary-General For Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator

Tokyo, 10 June 2001

Excellencies,
Distinguished colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful for the opportunity to address this distinguished group of experts at this unique event. The organizers of the symposium raised the question as to what Japan’s role will be in the United Nations of the 21st century. In my view this role will largely depend on the challenges that are posed to the world community in its entirety within this century. Certainly, one of the main challenges remains the protection of civilians caught in armed conflict.

Characteristics of contemporary conflict

Throughout the world, civilians continue to be the primary victims of war, often deliberately targeted, living in daily fear for their lives and deprived of a stable future. The Secretary-General’s recent report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict estimates the proportion of civilian war victims at 75 percent, and in some cases even higher. I would like to add a few figures that further highlight this dramatic development. By the end of 1999 there were 40 armed conflicts being fought on the territories of 36 countries, a third of which occurred in Asia. An estimated 20-25 million persons are currently displaced within the borders of their own countries, often deprived of any form of shelter and lacking even basic food supplies or health care. Although the real figures are unknown, as agencies, are mandated to save lives and not tally the number of civilians killed, researchers estimated the toll of civilian casualties in armed conflicts during the last decade alone at more than five million lives. Recent estimates in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo add the disturbing number of 3.5 million civilian mortalities since the beginning of the war in August 1998.

At the center of this shocking increase is the emergence of civilians as the deliberate targets of warfare rather than its incidental victims, as was the case when wars were matters of inter-State affairs or, as von Clausewitz, the famous Prussian General, put it, "the continuation of politics by other means." Today’s wars are mostly civil wars, no longer fought between sovereign countries but between internal groups.

They are characterized by a vicious blend of ethnic, religious or social hatred and envy often mobilized by a small elite for reasons of personal or political short-term gain. West-Africa and the Great Lakes have seen the outbreak of gruesome violence and the emergence of large-scale regional warfare due to cross-border operations of criminal armed gangs, vigilantes, and militias that are often without any particular ideology and mainly driven by the will to exploit their counties’ diamond, gold and other resources, at any cost. Targeting civilians, instigating violence of civilians against civilians have become centerpieces of their strategy. The involvement of local and international corporations has proven to be a key factor in this respect, often fueling or prolonging these conflicts. Worldwide, the number of wars fought has increased significantly in recent years.

Protection of civilians as a matter of international concern

In response to the growing international concern over the ever-increasing toll of civilian lives taken during conflict, and consistent with the emerging holistic understanding of "threats to international peace and security" during the 1990s, the President of the Security Council on 12 February 1999 requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on ways the Council, acting within its sphere of responsibility, could improve the physical and legal protection of civilians in situations of armed conflict. The report was submitted to the Council on 8 September 1999 (S/1999/957) and followed by SC resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000) which largely endorsed the Secretary-General’s findings. Requested to make additional recommendations, the Secretary-General presented a second report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict on 30 March of this year (S/2001/331). In addition, all 189 Member States of the organization pledged in the United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/RES/55/2), adopted at the Millennium Summit in September 2000, to "expand and strengthen the protection of civilians in complex emergencies, in conformity with international humanitarian law."

Despite the growing attention that the fate of civilians caught in conflict has received, the Secretary-General’s two reports on the matter had to paint a stark picture of the realities faced by millions of civilians around the world in situations of armed conflict. The recruitment and use of child soldiers, the proliferation in trafficking of small arms, the indiscriminate use of landmines, large scale forced displacement and ethnic cleansing, the devastating effects of war on women and children, the denial of even the most basic human rights and widespread impunity for atrocities, have remained familiar features of wars around the world. The growing number of threats to the lives of local and international staff members of international organizations and other aid groups has added one more shameful characteristic to the reality of today’s conflicts.

Therefore, the protection of civilians remains at the center of the United Nations mandate and daily activities. It is a moral imperative to step up our joint efforts in establishing the "culture of protection" that the Secretary-General has called for in his recent report. A culture that holds the security of the individual at its core and is marked by governments living up to their responsibilities, armed groups respecting the recognized rules of international humanitarian law, a private sector conscious of the potential impact of its pursuit in crisis areas, and Member States and international organizations displaying the necessary commitment to ensure decisive and rapid action in the face of crisis.

The establishment of this culture, however, will depend on the willingness of Member States not only to adopt some of the measures detailed below, but also to deal with the reality of armed groups and other non-state actors in conflicts, and the role of civil society in moving from vulnerability to security and from war to peace. With its long-standing commitment to humanitarian assistance and its own history of renouncing war as a right of the state (Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution), Japan has a pivotal role to play in strengthening the protection of civilians in war.

Understanding of protection

But, what do we mean by protection? ‘Protection’ is a concept that has many different faces and has not been conclusively defined. Protection involves a diversity of actors and approaches, depending on the circumstances and stages of a particular conflict. Armed conflict does not involve full-scale combat. In fact, many countries are caught in the grey and unpredictable zone between war and peace: in time, armed conflict may erupt sporadically in parts of the country, may tend to intensify or to subside.

In these situations, it often is the diversity of actors and mandates that helps to cover a wide range of needs in a given conflict area. Relevant activities may include the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the monitoring and recording of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, and their subsequent reporting to those responsible and other decision-makers; institution building, governance and development programs; and, ultimately, also the deployment of peacekeeping troops. The scope of protection has grown in the last decades in an effort to meet the challenges of contemporary war.

None of these activities, however, can substitute for the indispensable political process going in parallel. Protecting civilians is most effectively done by preventing violent conflict - the "culture of prevention" called for by the Security Council in November 1999 (S/PRST/1999/34) - or ending the conflict altogether and building sustainable peace - the need for lasting solutions against a recurrence of conflict, stressed by the Council in February 2001 (S/PRST/2001/5).

The primary challenge, however, remains ensuring the security and physical integrity of those civilians whose lives are threatened in situations of deliberate attack. How can we prevent the occurrence of another Srebrenica or Rwanda? What should our response be to mass rapes or the egregious amputations of arms and legs of even small children in Sierra Leone? Can we tolerate the expulsion of virtually an entire people from its homelands in Kosovo? There are no easy answers to these questions. And yet, the fact that many of these acts take place within the borders of a State must not confine us to being by-standers to those outrageous atrocities. The object of any protection effort must be the individual and the community rather than the security interests of the state. The more secure the individual, the more secure the state.

Let me be clear in this context: I do not agree with those who believe that the concept of sovereignty is outdated. On the contrary, sovereignty continues to be the cornerstone of both international and national stability. It is States and their governments that organize social security and health systems not NGOs, individuals or international organizations. Sovereignty, however, comes with responsibility, responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Sovereignty can no longer be accepted as an absolute shield that allows the commission of blatant violations of the recognized rules and standards of humanity with impunity. So far, the practice of the two ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the establishment of the International Criminal Court best illuminate this new mantra. In addition, the Secretary-General has urged the Security Council to consider the imposition of appropriate enforcement action in the face of massive and ongoing abuses - a difficult but, in my view, necessary discussion that must involve relevant actors North and South, East and West. In this respect, an independent International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was created in September 2000, to build a broader understanding of these issues and to bridge the two concepts.

Primary protection responsibilities

It is clear that any intervention can only be a means of last resort in exceptional circumstances. In reality, only few of today’s conflicts have even seen the deployment of peacekeeping forces. Humanitarian agencies - UN and NGOs - are the only international presence on the ground. As I am delivering this speech, international aid workers in many parts of the world struggle to secure the mere survival and preserve the physical integrity of vulnerable civilians in situations of war, often at great risk to their own lives. The numbers of 198 UN civilian staff members killed and 240 taken hostage or kidnapped between 1 January 1992 and 20 March 2001 speak for themselves in this respect. The real test therefore lies in strengthening the capacity and efficacy of agencies on the ground to improve the conditions of civilians caught in conflict zones through their daily work.

As experience has proven, any effective protection on the ground requires the commitment of and the engagement with the parties to the conflict. When addressing the parties in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Secretary-General reminded them that the United Nations and its member states, as well as other relevant agencies, can only assist where those most responsible are themselves reliably committed. In particular, Governments must show the necessary commitment to fulfill the international obligations regarding the protection of civilians they have pledged to adhere to.

As stated in the Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance adopted by General Assembly resolution 46/182 of 19 December 1991, the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians rests with Governments. This entails the initiation, organization, coordination, and implementation of humanitarian assistance within its territory. Where a government is prevented from protecting its citizens, either due to lack of resources or lack of de facto control over part of its territory, exercising its responsibility may require seeking the support of the international aid system, which has been established for precisely this purpose. Regrettably, in times of conflict, many Governments are unwilling to live up to this responsibility; in fact, they often constitute the major impediment to any meaningful humanitarian assistance. It is this interface between national responsibility and international support that continues to pose a prime challenge to the international community. International efforts can never replace the primary responsibility of Governments. They can only be complementary where these actors fail to live up to their obligations.

At the same time, armed groups and other non-state actors have a direct responsibility according to common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law to protect civilian populations in armed conflict. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires all parties of a non-international conflict to respect that violence to life and person are prohibited at anytime and any place. It is the deliberate failure or the incapability of these actors to adhere to international law that results in the devastating effects of armed conflict on civilians throughout the world.

I realize, of course, that the immediate impact of the existing rules on the actual situation of civilians caught in zones of conflict has been limited. But there is also a widespread misconception that international humanitarian law was developed in large part to protect the civilian population in times of war. In fact, the category of civilian was originally defined in order to exclude such persons from protection that was accorded to belligerents. The Secretary-General’s two reports on the protection of civilians in armed conflict in conjunction with the two SC resolutions adopted since 1999, and the presidential statements of 12 February 1999 have therefore contributed to advancing the normative framework for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. They clearly demarcate the limits of acceptable behavior in times of war and outlaw those operating outside this framework.

The issues involved

As it happened on other issues in the past - for example the abolition of slavery or colonialism - I firmly believe that the persistent recollection and raising of these normative bars will eventually lead to more compliant behavior of those who are the main sources of threat and insecurity to civilians in zones of conflict. Already, it has led to a convergence of views in identifying and defining the core issues pertaining to the protection of distressed populations. Following, I would like to highlight some of these issues, concerns and trends.

1. Prosecution of violations of international criminal law

Internationally recognized standards of protection will only be effectively upheld when they are given the force of law. Safe havens for mass murders and torturers are no longer acceptable nor is the granting of amnesties in the name of raison d’etat. The landmark establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda underlined that nobody is above the law. These developments are complemented by significant advances in international criminal law through the jurisprudence of the two ad hoc tribunals and by the rapidly growing number of ratifications of the Rome Statute. In this respect, I would like to encourage Japan to join the currently 139 signatories of the Rome Statute and 32 ratifying countries by signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This emerging paradigm of international criminal justice confronts perpetrators of grave violations with the real possibility of prosecution for past, present and future crimes.

The recent arrest, indictment and eventual sentencing of former or current heads of state or government have allowed prosecutors to further penetrate the shield of immunity. Courts are increasingly willing to send the message that nobody is above the law. As I referred to earlier, the Secretary-General in his latest report makes a very clear statement against the granting of amnesties to those who committed serious violations of international humanitarian and criminal law. The experience of Sierra Leone has confirmed that such amnesties do not bring about lasting peace and reconciliation.

Despite the important role that international prosecution plays to encourage compliance with international law, consistent enforcement depends primarily on the commitment and cooperation of national jurisdictions. The Secretary-General emphasized in his report that the prosecution of individuals is, first and foremost, a responsibility of the state concerned. International justice can only complement these efforts when states are genuinely unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute.

In particular, a growing number of States have started to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction. The most publicized examples were the United Kingdom's arrest of former Chilean President Pinochet on charges of torture, at the request of Spanish authorities, and the arrest of Chad’s former President Hissein Habré by Senegal on similar charges. The application of this principle can be an essential stimulus for justice and reconciliation in the country of the perpetrator’s origin.

The fair prosecution and trial of individual suspects, complemented by a thoughtful truth and reconciliation process, can help significantly to build confidence and facilitate reconciliation in post-conflict societies, by removing collective attributions of guilt against groups. Well-publicized prosecutions can deter crimes in current and future conflicts. However, establishing courts without secure and sustained funding, and without follow-up efforts to rebuild national criminal justice systems, can be a disservice to victims of large-scale violence, and can undermine their confidence in justice. The proposed courts in Sierra Leone and East Timor received particular attention during the recent Security Council open debate on the protection of civilians in armed in support of the Secretary-General’s pleas to provide financial backing.

2. Access to vulnerable populations

Having access to vulnerable populations is the prerequisite to any form of effective protection. In many conflicts, safe and unhindered access to war-affected populations is only sporadically granted, conditioned, delayed, or even bluntly denied. When I recently visited the Democratic Republic of Congo, I was told that humanitarian convoys sometimes take up to 4 weeks to reach their destination and that access had to be re-negotiated at every roadblock along the way. The consequences are often devastating: entire communities are deprived of even basic assistance and protection. Such occurrences must be well documented, as those denying access must understand that their criminal conduct will lead to adequate legal consequences.

Due to the internal nature of most conflicts, United Nations agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organizations, increasingly, have had to negotiate access with Governments or armed groups in order to render assistance and protection to those in need. These negotiations cannot await the outcome of often-prolonged peace negotiations granting regular access – they must be understood as a humanitarian emergency necessity. Given the highly complex context in which most of these negotiations take place, involving a diversity of warring parties and international actors, the need for common standards and complementary negotiation strategies as well as skilled negotiators is evident. In this respect, my Office is currently working with relevant agencies on a manual of best practices for engagement with armed groups and access negotiations.

3. Internally displaced persons

Meaningful access is particularly important when reaching out to the estimated 20-25 million people who are displaced within the borders of their country as a result of conflict. Because there is no established system of international protection and assistance for internally displaced persons, the response to their needs has often been inconsistent, and ineffective. In this respect, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, developed by the Secretary General’s Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, Dr, Francis Deng, have come more and more to be regarded as a tool for addressing the basic needs of such people. For example, in Colombia and Angola, Governments have integrated the Guiding Principles into national policy and legislation. Japan’s support for Dr. Deng’s work has been extremely important in this context.

In addition, the Secretary-General has just recently approved of plans to establish an inter-agency secretariat within OCHA to enhance the collaborative approach within the UN system in better addressing the protection and assistance needs of these dispossessed people.

4. Separation of civilians and armed elements

As recent examples in the Mano River Union in West-Africa, or the border regions of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, or even the still contentious situation between West Timor and East Timor have proven, the safety of refugees has increasingly become a matter of international concern, as has the security of States hosting large refugee populations or having such populations near their borders. The presence of combatants in camps for displaced persons can destabilize the situation in an entire sub-region or regions, and thereby internationalize an initially local conflict.

The failure to separate armed elements from civilians has led to devastating situations in and around such camps and settlements. As the example of West Timor shows, not separating combatants from civilians regularly allows armed groups to take over control of the camp and its population, politicizing their situation and gradually establishing a military culture within the camp. The impact on the safety and security of both the camp population and the neighboring local population is severe. Entire camp populations can be held hostage by militias that operate freely in the camps, spread terror, gang-press civilians, including children, into servicing their forces, sexually assaulting women, and deliberately preventing return. In addition, humanitarian aid and supplies often are diverted to these armed elements in pursuit of their military agenda, depriving the intended civilian beneficiaries of such supplies. Finally, the blurred lines between the civilian and military character of camps exposes its civilian population to the increased likelihood of attack by opposing forces where camps are perceived to serve as launching pads to re-ignite fighting.

There are a few pivotal steps that I deem necessary in this respect: first, it is critically important to preserve, at the earliest stage possible, the civilian character of camps and settlements for displaced persons - refugees and internally displaced persons - by separating civilians from armed elements that move with them.

Second, it is necessary that we take a well-designed regional approach to situations of massive displacement. This may entail the establishment of a forum for dialogue among all affected countries of the region, non-governmental organizations, United Nations agencies, donors and others. Their aims may include solving the root causes of displacement, restoring peace, promoting integration of displaced persons in host countries, seeking resettlement in third countries, or bringing all of the displaced back to their homeland. With the end of the Cold War, and its rigid division of the world, it is time to make better use of the potential of regional approaches.

Third, establishing and ensuring security in camps requires the involvement of police and military force, to disarm and demobilize militias and transferring them to different sites. Humanitarian agencies cannot identify, intern, disarm and demobilize armed elements present in refugee camps. These agencies have neither the mandate nor the means to carry out these activities. Member States, on the other hand, are reluctant in these circumstances due to the perceived security risk to their military personnel and the risk of direct confrontations with the armed elements.

In his two reports, the Secretary-General therefore recommends a set of tools, including the deployment of regional or international military forces. Individual member states have started to develop concepts and practical methods for turning these recommendations into practice, including support and training for national police forces through the involvement of international police. In addition, Member States can bilaterally support the efforts of the law enforcement agencies of host states in establishing adequate security arrangements in camps, so as to deter infiltration by armed elements.

5. Children in armed conflict

In today’s conflicts, children are in many ways the most tragic victims. The images of children taking part in armed conflict and stories of horrific atrocities committed by such child soldiers have shocked the world. Yet the practice of recruiting child soldiers by drugging, brutalizing and even kidnapping them from their schools continues in many countries. In accordance with international law, those who recruit and have command responsibility for such children should be held responsible for the crimes they commit.

In addition, it is estimated that more than 22 million children have been displaced as a result of conflict within and outside their countries. In the last decade alone, some two million of the world’s youngest have died as a direct result of armed conflict. It is clear that the traditional values that once protected children from harm are no longer respected or recognized. It is therefore essential to respect and apply the international standards pertaining to the protection of children. In this respect, I would like to encourage Japan to sign and ratify the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

6. Small Arms and light weapons

One of the greatest challenges facing the international community is the reduction of the exceedingly high availability of small arms and light weapons in areas of conflict around the world. Researchers have stated that, of the 49 regional conflicts that have broken out since 1990, light weapons were the only arms used in 46 of those conflicts. The combination of inadequate controls on the transfer of small arms and their low cost and ease of operation make small arms a suitable tool for frequent use against large segments of the civilian population, a development that threatens to undermine the basic norms of international humanitarian law intended to protect civilians from suffering and abuse in combat situations.

As recent conflicts in Angola, Congo or Sierra Leone have shown, these easy-to-use weapons have made it much easier to turn children into soldiers and allow untrained individuals to join the combat. Their ready and widespread availability has greatly increased the risks of those staff delivering humanitarian assistance in war-affected areas. A meaningful outcome of the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects” that takes place in July of this year in New York is thus much needed.

7. Landmines

In this respect, efforts to curb the indiscriminate use and effects of landmines are already several steps ahead. One of the greatest success stories of recent years has been the conclusion of the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Ottawa Treaty) and its so far encouraging implementation process.

The Ottawa Treaty has succeeded in multiple ways by stigmatizing the use of Anti-Personnel (AP) mines by armies and rebel groups, dramatically reducing the production of new Anti-Personnel mines, virtually halting the production and international transfer of these weapons, and leading to the destruction of stockpiles in many countries. In this context, I would like to commend Japan for the destruction of over 200,000 of its previously 1,000,000 Anti-Personnel mines and encourage the complete destruction of its remaining stockpile of nearly 750,000 anti-personnel mines.

As recognized in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), these remarkable achievements would not have occurred without the impetus provided by a coalition of non-governmental organizations, assisted by international personalities, and with the support of the Red Cross Movement, committed governments and United Nations bodies. The power demonstrated by this coalition to effect changes in the conduct of armed conflict, in an era of globalized information exchange, sets a significant and encouraging precedent for the success of collaboration and cutting across traditional lines of responsibility.

Next steps

I could add many other concerns to this already long list. But listing the concerns is no longer the issue - the concerns have been well analyzed and largely agreed upon. The real challenge ahead of us lies in moving from analysis and recommendations to implementation, from letters of intent to action.

During the open debate of the Secretary-General’s recent report in the Security Council, on 23 April 2001, - incidentally my first official participation in a meeting of the Council - Council Members and Member States widely supported the Secretary-General’s approach in urging the development of a "culture of protection."The analysis provided on the various thematic issues raised by the report was welcomed and generally endorsed.

In contrast to the debate in September 1999, the Council showed little if any ambiguity toward having the issue of the protection of civilians on its agenda and displayed its willingness to take a constructive approach toward implementation. The expressions of support extended to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Robinson, who addressed the Council at the April meeting indicated the increased level of comfort the Council has reached in considering human rights issues as part of its agenda. In this respect, the constructive roles played by both Russia and China was particularly note-worthy.

How do we now move on from discussing and reporting to actually implementing our common findings? As the Secretary-General put it, "progress in protecting civilians is measured in lives and livelihoods, and freedom from fear, rather than in statements of intent."

There are currently several initiatives under discussion within the Security-Council which are expected to be launched within these days:

1. Roadmap for implementation

In an inter-active process, the Secretary-General and the Security Council, will prepare a "roadmap" on how to best proceed toward implementing the Secretary General’s 54 recommendations to the Security Council as well as the two Security Council resolutions on the subject. The "roadmap" would organize the 54 recommendations into different groups according to whom they were directed for implementation (i.e. Security Council; General Assembly; or Member States individually).

2. Checklist

As a practical tool to ensure that the issues and practical concerns surrounding the protection of civilians are being duly considered in both designing and planning peacekeeping operations, Council members have suggested developing a checklist of requirements.

3. Cross-cutting OCHA/DPKO team

Another suggestion that is currently being discussed is the possibility of establishing a cross-cutting team between OCHA/DPKO to follow-up and take forward improved coordination within the UN system on issues related to the protection of civilians in armed conflict in the design and planning of peace-keeping operations.

4. Regional workshops

In addition, my office, OCHA, is planning a series of six regional workshops over a period of two years to further enhance the understanding of the issues involved in the protection of civilians and the recommendations made. The workshops would be held in regions for middle level policy makers and humanitarian workers and constitute an important measure to enhance the understanding of the issue more globally and invite regional views on the subject. I would like to encourage Japan to consider support for OCHA on this important project.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to emphasize that the "Culture of Protection" the Secretary-General called for goes beyond actions that the Security Council will take. It requires the commitment and cooperation of Member States, regional organizations, international and domestic NGOs, the media, private sector, and academia. In this respect, I would once again like to express my appreciation for today’s symposium. Events of this kind are essential to keeping the issues surrounding the protection civilians in armed conflict high on the international agenda and will contribute to motivating the action needed to implement the 54 recommendations contained in the two reports of the Secretary-General and the commitments made in the Security Council resolutions.

Thank you.