Speech by Megan Schmidt Senior Program Officer, ICRtoP At the 2nd - - PDF document

INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Speech by Megan Schmidt Senior Program Officer, ICRtoP At the 2nd meeting of the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes (GAAMAC)

during the workshop “Sub-regional initiatives as a support to national architectures”

2 February 2016 Manila, Philippines Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us in this workshop, and I would like to extend my thanks to GAAMAC for the opportunity to speak today. As you know, this workshop is focusing on regional initiatives as avenues for reinforcing domestic

• action. Through our range of regional initiatives, my organization – The International Coalition for

the Responsibility to Protect, or ICRtoP - has had the opportunity to engage with civil society throughout the world to reflect on strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for RtoP advancement in numerous countries. Before I share more about the outcomes of this work with you, I would like to explain a bit more about the ICRtoP and our methodology. The ICRtoP, is the global civil society network that strives to move RtoP from words to action. With

• ver 85 members in all regions, we mobilize our membership to bring awareness to and enhance

policy for implementing atrocities prevention. This work takes a range of forms depending on the needs and focus of our members, which I would be more than happy to discuss should that be of

• interest. Also, as some of our members are at GAAMAC II, I would be more than happy to put you in

touch with them directly as well. Today, I will reflect specifically on ICRtoP’s regional work, which has convened civil society to participate in trainings for early warning and engage in strategic discussions focused on the development of national plans of action for preventing atrocity crimes. Given that we at GAAMAC II are seeking to identify needs and gaps for domestic action, asses how to best capitalize on good practices, determine what constitutes success, and articulate recommendations for policy development, I have considered ICRtoP’s range of regional initiatives and prepared my points in three main categories. First, I have identified five main themes that have emerged from our trainings and strategic discussions with civil society members and partners throughout the world. Second, I will present some of three common gaps and challenges that civil society organizations have raised when discussing efforts to move RtoP forward at the national level. Lastly, I will share recommendations for national capacity building that have been articulated by our members and partners throughout the world.

INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Main Themes Before exploring the five main themes, I must give a disclaimer. Please know that there are a range

• f issues that are discussed in our convenings, with members and partners identifying very

particular issues facing their countries and regions. What I will share today are merely those themes that have been found to be reoccurring and thus relevant for wider discussions on atrocities prevention, like that which we are having here at GAAMAC II. As I said, there are five main themes for national action I would like to bring attention to. First is that context is key. Understanding the context of the environment you’re working in is always essential, but this is particularly the case when engaging on an issue that can be as politically sensitive as RtoP or atrocities prevention. How one introduces or discusses these issues will vary greatly from region to region, country to country, and actor to actor. It is critical to have a nuanced approach that takes into consideration the various dynamics at play that can affect how receptive an actor will be when learning about RtoP. Additionally, it is important to understand the priorities for that government and the country as a whole so as to situate RtoP within the issues that are most pressing. By doing this you will make the atrocities prevention agenda relatable and be able to show that taking domestic efforts to protect populations from these most horrific crimes is in every government’s best interest. The second main theme that has arisen in our work to build national capacity is the importance of taking both a top down AND bottom up approach. While RtoP is first and foremost a state responsibility, we have heard from civil society throughout the world of the importance of also approaching norm building and implementation from the bottom up as well so as to ensure a holistic approach to prevention. This was a point raised at our recent convenings in Southeast Asia, with colleagues from Cambodia and Thailand noting that engagement with the general public at the grass roots level should be a priority. By conducting this type of outreach it would enable people to understand their individual responsibility for atrocities prevention, which colleagues viewed as an essential step to assist in building support for prioritizing national action on RtoP. In our capacity building work in MENA we received a more specific example of the importance of the bottom up approach. Colleagues from Jordan brought attention to the rise in refugees as a result of regional crises and the need for grassroots engagement on this issue. Participants stated that there was an urgent need to engage with the public to bring attention to the obligations for assisting refugees and to dispel misconceptions about those coming to Jordan. This would contribute towards upholding RtoP through hopefully assisting in the creation of an environment that is more welcoming of those fleeing atrocities. The third theme in a way relates to the second, which is that civil society organizations are key actors in atrocities prevention. Now, this didn’t just come up because we are an NGO coalition. It stems from the realities on the ground. Civil society groups are often those responsible for advancing the bottom up approach I was just discussing. They are the ones that are directly working with governments as they seek to develop or strengthen relevant architecture. And they are the ones that monitor situations and hold governments to account when more is needed to protect populations. While governments may have the primary responsibility to protect

INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT populations, they have and will continue to benefit from providing open space for civil society to contribute to atrocities prevention. The fourth theme that emerged from discussions on how to move atrocities prevention forward at the national level is one that we have heard raised time and time again. When seeking to build a national environment conducive for preventing atrocities, it is critical to seek out RtoP and atrocities prevention champions that have the clout needed to be heard as well as the will to spearhead change. I will come back to this point later when I discuss recommendations. And the final theme is that action to uphold RtoP can still be taken in the most extreme and dire of

• situations. This is essential to remember, particularly in those crises where civilians are under threat
• r suffering from atrocities and creative action is needed to address immediate and long-term

protection concerns. Gaps I’d like to shift now to focus on the three primary gaps or challenges that have been identified by

• ur members and colleagues when engaging in strategic discussions on national development.

First is the continued challenge of a lack of awareness of RtoP and atrocities prevention. It is easy for us to think that, because it’s been ten years since RtoP’s endorsement, everyone knows what we’re talking about when we discuss the Responsibility to Protect or what it means to prevent atrocity

• crimes. The reality, though, is that many still don’t. Whether it’s within governments, amongst civil

society organizations, or the general public, there remains a great deal of awareness raising and education that needs to be done on the importance of and obligations articulated in RtoP. For example, the work that we’ve led in the MENA region with our member, the Permanent Peace Movement, and in partnership with the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and RtoP, has included some of the first discussions on the Responsibility to Protect amongst colleagues in the region, with some conferences being held as recently as last year. But this leads me to the second challenge, which is that, even where there is awareness at the government level, we often see a gap between rhetoric and practice. This has been raised by members from all regions of the world. Colleagues have recalled time and again that their governments have and continue to make strong statements of support for the Responsibility to Protect at the United Nations, which should certainly be applauded. But when you look at what’s happening at home one all too often finds that there is an extreme disconnect. This must be changed if we are to turn words to deeds. Lastly, is the gap in financial capacity to prioritize atrocities prevention. Unfortunately, we often find that the strong national commitments to atrocities prevention are not matched with the funds to

• act. In some cases this may be the result of deliberate government decisions, while for other states

it is a true financial issue. The challenge of financial capacity also exists for civil society, as many NGOs have increasingly found themselves having to do more and more work with less as funding has drastically decreased.

INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Recommendations Now I would like to turn to the last area, which is to share with you recommendations that we’ve heard from our members and partners as they’ve sought to develop national plans of action for atrocities prevention. First let’s start with those recommendations for combating the challenge of a lack of awareness of RtoP or atrocities prevention. Members and partners have raised the importance of curriculum development as a means to address this gap. Such curriculum can specifically focus on RtoP or atrocities prevention, and serve to build awareness as well as develop the skills of future generations. Some colleagues raised, however, that educational initiatives specifically focusing on genocide may not always be possible to pursue right away as a result of sensitivities within a country. For example, Cambodian participants of our recent convenings in Southeast Asia shared their own experiences, saying that they initially focused on the history of the Khmer Rouge, without directly framing issues in terms of genocide education or prevention. But over time, they were able to create an environment that was more open, which has allowed for curriculum development specifically on the issue. Linked in a way to curriculum development is the recommendation for translation of materials. Far too often publications, discussions, etc on RtoP or atrocities prevention are done in English. My

• rganization and many others are at fault for this. Even GAAMAC II is an example of the limits of
• language. At the ICRtoP we have had some small positive steps. For example, our colleagues at the

Asia Pacific Centre for R2P have translated our RtoP toolkit in multiple regional languages. We have also been fortunate to have our member, the Permanent Peace Movement, translate many documents into Arabic. On our social media we’ve created a French ICRtoP twitter account as well. But these are just very small steps that only scratch the surface. If we are seeking to create national policy for atrocities prevention then we must be sure to not be limiting access to the discussions because of language barriers. A third recommendation for battling the lack of awareness is to take further action to build constituencies of support and understanding of the issues, of which GAAMAC II serves as an

• example. We have seen other efforts, most notably the RtoP Focal Points initiative, the Latin

America Network for Genocide and Atrocities Prevention, and Parliamentary groups on the issue in Canada and the UK. By being a part of such efforts as well as creating additional constituencies of support for government and civil society actors we can collectively work to increase understanding as well as create a forum that allows for advocacy on national action to uphold RtoP. Now to discuss recommendations on how to move from rhetoric to practice. There are two primary recommendations we’ve heard from members. First, and this comes back to what I said earlier, is the need to identify key actors within government and amongst civil society who can take the issue of atrocities prevention forward. This is especially the case if RtoP is a new issue in focus, or if there are strong sensitivities to the topic. Members from all parts of the world have consistently raised the importance of this point. At the government level,

INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect convenes and collaborates with civil society, Member States, and regional and sub-regional

• rganizations to continue close scrutiny of the consistent implementation of

the third pillar and develop effective methods to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. For more information, visit our Website: responsibilitytoprotect.org Blog: icrtopblog.org Facebook: facebook.com/icrtop Twitter: twitter.com/icrtop Sign up for our listserv: responsibilitytoprotect.org/subscribe Contact Us: 708 Third Avenue, Suite 1715 New York, NY 10017 tel: 646.465.8523 fax: 212.599.1332 info@responsibilitytoprotect.org

it has also been suggested to consider actors that can span political lines so as to be sure that atrocities prevention does not become a partisan issue. This can also assist with creating the constituencies of support I discussed earlier, with the aim of creating bipartisan or multipartisan groupings on the issue. Second is the importance of finding entry points for atrocities prevention through existing mechanisms, laws, commissions, etc. that contributes towards preventing atrocities. Here is where you will find the link with the earlier point on how understanding the national context is key for

• implementation. Through identifying existing opportunities and mechanisms, you may be able to

integrate an “atrocities lens” into work that is already happening. For example, in Indonesia, participants of our recent SE Asia workshops identified a number of laws and national bodies, including but not limited to the National Commissions on Human Rights and on Violence Against Women, that could serve as avenues for engagement on atrocities prevention. Then in Cambodia colleagues identified the opportunity that the National Human Rights Commission can provide as a mechanism for further strengthening state capacity on atrocities prevention. While in both examples there are challenges that remain within those bodies or with upholding the laws that were identified, participants raised their existence as key opportunities for institutionalizing atrocities prevention. It should also be noted that identifying and working with existing mechanisms can also assist in building the political space needed for the future development of specific atrocities prevention architecture or the appointment of focal points on the issue. Thanks everyone, for your time thus far. I look forward to not only discussing what I and my fellow workshop panelists have said, but of engaging with you in an interactive discussion that raises ideas and recommendations to contribute towards the larger goals of GAAMAC II.