‘Responsibility to protect’ vs. massive terror

(Last of Two Parts)

LAST Sunday, we recalled President Barack Obama’s urgent 24 September appeal at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for an anti-terror resolution and substantial international support against massive jihadist atrocities. Later that day, the UNSC announced Resolution 2178 (2014) was “adopted unanimously during a meeting that heard from over 50 national leaders…”

Citing the UN Al Qaeda-Taliban Monitoring Team in Syria and Iraq, UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-Moon had previously reported that 14,000 foreign terrorist fighters from more than 80 UN member- states had joined the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or simply Islamic State). Following the Sec- Gen’s statement, national leaders took the floor to welcome the adoption of Resolution 2178 (2014), pledging to cooperate in the concerted global effort to fight the Islamic State and other jihadists.

THIS LARGE GROUP OF AT LEAST 62 COMMITTED NATIONS MAY BE CALLED THE “COALITION OF THE WILLING” UNDER THE UN MANDATE – TO ASSUME THE “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” POPULATIONS AGAINST MASSIVE TERRORISM.

This is the first large scale application of the concept of the “Coalition of the Willing/R2P” norm of humanitarian intervention – although there have been earlier UN-led operations in other beleaguered areas as shown below.

Criteria for Intervention

As required by then Sec- Gen Kofi Annan, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY (ICISS) submitted its report titled “THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” to the UN in 2001. The report asserted that where a state was “unable or unwilling” to protect its people, the responsibility should shift to the international community and, thereupon, “the principle of non-intervention” yields to “the international responsibility to protect,” guided by the following criteria:

1.Just cause – Is the threat a “serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings”?

2.Right intention – Is the main intention of the military action to prevent human suffering, or are there other motives?

3.Final resort – Has every other measure besides military intervention been taken into account?.... That there are reasonable grounds to believe that only military action would work in that situation?

4.Proportional means – Are the minimum necessary military means applied to secure human protection?

5.Reasonable prospect – Is it likely that military action will protect human life, and are the consequences of this action sure not to be worse than no action at all?

In 2005, at the World Summit where the largest number of heads of state/government in the history of the UN convened, R2P was unanimously adopted. While the outcome was close to the ideas of the ICISS report, there were notable differences:

(1)UNSC was recognized as the only body allowed to authorize intervention.

(2)R2P would now only apply to mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing), rather than just human rights violations.

Implementation of R2P

On 12 January 2009, UN Sec- Gen Ban Ki-moon issued a general report entitled “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect.” This was the first comprehensive document from the UN Secretariat on R2P, following his commitment to turn the concept into policy.

In 2009, the Council reiterated the primary responsibility of memberstates to protect their populations. Additionally, the UNSC reaffirmed the R2P in several country-specific resolutions:

( 1) Darfur: Resolution 1706 in 2006.

(2)Libya: Resolution 1970, Resolution 1973, Resolution 2016 in 2011, and Resolution 2040 in 2012.

(3)Côte d’Ivoire: Resolution 1975 in 2011.

( 4) Yemen: Resolution 2014 in 2011.

(5)Mali: Resolution 2085 in 2012 and Resolution 2100 in 2013.

(6)Sudan and South Sudan: Resolution 1996 in 2011 and Resolution 2121 in 2013.

( 7) Central African Republic: Resolutions 2121 and 2127 in 2013 and Resolution 2134 in 2014.

Significant developments have taken place after that all- important UNSC Resolution to fight jihadist terrorism with a “Coalition of the Willing” – principally the loss by the Democratic Obama Administration of control of the US Senate which could conceivably lead to greater conservatism in foreign affairs – but that deserves another story. Essential Components of the R2P Concept

We continue with more substantial extracts of Gareth Evans’ seminal book “The Responsibility To Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once And For All” (2008), thus: “1.BasicPrinciples “a.Statesovereigntyimpliesthe primaryresponsibilityfortheprotectionofitspeoplelieswiththeState itself.

“b.Whereapopulationissuffering seriousharm,asaresultofinternal war,insurgency,repressionorState failure,andtheStateconcernedis unwillingorunabletohaltoravert it,theprincipleofnon-intervention yieldstotheinternationalresponsibilitytoprotect. “2.Foundations “Thefoundationsoftheresponsibilitytoprotect,asaguidingprinciple forthecommunityofStates,liein:

“a.Obligationsinherentinthe conceptofsovereignty;

“b.TheresponsibilityoftheUN SecurityCouncilforthemaintenance ofinternationalpeaceandsecurity;

“c.Specificlegalobligationsunder humanrightsandhumanprotection covenants,treaties,internationalhumanitarianlaw,andnationallaw;

“d.Thedevelopingpracticeof States,regionalorganizationsand theSecurityCouncilitself. “3.Elements “TheRESPONSIBILITYTO PROTECTembracesthreespecific responsibilities:

“a.THERESPONSIBILITYTO PREVENT–toaddresstheroot causesofinternalconflictandother man-madecrisesputtingpopulations atrisk.

“b.THERESPONSIBILITYTO REACT–torespondtosituationsof compellinghumanneedwithappropriatemeasures,includingcoercive measureslikesanctionsand,inextremecases,militaryintervention.

“c.THERESPONSIBILITYTO REBUILD–toprovide,aftermilitary intervention,fullassistancewith recovery,reconstruction,andreconciliation,addressingthecausestobe haltedoraverted. “4.Priorities “a.Preventionisthesinglemost importantdimensionofR2P.Optionsforpreventionshouldalways beexhaustedbeforeintervention iscontemplated,andmorecommitmentandresourcesmustbedevoted thereto.

“b.Theexerciseoftheresponsibilitytobothpreventandreactshould alwaysinvolvelessintrusiveandcoercivemeasuresbeforemorecoercive andintrusiveonesareapplied.”

IS Recruitment in the Philippines

With the increasing repulsion of nations and peoples against the Islamic State, it is no longer a surprise to learn that a female Muslim pilot led a bombing of IS rebels. The Associated Press, and Agence France Presse reported (28 September): “Unknown to the militants below, the first female aviator – F-16 pilot Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri of the United Arab Emirates – led the Arab strike against the jihadist group in Iraq.”

With many users of social media taking delight in the opposition to the militants’ terroristic ideology, UAE Ambassador to Washington Yousef al- Otaiba in his confirmation of al-Mansouri’s role said:

Here in the Philippines, recruiters are taking advantage of the innocence or ignorance of young people about the IS. The Manila Times revealed (30 September):

confirmedtheongoingrecruitment ofIslamicStatefollowersinseveral provincesinMindanao.FormerPNP IntelligenceChiefRodolfo‘Boogie’ Mendozasaidthatbasedoninformationhisgroupgathered,foreignjihadistsarelookingforrecruitstojoin theircauseofestablishingacaliphate inSoutheastAsiaassistedbytheAbu SayyafGroup…”

Mendoza, who retired in 2008, was credited in 1995 for uncovering “Oplan Bojinka,” a plot by Al Qaedalinked militants to launch attacks in the US He said that IS recruitment was strong in the Lanao provinces, Zamboanga peninsula, Basilan, and Sulu, and even on the Internet, and that “FilipinoMuslimsareconsideredmembersoncetheypledgetheir

allegiance…” The JI, ASG, Rajah Solaiman Movement (RSM), and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) are among the groups that pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

In his book, “InsideAlQaeda:

GlobalNetworkofTerror” (2002), terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna writes: “Al Qaeda members Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah rented an apartment in Manila where they prepared to assassinate Pope John Paul II, who was due to arrive in January, 1995. If the pipe bomb attack failed, Al Qaeda planned for an operative disguised as a priest to shoot the Pope….”

The Ramos Administration had physically thwarted “Oplan Bojinka” – a large-scale plot by Yousef and cohorts to be carried out through the assassination of US President Bill Clinton during his Asia swing in November, 1994, and on Pope John Paul II during World Youth Day in Manila in January, 1995; the hijacking then mid-air blasting of airliners flying from Asia to the US; and crashing a plane into the CIA headquarters in Virginia.

When Pope Francis Comes Visiting

The Manila Times also reported (17 October): “The recapture of ASG leader Khair Mundos last June has not deterred Islamist groups sympathetic to the Islamic State from pushing through with their plot to assassinate Pope Francis during his visit to the country in January next year, a reliable source from the PNP said….”

GUNARATNA HAD ALSO BEEN QUOTED BY THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD ( 11 NOVEMBER 2002): “ONETHINGYOUSHOULD REMEMBERABOUTALQAEDA –WHENTHEYDIDN’TDESTROY THEWORLDTRADECENTER FIRSTTIMEAROUNDIN1993,

ALTHOUGH THE LATE POPE JPII IS NOW A SAINT, HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE LEADERSHIP OF CATHOLICS WORLDWIDE ARE CONSIDERED ALWAYS AT HIGH RISK – ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.

WHEN POPE FRANCIS COMES IN JANUARY 2015, THE EYES OF THE WORLD WILL BE UPON THE PHILIPPINES. AGAIN, OUR HONOR AS A NATION AND PRESTIGE AS A HIGHLY CAPABLE PEOPLE ARE AT STAKE.

IT IS THEREFORE OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY FOR THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT BUT SPECIALLY FOR ALL PEACE- LOVING FILIPINOS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF POPE FRANCIS AMID PERSISTENT THREATS FROM BOTH FOREIGN AND LOCAL TERROR GROUPS.

IS THE PHILIPPINES PART OF THE “COALITION OF THE WILLING” OR NOT???

LET’S REMEMBER: FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED!!!