Responsibility to Protect (RTP)


Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Responsibility to Protect (RTP)

  2. 2. PrefaceThis consultation with West African civil society institutions using the vehicle of the WestAfrica Democracy Network was held at the Hilton Hotel in Abuja on 8 February 2003.Organised by the Centre for Democracy & Development (CDD), with the support of theMacarthur Foundation, the consultation had as its main purpose a closer scrutiny of TheResponsibility to Protect – the recently released report of the International Commission onIntervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) by West African actors and stakeholders,especially those from civil society. By bringing together those who have been active in the quest for peacebuilding,conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction in West Africa for the purpose ofscrutinising the report and proffering mechanisms for implementing the principles containedtherein, the organisers placed emphasis on the development of practical frameworks that cancomplement the regional efforts of the inter-governmental body, ECOWAS whilsthighlighting best practice approaches for conflict prevention, management and resolutions inthe broader civil society, operating on the premise that the gap between the securitycommunity and the development community must be bridged in order to realise the fullsearch for freedom from fear and freedom from want. This summary report highlights the key issues raised during the exhaustivediscussions, focussing on the three key areas of deliberations – the conceptual basis of theResponsibility to Protect, its regional dimensions and the operational mechanisms foradvancing the principles of RTP practically within the West African sub-region. On the basisof the consensus reached on these three areas, the consultation drew its conclusions andrecommendations as well as the action plan for implementing the recommendations. All the recommendations made at the consultations have since been been takenforward by CDD and its partners in the region. Immediately after the consultation, theperspectives of West Africans on RTP was presented at the International Conference thatexamined the report at Wilton Park in the UK, where we took the opportunity to liaise withmembers of the ICISS Commission present, representatives of the Department of ForeignAffairs and International Trade in Canada responsible for the administrative aspect of theefforts, Bill Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement that has been activein the promotion of the RTP report and Mary Page, Director, Global Security &Sustainability at the Macarthur Foundation, a funding institution that has been at the forefrontof supporting this work at the global level, including in West Africa where the Foundationsponsored the consultation that led to this report. Subsequently, CDD representatives went toCanada and held meetings with officials of the Liu Centre of the University of BritishColumbia, in Vancouver, Canada as well as with other Canadian agencies keen to promotethe broader objectives of human security in West Africa. More significantly, the organisers have established contact with the ECOWASsecretariat with a view to jointly establishing a civil society platform for promoting theprinciples contained in the ICISS report, the NEPAD Action Plan and the ECOWASMechanism on Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution and Peacekeeping, as proposedby participants in the consultation’s recommendations. Plans are underway to hold the firstECOWAS-Civil Society consultation to develop the framework for this relationship soon. In conclusion, I should like to express CDD’s gratitude to the Macarthur Foundationfor funding the consultation and the various participants for attending the meeting at a veryshort notice and for sharing their knowledge and expertise in an unstinting manner. Theirfrankness and wealth of experience certainly enriched the meeting. Dr Olonisakin steppedinto Professor Bathily’s shoes at a rather short notice to present the regional perspective onthe Responsibility to Protect report and Dr Adedeji Ebo of the Nigerian Defence Academyserved as rapporteur for the consultation. He prepared this summary report. 2
  3. 3. From the outcome of the meeting, the defining characteristic of peacebuilding from ahuman security approach is the presence of holistic security, and not just the absence ofconflict and one which treats security and development in a continuum. This is the challengethat must be confronted in West Africa if the ICISS report is to take a firm hold on preventingconflict and promoting peace.Kayode Fayemi,March 2003 3
  4. 4. BackgroundOne of the most controversial principles of post cold war international relations has been theright to ‘humanitarian intervention’ in situations of conflict, war, humanitarian disaster andgenocide. This has been more so in the African continent, where a million people lost theirlives to an avoidable genocide in Rwanda in 1994 because the world could not agree onwhether it was appropriate to intervene or not. One of the most cited reasons for thedifficulty with the principle of ‘humanitarian intervention’ lies with the West-phalian conceptof state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, as theOrganisation of African Unity Charter of 1963 describes it. This concept anchors its raisond’etre on the inviolability of Africa’s artificial borders and the refusal to sanction interventionin the internal affairs of member nations.Shifts in global and geo-political power relations, in particular the end of the cold war and theretraction of the imperial security umbrella in Africa, allowed regional institutions moreinfluence in conflict and conflict management. It was in this context, for example, that WestAfrican nations decided in 1991 to intervene in the Liberian conflict through its ECOWASsponsored – ECOMOG (the West African Monitoring Group. Since then, regionalintervention in situations of conflict has gained greater prominence and African institutionsfrom the newly formed African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West AfricanStates(ECOWAS) have gone further to institutionalise conditions, mechanisms and processesfor humanitarian intervention within the African Union charter and the ECOWAS Protocolon Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution.Even with the principles enshrined in their charters, the controversy surrounding the right tohumanitarian intervention has not gone away. As exemplified by the most recent conflict inCote d’Ivoire, West Africans have failed to establish the basis for the resolution of the crisisdue to the dissonance between protection of state sovereignty and the right of humanitarianintervention in conditions of conflict and ECOWAS’s slow pace of action has been largelyattributable to this conundrum.ContextIt is in the context of the above that the recently released report, The Responsibility toProtect, becomes particularly significant. By reinforcing individual state sovereignty throughcollective regional (and international) responsibility, the report of the InternationalCommission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 1, offers a path-breaking analysis andrecommendations in response to UN Secretary-General’s call for criteria to guide theinternational community’s response to humanitarian emergencies and large scale loss of life,such as the world witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.The Commission’s report is based on a series of regional discussions with representativesfrom governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, universities andresearch institutes. It lays out a framework for thinking about state sovereignty, beginningwith the principle that it is the sovereign state’s responsibility to protect the dignity and basic1 The Commission set up in 2001, and chaired by Mohammed Sahnoun (Former Algerian Foreign Minister) andGareth Evans(Former Australian Foreign Minister and President of International Crisis Group) was at theinstance of Former Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy. Report is accessible on the Web 4
  5. 5. rights of its own citizens. If, however, its people are “suffering serious harm, as a result ofinternal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling orunable to halt or avert it,” then the responsibility to protect shifts to the internationalcommunity which ought to supersede state sovereignty.More significantly, the Report concludes that equally important is the ‘responsibility toprevent’ (through addressing both the root and direct causes of internal crises), and the‘responsibility to rebuild’. It emphasises prevention as a key aspect of the responsibility toprotect, and stresses that military intervention should always be a last resort, using the leastintrusive and coercive means as possible.Aims & Objectives of the Civil Society Consultation on The Responsibility to ProtectIn the context of the New Africa, where these discussions are no longer academic, The‘Responsibility to Protect’ seems relevant in several ways and for this reason, deserves acloser scrutiny by African actors and stakeholders, especially in civil society. First, itprovides an opportunity to bring together critical stakeholders to discuss the report in light ofthe issues already on the agenda of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD),especially in the areas of peace and security. Second, many civil society institutions arealready active in addressing the causes of conflict through the promotion of basic rights andfundamental freedoms, advocating good governance and preventing humanitariandegradation. They are also involved in post-conflict reconstruction, providing humanitarianassistance, addressing issues of transitional justice and promoting sustainable development toprevent the re-ignition of conflict. It is therefore important that the West African non-governmental sector help in contextualising and shaping how best to carry forward the ideascontained in the Report and the Centre for Democracy & Development (CDD) decided toorganise a consultation with the representatives of relevant institutions working on issues ofconflict, humanitarian intervention, transitional justice and human rights in West Africa. Theconsultation sought to:• Critically examine the ICISS Report and the concepts reviewed in a context-specific manner?• Outline the useful aspects of the Report?• Identify any clear omissions, or aspects with which the civil society strongly disagree or areas that require more elaboration? (in general terms)• Explore how the report might fit with other relevant initiatives such as the African Union Charter, the NEPAD Strategy Document and the ECOWAS’ Protocol on Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution and Peacekeeping?• Examine the framework for its operationalisation, looking at the opportunities and challenges that would help or hinder the promotion of the Responsibility to Protect as a concept?• Recommend any role for civil society institutions and non-governmental bodies in promoting the concept in West Africa. 5
  6. 6. FIRST PLENARYOpening Session- Chair: Dr Kayode Fayemi, Director CDD.Dr Fayemi welcomed participants to the Consultation. He explained the background to themeeting and expressed the hope that participants were able to download the report and readbefore the meeting. He apologised for the difficulty in getting the reports across to theparticipants before the consultation, which he attributed to the rushed nature of theconsultation. He expressed the hope that the review of the Responsibility to Protect reportwould help the consultation with the critique of the Commission’s report with a view toarticulating initiatives which could be taken forward from the discussions that follow. Hecharged the consultation to come up with concrete proposals which could be form the basis ofWest Africa’s contribution to the Wilton Park meeting that will consider the outcomes of allconsultations held globally on the RTP Report.After a round of introduction by all participants, Dr Fayemi introduced the Country Directorof Macarthur Foundation, Dr Kole Shettima to the participants and asked him to give hisopening remarks.Opening Remarks: Dr Kole Shettima, Director, Macarthur Foundation, AbujaDr Shettima commenced his presentation by underscoring the importance of acknowledgingthe quest for a post cold war development of a normative architecture for peacebuilding,international justice and human security, and stressed how delighted Macarthur Foundationwas to have been a part of the process of this norm-building exercise. DescribingResponsibility to Protect as a human rights concept, Dr Shettima reiterated that HumanRights and Economic Governance represent core objectives of Macarthur Foundation’sGlobal Security and Sustainability programme cluster.He noted that prospects for the global protection of human rights depend to a large extent onthe effectiveness of the international justice system. In this regard, he informed the meetingthat, as at February 1, 2003, eighty-eight (88) countries had signed the conventionestablishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), which he described as the ‘cornerstoneof the international justice system’. He commented that the objective of the ICC is to preventthe kind of atrocities witnessed since the end of the Cold War such as in Kosovo, Somalia,and Rwanda. 6
  7. 7. He reiterated that the Macarthur Foundation is interested in encouraging regional andinternational discussion and debates of the RTP Report, with the objective of identifying andarticulating ‘the next steps’.He called for a National Action Plan on the promotion of human rights in West Africancountries, such that the broad findings of the ICISS study could be relevant to the sub-regional context. As part of the contribution to this process of entrenching rights and globaljustice, he said the Foundation was working with the Federal Ministry of Justice to reviewand update the laws of the Nigerian federation, as a contribution to this quest for nationaljudicial reform and international justice system improvement. The last time the laws werereviewed was in 1990, by which time there were 523 decrees most of which were notcirculated and popularized. The Foundation, he emphasised, is committed to supporting thedevelopment of a legal architecture which is responsive to human rights.He observed that sanctioning intervention and promoting state sovereignty are often twoconflicting objectives which require a delicate balancing act. He noted West Africa is apioneer in humanitarian intervention and regional peacekeeping, and is therefore not astranger to the RTP concept. He emphasised that each state has a primary Responsibility toPrevent (conflict). Failure to do so invites a Responsibility to Protect, by the internationalcommunity. He charged the meeting to work out: I. How the (RTP) Report can be integrated into existing African initiatives such as NePAD, CSSDCA, and the ECOWAS Conflict Prevention Mechanism. II. How the Report can be operationalised in West Africa, particularly since the idea is not new to the sub-region. III. The role of civil society in this engagement.Overview of the of the ICISS Report on the Responsibility to Protect: Dr KayodeFayemiCore Principles: a. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. b. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or 7
  8. 8. avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to international responsibility to protect.Foundations:The foundations of the responsibility to protect lies in a. Obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty; b. The responsibility of the Security Council, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security; c. Specific legal obligations under human rights and human protection declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law; d. The developing practice of states, regional organisations and the Security Council itself.ElementsThe responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities: a. The responsibility to prevent: to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk; b. The responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution, and in extreme cases, military intervention; c. The responsibility to rebuild: particularly after a military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert. 8
  9. 9. Regional Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect Report: Dr Funmi OlonisakinHighlights of Dr Olonisakin’s presentation: I. The idea of a flexible application of the principle of sovereignty, as encapsulated by the RTP, is not new to West Africa. It is, in fact, a concept which has been in operation in the sub-region, in one form or the other, for twelve years. II. West Africa has been a testing ground for trying out innovations to the guiding principles of international relations. The sub-continent has a rich experience in this regard but does not appear to have formed the basis for the RTP Report. For example, West Africa is mentioned only once (page 48) in the entire report. III. In order for the RTP principle to be effectively operationalised, there is a need to systematise ECOWAS/civil society engagements. IV. ECOWAS needs exposure, as the gains and achievements of the organisation remain largely unsung. V. There is a need for the establishment of a Civil Society Task Force, working parallel with ECOWAS. Such a Task Force would provide timely analyses and readily available expertise for ECOWAS. VI. There is an urgent need for capacity building and staff development for ECOWAS; VII. There is a need for an internal needs assessment within ECOWAS.Summary of contributions from participants  The RTP report vindicates the UN Secretary-General’s ‘two concepts of sovereignty’, that is, state-based sovereignty and people-based sovereignty. There is increasing evidence and consensus in favour of the latter.  There was a consensus that African initiatives are grossly under-appreciated and not advertised. In this regard, it was felt that the ICISS report could have done better in its appreciation of the efforts already undertaken in West Africa; 9
  10. 10.  It is difficult for civil society to use international diplomacy to its advantage because of the lack of institutional and systematised framework of interaction with official government and inter-governmental channels; There is a need for a clear policy on the ‘new’ concept of sovereignty because protection often comes too late for a large number of the victims; There is a need for strong civil society networks at both national and sub-regional levels; There was a consensus that there is a lack of clarity on the factors that create the necessity to protect; The responsibility to protect should be carried out from a peace building perspective. Otherwise, protection would have the effect of sewing the seeds of future conflict; Using examples from Northern Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire and many parts of Nigeria, there was broad agreement that the Citizenship Question is responsible for many conflicts in Africa and could not be seen in isolation; Many participants questioned the availability of the WILL and the CAPACITY to protect; There is sufficient empirical basis to justify the fear that humanitarian intervention could be misused as ‘humanitarian containment’, and responsibility to protect may turn out to be ‘responsibility to contain’ legitimate refugees fleeing conflict. Too often, the victims have nowhere to go, especially when and where it is impossible to protect. Therefore, the protectors must be ready to accept the victims who have no refuge; There is also a need for a responsibility to empower weak African states and their institutions, to enable them meet their responsibility to prevent; 10
  11. 11.  With the necessary political will and support, ECOWAS intervention could be more robust in its responsibility to protect and this would not require vast resources, especially when there is clarity of vision and a rationally ordered operational plan; The Cote d’Ivoire situation, if not properly and effectively handled, can give inspiration to other insurgencies; Civil society has a responsibility to put pressure on bad leaders; Good governance is the best prevention against conflict; Corruption and lack of transparency have incendiary effects on conflicts; 11
  12. 12. Plenary II – The Role of Civil Society in Strengthening The Responsibility to ProtectLying at the core of the concept of civil society are intermediate institutions and privatevoluntary organisations and associations that share common interests and are largelyautonomous from the State. Participants agree unanimously that organised civil society haveplayed a significant role in the post cold war period and are still very active in addressinghuman security issues through the promotion of basic rights and fundamental freedoms,advocating good governance and preventing humanitarian degradation. They are alsoinvolved in conflict prevention, mediation and post-conflict reconstruction, providinghumanitarian assistance, addressing issues of transitional justice and promoting sustainabledevelopment to prevent the re-ignition of conflict. On the ground activities of NGOs in theregion demonstrate conclusively that non governmental organisations can make a significantcontribution to the resolution of conflicts and reconciliation, although some evidence suggestthat they can also be triggers of conflict. What is also not in doubt is that these organisationshave a key role to play in bringing about non-violent social change, in particular by bridgingthe gap between the peoples of West Africa at local levels and formal decision-makingstructures in ECOWAS. This also demonstrates why civil society is key to the entrenchmentof the Responsibility to Protect at both national and sub-regional levels, especially if RTP istaken as the sum-total of activities that will support peace making and conflicttransformation: demobilisation, restructuring of the local security system; resettlement ofrefugees and the internally displaced persons; removal of dangerous weapons – mines andunexploded firearms, reconstruction of shattered infrastructure, humanitarian relief anddisaster management.The consultation however recognised two key challenges: first, relates to the extent to whichcivil society is itself organised and the linkages it builds to have the desired impact, andsecond the capacity (or lack of it) that exists in civil society to sustain alternative trackinterventions that can complement the work of official institutions and government agencies.Lacking the systematic linkages and the structures necessary for mutual support, civil societyorganisations, it was agreed, need to establish a regional structure/network which will enablethem both to communicate and collaborate more effectively among themselves, and toengage constructively with ECOWAS in the overall pursuit of the RTP agenda and othersimilar initiatives. Both ECOWAS and various West African NGOs are now agreed on the 12
  13. 13. need for such a structure which will enable the development of a strategic relationshipamongst West African NGOs and with ECOWAS and it is this gap that this consultationseeks to address. The consultation mandated the organisers to pursue the task of creating andinstitutionalising such a structure with a view to utilising it to pursue a collective agenda ofcivil societyAfter an extensive interactive session, the following decisions were reached with regard tohow best to sustain the momentum which had been ignited by the consultation:  There is a need for Secretariat to service the initiative of a Civil Society Task Force. CDD will continue to serve as a coordinating point until other stakeholders can make more substantial contributions;  A List serve will be established by CDD to sustain the discussions;  The collective position (Communiqué) of the Consultation will be presented at the Wilton Park conference holding the following week in the UK;  There is a need to link up directly with the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)  There is a need to explore areas of collaboration with the Liu Centre and other institutions interested in the Responsibility to Protect initiative.In order to implement the above, we consider that it would be necessary to: • Present the outcomes of the Abuja Consultation to the Wilton Park Conference on the RTP (10-14 February, 2003) • Liaise with the ICISS officials on how best to promote the RTP; • Liaise with ECOWAS on the outcomes of the Abuja Consultation, and hold informal preliminary discussions with the ECOWAS Secretariat on how best to engage the proposed Task Force. • Liaise with the Liu Centre and other institutions interested in promoting the Responsibility to Protect. 13
  14. 14. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSParticipants commended the efforts of the International Commission on Intervention andState Sovereignty and agreed that external initiatives have their relevance in the quest forsustainable peace building in the sub-region. Yet, they also argued that what would be mostbeneficial is often assistance packages that enhance the capacity of local initiatives throughexpended resource base, rather than a duplication of existing initiatives or the super-imposition of new initiatives.While many participants readily acknowledged the need for a permanent, stand-by force thatcan make humanitarian intervention readily available, it was also felt that any talk of aspermanent force must go hand in hand with addressing holistically the conditions forinstability in the sub-region, since the solutions to these do not necessarily require the use offorce. The suggested a range of concerted efforts that could be made, including thestrengthening of early warning observation system, the development of accountable andefficient states aimed at delivering the goods to citizens and the development of indigenouscapacities to prevent and resolve conflicts might prove more appropriate.On intervention and sovereignty, the consultation stressed that intervention, where inevitable,must be based on thorough analyses of the causes, dynamics and trajectories of the particularsituation. It must be carefully and comprehensively planned by taking into full account thepolitical, economic, cultural, institutional, border related and commercial factors involved inthe conflict. Also, any plan to intervene must be based on a sound assessment of emerginginternational norms and a clear sighted understanding of existing institutional capacities.The consultation concluded that an adoption of a peacebuilding approach to national and sub-regional security which should result in an assessment of each country’s security environmentand an evaluation of the structures, roles and missions of the different sectors would help inthe development of national Action Plans. A number of key recommendations emerged at theend of the consultation. These are: • Development of a Lessons learned project that studies the contribution of West Africa to the development of the concept of humanitarian intervention; • Enhancement of sub-regional early warning systems and improvement of coordination in the collection and management of information between ECOWAS and independent civil society institutions. • The establishment of a Stand-By Force for peacekeeping and other relevant combined operations; • The building of effective civil sector capacity for peace support operations and humanitarian activities. • Improvement of ECOWAS’ capacity to manage the diverse security sector transformation challenges confronting West Africa. 14
  15. 15. COMMUNIQUE OF THE WEST AFRICAN CONSULTATION ON THERESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT REPORT, HELD AT HILTON HOTEL, ABUJA, NIGERIA FROM 7 - 9 FEBRUARY, 2003.We, the participants, at the West African consultation on the Report of the InternationalCommission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), met at NICON-HILTON HotelAbuja, Nigeria, with the objectives to: • Critically examine the ICISS Report and the concepts reviewed in a context-specific manner • Outline the useful aspects of the Report • Identify any clear omissions, or aspects with which the civil society strongly disagree or areas that require more elaboration • Explore how the report might fit with other relevant initiatives such as the African Union Charter, the NEPAD Strategy Document and the ECOWAS’ Protocol on Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution and Peacekeeping • Examine the framework for its operationalisation, looking at the opportunities and challenges that would help or hinder the promotion of the Responsibility to Protect as a concept • Recommend any role for civil society institutions and non-governmental bodies in promoting the concept in West Africa.We recognize that: • The RTP lays out a new framework for thinking about state sovereignty and regional responsibility. • Given the present strategic stage in Africa’s search for sustainable and people-based development, the RTP represents a viable conceptual analytical and practical instrument for achieving the complex but critical goals of humanitarian intervention in Africa. • RTP, with its emphasis and focus on people (as opposed to governments) intersects directly with the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Protocol on the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution and Peacekeeping in West Africa. • The ‘responsibility to prevent’ is of cardinal significance and relevance to the Early Warning and Early Response (EWER) component of the Peace and Security component of NePAD as well as the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution and Peacekeeping. • The proliferation of conflicts in Africa is a symptom of the crisis of state making and state formation on the continent.We regret that: • Even though West African sub-region has played a pioneering and practical role in the search for new approaches to the concept of State Sovereignty and regional responsibility, particularly following the end of the cold war, the rich experiences of the sub-region did not appear to have significantly informed the work of the ICISS, as evidenced by the fact that ECOMOG was only mentioned once in the entire report (page 48) 15
  16. 16. • The sub region lacks the will and capacity to implement the RTP due to political, structural and operational problems, • Humanitarian Intervention is often implemented as ‘Humanitarian Containment’, indicating that humanitarian intervention is implemented alongside a fortress and xenophobic mentality in the developed countries. The result is that victims of conflict often have no sanctuary outside their states when the Responsibility to Protect is impossible to implement.We recommend that • In Africa, emphasis should be placed on the Responsibility to Prevent, and that this is best done through the development and strengthening of Early Warning and Early Response (EWER) Mechanisms • There should be a synergy between the RTP Report of the ICISS and the Report of the Commission on Human Security, with a view to articulating a coordinated response to the humanitarian question. • In order to enhance the sub-region’s capacity for conflict management generally, and to implement the RTP in particular, a civil society Task Force should be established. Such a Task Force would operate parallel to ECOWAS, and would provide timely analyses and expertise to ECOWAS on issues of peace and security. The proposed task force would also accommodate a pool of experts to enhance the sub region’s capacity to protect and to rebuild in the future.In order to implement the above, we consider that it would be necessary to: • Present the outcomes of the Abuja Consultation to the Wilton Park Conference on the RTP (10-14 February, 2003) • Liaise with the ICISS • Liaise with ECOWAS on the outcomes of the Abuja Consultation, and hold informal preliminary discussions with the ECOWAS Secretariat on how best to engage the proposed Task Force. • Liaise with the Liu Center at the University of British Columbia in developing practical initiatives around the adoption of RTP in West Africa and post-adoption initiatives.9 February, 2003 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 16
  17. 17. WEST AFRICA REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT INITIATIVENO NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE/FAX E-MAIL Prof M ABDULAHI AFSTRAG/NIGERIA 1. DEFENCE ACADEMY Dr Kole SHETTIMA Macarthur +234 9 413 k.shettima.macarthur@skannet. 2. Foundation, 9720 com NIGERIA Dr. Kayode FAYEMI Centre for 234-1-804 3221 3. Democracy 234-1-4960 363 & Development Mr Adelino HANDEM Alternag, GUINEA 4. BISSAU Col Michael SMITH ECOWAS 0044-208678- 5. Secretariat 6800 Dr. Funmi CSDG Unit, King’s +234 803 590 6. OLONISAKIN College – LONDON, 9256 UK Dr Adedeji EBO NDA – Kaduna, +234-803- 3 7. NIGERIA 114935 Dr Amos ANYIMADU Africa Security +233 24 379024; 8. Dialogue & Research, Accra, GHANA Ghana Action +233 24 632694 9. Prosper Nii ADDO Network on Small Arms, Accra, GHANA(GHANSA) Baobab for +234 1 262 director@baobabforwomen.org10. Sindi MEDAR-GOULD Women’s Human 6267; 3200484 Rights, NIGERIA Intl. Human Rights 234-09- lawgroup@skannet.com11. Victoria I. NWAOGU Law Group, 4134152-3 NIGERIA 08037861413 Mr Ayo Sadikou ALAO GERDDES – (229)-90-61-9112. AFRIQUE, Cotonou BENIN REPUBLIC Takwa Z. SUIFON West Africa +233-21-221- ztakwa@yahoo.fr13. Network for Peace 318/388,090355 building (WANEP), 7620 Fax:+233- Accra, GHANA 21221-735 Dr. Gani YOROMS Centre for Peace 08033115642, ganiyoroms@yahoo.com14. Research & Conflict 2234-76106 Resolution, NWC, ABUJA, NIGERIA Canadian High +234 803 402 ron.willson@dfait-maeci.gc.ca15. Ron Willson Commission, Abuja, 2033 NIGERIA Dayo Oluyemi – KUSA IPCR , The +234 802-350- dayokusa@yahoo.com16. (Dr) Presidency, Nigeria 425017. Ololade BAMIDELE CDD Lagos, +234 1 17
  18. 18. NIGERIA 804 3221 RADDHO – +221- waripnet@sentoo.sn18. Sadikh NIASS WARIPNET, 5511774/824 SENEGAL 6016,824 605219 Brima JALLOH CEDE, LIBERIA cede-reg@afnet.net20 Isata SCOTT CGG, SIERRA +232 235626 LEONE21 Amina SALIHU CDD, Abuja, +234 9 NIGERIA 413 072922 Folake AKINYOSOYE CDD, Abuja, NIGERIA “ fakinyosoye@cddnig.org23 Christiane Agboton- Malao, Dakar, JOHNSON SENEGAL24 Kafui Adjamagbo- WILDAF-WEST Johnson AFRICA, Lome, TOGO25 Kwan-Kouassi, Prof Univ du Benin, Lome, TOGO26 Niyi ALABI, Dr The PolyGlot & +233 24 271111 Choice FM Radio, Accra, GHANA27 Buhari, BELLO, Dr National Human +234 9 Rights Commission, 5238658; 523 NIGERIA 177428 Okey IBEANU, Dr Macarthur +234 9 413 Foundation, Abuja, m NIGERIA29 Ogoh, ALUBO, Prof National Institute +234 9 for Policy & Strategic Studies, Kuru, NIGERIA30 18
  19. 19. WEST AFRICAN CONSULTATION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT HILTON HOTEL, 8 FEBRUARY 2003 AGENDA9:00 Introduction - Dr Kayode Fayemi, Director, CDD & Chair of meeting• Participant introductions• Background information, purpose of meeting and review of agenda9.15 Opening Remarks by the Macarthur Foundation (Dr Kole Shettima, Director, Macarthur Foundation, Abuja, Nigeria)9.30 Overview of the ICISS Report on the Responsibility to Protect• Background, core principles, recommendations to take the R2P initiative forward10:00 Regional Perspectives on the ICISS Report on the Responsibility to Protect (by Dr Funmi Olonisakin, Director, Conflict, Security & Development Group, International Policy Institute & Senior Research Fellow, African Security Unit, King’s College, London)• Critique of the concepts outlined in the ICISS Report?• Linkages to relevant African framework and initiatives?• How might the R2P Report fit with these?• Opportunities for R2P operationalization?10.30 Contributions from participants11:45 The Role of Civil Society – Regional & International Perspectives -• Does the ICISS Report raise issues with which your organization could be involved? Why or why not?12:30 Lunch Break2:00 Role of Civil Society Organisations (Interactive Session)• Is there a role for an NGO network on these issues? What would the role and mandate be? Who would the members be?• What considerations should be taken into account in developing a network?• What specific activities might a network be involved with?• What specific ideas are there in terms of promoting the norms identified in the ICISS Report?• What other networks, groups etc. are doing relevant work and should be consulted/included? 19
  20. 20. 4.00 Next Steps• What opportunities are there to raise general awareness of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect?• What possibilities for engaging policy makers at national and inter-governmental levels.• What should be the next steps in the formation of an NGO network?5.00 Close of Meeting 20