 |
 |
 |
|
Middle East
In this section, please find the below topics:
1. The Iraq War
2. Supporters and Opponents of RtoP in the Middle East 3. Crisis in Gaza 4. A future for RtoP in the Middle East? Introduction
The Middle East is a region with a varying degree of recognition and support for the Responsibility to Protect from governments, civil society groups or institutions such as the Arab League or the Islamic Conference. Nonetheless, the RtoP is no less relevant to this region, although debates on the norm have been plagued by the controversies surrounding the war in Iraq and the protracted conflict between Israel and Palestine.
1. The Iraq War The incorrect use of the Responsibility to Protect norm as an attempt to justifying the case for the Iraq War (2003) resulted in a common misconception that undermined internationally, and particularly Middle East, the acceptance of the norm. Gareth Evans clarifies in his book The Responsibility to Protect –Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All, that the Iraq War was in fact, “a classic example of how not to apply the R2P norm.” According to Evans, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the 2001 ICISS report's criteria legitimizing the use military intervention: while gross human rights violations occurred in Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s, these crimes were not occurring, nor likely to happen, at the time of the 2003 military intervention. And while peaceful preventive and reactive measures may have been suitable to the human rights situation in 2003, Evans makes clear that the use of force was not used as a last resort in the spectrum of responses.
In the 2005 World Summit and in semi-annual Open Debates of the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians, Middle Eastern governments have voiced their support, as well as opposition, for the Responsibility to Protect norm.
Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Palestine have since voiced support of RtoP during the Open Debates on the Protection of Civilians. Jordan has been a strong advocate for RtoP, as indicated by Crown Prince El Hassan bin Talal’s involvement, as a patron, with the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.
While Qatar appreciates the “noble humanitarian value” and agrees with the basic principles of the Responsibility to Protect, Qatar representative Mr. Jamal Nasser Al-Bader has warned that states and the UN, “should be cautious” to prevent the norm from being “exploited and abused”.
Egypt and Pakistan have been very vocal in their opposition to RtoP. Their unwillingness to support the new international norm primarily lies with their insistence on the concept of absolute sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. For instance, Pakistan has insisted on an “affirmation of non-interference, national sovereignty and territorial integrity”.
See compiled statements of Middle Eastern governments on RtoP here
A breakdown of the cease-fire and a military offensive between Israel and Hamas sparked a crisis in which both sides were accused of violating human rights law and international humanitarian law. Once more, civilians were the vast majority of casualties and according to the UN the crisis claimed over 1,300 lives, 412 of them children, and wounded more than 5,450 people, 1,855 of them children, as well as causing widespread destruction and suffering. According to Human Rights Watch report, “Deprived and Endangered: Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza Strip,” Gaza civilians faced dire shortages of food, water, cooking gas, fuel and medical care; electricity, water and sewage infrastructure. Amnesty International researchers in Gaza reported many cases of “unwarranted attacks on defenseless civilians, many of them children.” Months after the end of the military offensive, the humanitarian situation continued to be worrying. According to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, nearly 5 months after the end of the conflict, nothing beyond basic needs such as food and medicine was allowed into Gaza. Essential recovery efforts and long-term development initiatives are impossible in these conditions.
The crisis in Gaza: An RtoP situation?
The escalation of violence in Gaza has raised serious questions about using the Responsibility to Protect to urge international action to protect civilians in the conflict. RtoP has been referred to, notably by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also by others who claim that crimes committed in Gaza have reached the threshold of RtoP crimes. Indiscriminate killings of civilians and the use of civilians as human shields have led several governments and civil society organizations to accuse both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes. There remain questions as to the extent to which these crimes were widespread and systematic, arguably a determining factor for whether the RtoP threshold for an international response was met. In addition, questions remained as to whether invoking RtoP would have brought the desired changes to protect civilians in this deeply politicized situation.
As Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document outline, States have the responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Israel, as an occupying power, does carry this responsibility to protect. Most important, however, is to note that both parties have clear obligations to protect civilians under international humanitarian law, notably the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit many acts currently being committed. Israel, as an occupying power, has additional obligations to protect its populations under Geneva Convention IV.
For more analysis of articles, statements and reports from civil society on the crisis in Gaza and RtoP, please see our 16 January News Update.
Inquiries into alleged international humanitarian law violations in Gaza
The humanitarian crisis prompted various independent investigative committees. The Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza was established in February 2009 and presented its report to the Arab League of States on 30 April 2009. The report entitled “On Gaza: No Safe Place,” found that “members of the IDF committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and, possibly, genocide in the course of operation Cast Lead.” It also asserted that, “Hamas may be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law attributed to it.” Among a myriad of other recommendations involving Organs of the UN, the ICC, the League of Arab States, etc, the committee recommended that “the League of Arab States should request the Security Council, failing which, the General Assembly, to exercise its Responsibility to Protect, affirmed in the Summit Outcome Document of 2005 in respect of Gaza.”
In addition, a four-member UN Board of Inquiry, led by Ian Martin, a human rights activist who had previously held multiple positions in the UN, examined incidents involving death and damage at the United Nation’s premises in Gaza during Israel’s military operation. The summary of the UN report, commissioned by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, “censured the Israeli government for causing death, injuries and damage to UN property in seven incidents involving action by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF)”; it emphasized that “UN premises are inviolable, and that inviolability cannot be set aside by the demands of military expediency”. However, Ban decided against further investigation despite the report’s call for a full impartial inquiry.
On 22 January 2009, Dr. Khashan, Minister of Justice of the Palestinian National Authority briefed Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo on the situation in Gaza and lodged a referral, with the Registrar of the Court, for the situation in Gaza. (For more information) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo disclosed that he has been “examining the case for Palestinian jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Gaza.”
On 1 June 2009, the UN Human Rights Council sent a fact-finding mission to Gaza to investigate alleged abuses.
'Goldstone Report'
On 15 September 2009, the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict released its report on the investigation of crimes committed in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. The mission, mandated by the President of the Human Rights Council in April 2009 and headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, found evidence of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, which amounted to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The fact-finding mission also found evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.
Justice Goldstone presented the report to the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva on 29 September 2009. The report recommended that the UN Security Council pass a resolution requiring Israel and Hamas to launch domestic investigations into these crimes and report on both the findings of these investigations and the prosecutions of the perpetrators. The report also recommended that if investigations are not underway in either Israel or Hamas six months after the passage of the recommended resolution, the Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The Human Rights Council held a meeting on 15-16 October and the report received support from the UN’s top human rights official, Navy Pillay. In its final resolution, the Council endorses the recommendations contained in the report and advises the General Assembly to consider the report during its 64th session.
On November 5 2009, the General Assembly endorsed the Goldstone Report with a recorded vote of 114 in favor to 18 against, with 44 abstentions. Resolution A/RES/64/10 calls upon the Government of Israel and the Palestinians to undertake investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact-Finding Mission. The resolution requests that the Secretary-General transmit the report to the UN Security Council and report back to the General Assembly. 4. A future for the Responsibility to Protect in the Middle East? It was suggested, at the March 2009 FRIDE conference on the implementation of the responsibility to protect, “the Middle East, and Gaza specifically, would be a useful testing ground for R2P.” However, the implementation of the norm in the Middle East region is ridden with obstacles. Many states in the Middle East view the emerging norm with distrust, suspecting it to be another Western tool for humanitarian intervention. In addition, according to the report from the FRIDE conference, impediments in the way of successfully implementing RtoP include: “the chasm between rulers and the ruled; restrictions or absence altogether of the media (for example, the recent media blackout during the Israeli invasion of Gaza); the relative inexperience of regional organizations like the Arab League or the Islamic Conference as decision-making bodies in terms of regional responses; and the relatively unsophisticated nature of civil society.”
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the religious culture in the Middle East emphasizes on “protecting one’s fellow man,” which may be conducive to the basic principles of the Responsibility to Protect. While these values may not directly transform into political action, given the many obstacles, it may facilitate positive responses to the fundamental concepts of the norm.
For more events organized by civil society in the Middle East, see related documents tab (Civil Society) above. |