Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases.

This functionality is provided solely for your

convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale General OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT FACES URGENT TEST 'HERE

AND NOW', SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, STRESSING IMMENSE HUMAN COST OF
FAILURE IN SYRIA
Date: Sept. 5, 2012
From: States News Service
Publisher: States News Service
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,370 words

Full Text:
NEW YORK -- The following information was released by the United Nations:

Following are UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's remarks to the General Assembly's informal interactive dialogue on "The
Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response", in New York on 5 September:

I welcome this opportunity to present my fourth annual report on the responsibility to protect. I would like to start by expressing my
deep gratitude to Professors Ed Luck and Francis Deng for their distinguished service as my Special Advisers on the Responsibility
to Protect and the Prevention of Genocide. Let us all now give our strong support to Adama Dieng, my new Special Adviser on the
Prevention of Genocide.

The adoption of the responsibility to protect at the 2005 World Summit was a signal achievement, not only for the United Nations, but
for the people of the world. The concept arose out of the brutal legacy of the twentieth century and, in particular, the appalling
instances in which the machinery of State was used for systematic slaughter of innocent civilians while the world, for the most part,
stood by.

The Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, and other large-scale tragedies underlined
the failure of individual States to live up to their responsibilities and their obligations under international humanitarian law. These
events also raised troubling questions about the will and capacity of the international community to protect populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, as well as their incitement.

"Never again" is the oft-heard cry. But I am haunted by the fear that we do not live up to this call. The responsibility to protect is a
concept whose time has come. For too many millions of victims, it should have come much earlier. The dialogues we have held since
2009 have broadened the basis for consensus and provided valuable insights about the three pillars of the responsibility to protect --
the connections among them and the links between prevention and response.

We have agreed that the concept does not stand in contradiction to State sovereignty. Rather, it reaffirms sovereignty as a positive
responsibility in which Governments are meant to protect their populations. We have recognized that States must help each other to
meet the protection challenge. International cooperation can play a crucial role in building up a State's capacity to address tensions,
inequalities, discrimination and other precursors of atrocity crimes. And we have welcomed the clarity the concept has brought to the
question of who should act, and when: in the first instance, States; but also, where circumstances dictate, the international community
-- and in particular the Security Council.

This year, we focus on timely and decisive response -- on what we, as a community of conscience sworn to uphold the United
Nations Charter, should do when a State manifestly fails to protect its people.

This is the ultimate test of the responsibility to protect. We all agree that sovereignty must not be a shield behind which States commit
grave crimes against their people. But achieving prevention and protection can be difficult.

In recent years, we have shown how good offices, preventive diplomacy, mediation, commissions of inquiry and other peaceful
means can help pull countries back from the brink of mass violence. My earlier reports, as well as my own five-year action agenda,
place a strong emphasis on early warning, early action, a preventive approach to human rights and efforts to strengthen the rule of
law.

However, when non-coercive measures fail or are considered inadequate, enforcement under Chapter VII of the Charter will need to
be considered by the appropriate intergovernmental bodies. This includes carefully crafted sanctions and, in extreme circumstances,
the use of force.

There are understandable concerns related to selectivity -- why political organs have invoked the concept in some instances and not
in others. There have been disagreements on the oversight of implementation measures, differences over the interpretation of
Security Council resolutions and dismay at the loss of innocent lives in operations undertaken to protect populations. The concept of
"responsibility while protecting" introduced by the Government of Brazil is thus a welcome initiative.

There should be no misuse of the responsibility to protect. But fears of its possible misuse should not inhibit us in the face of
incitement and grave violence. There are also concerns about a tendency to see the responsibility to protect and the protection of
civilians in armed conflict as one and the same. While the two concepts share elements, there are fundamental differences. The
protection of civilians agenda relates to violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in situations of armed
conflict. The responsibility to protect is limited to four of the most egregious and violent crimes. They are genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. With the exception of war crimes, these may occur in situations other than armed conflict.

In the past year-and-a-half, the responsibility to protect has been front and centre as never before. Security Council resolutions on
Libya and Yemen referred explicitly to the concept. General Assembly resolutions have cited the responsibility to protect with regard
to Syria, and the Human Rights Council has done so on Syria and Libya. The High Commissioner for Human Rights and the two
Special Advisers have issued statements calling for compliance with the responsibility to protect in C"te d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan,
Libya, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I, too, have sounded the alarm.

There have been important successes: the defence of democracy in C"te d'Ivoire, the protection for Libyans facing massive violence.
But the aftermath of these undertakings has turned problematic. Some States have said some of the steps exceeded the resolutions'
intent, and have been hesitant to venture down that path again.

There was a good reason to believe that the pendulum was swinging decisively in the direction of greater protection. In seeking better
means for implementing our individual and collective responsibilities, we must be sure not to undo all the progress that has been
achieved. We must move forward. We cannot allow vulnerable populations today to be held hostage to disagreements about the
past.

The situation in Syria is a case in point. In January, I underscored that Syria was a critical test of our will and capacity to implement
the responsibility to protect. In the ensuing eight months, we have seen the immense human cost of failing to protect. Six weeks ago,
in visiting the memorial at Srebrenica, I said I did not want my successors to apologize years from now for what we failed to do today
in Syria. I commend the General Assembly for its proactive response to the Syrian crisis. It has shown that, while moments of unity in
the Security Council have been few and far between, the rest of the world body need not be silent.

We cannot look the other way while the increasing sectarian violence spirals out of control, the humanitarian emergency escalates
and the crisis spills over borders. And indeed, the UN family is doing everything it can on the ground to help those fleeing from the
violence. Our observer Mission, while it was in Syria, sought to gather reliable, real-time information about events so that nobody can
claim they did not know.

But these efforts will not avert the worst if they are not accompanied by action by influential Governments to find a political solution.
The Council's paralysis does the Syrian people harm. It also damages its own credibility and weakens a concept that was adopted
with such hope and expectations.

Let us by all means continue to talk through the responsibility to protect in all its aspects. Each year we achieve greater precision and
common understanding. But let us recognize that we face an urgent test here and now. Words must become deeds. Promise must
become practice. You have all seen the horrible images and reports coming out of Syria: aerial bombardments of civilians; mothers
weeping, clutching their dead children in their arms.

Inaction cannot be an option for our community of nations. We cannot stand by while populations fall victim to these grave crimes and
violations. We must uphold the core responsibilities of the United Nations.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 States News Service

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT FACES URGENT TEST 'HERE AND NOW', SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, STRESSING IMMENSE HUMAN COST OF FAILURE IN SYRIA." States News Service, 5 Sept. 2012. Gale
General OneFile, https://link-gale-
com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/apps/doc/A301663318/ITOF?u=monash&sid=ITOF&xid=d839ad15. Accessed 24 May 2020.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A301663318