After completing a scintillating [cough, cough] on the responsibility to protect [R2P] and its operation in West Africa, I shamelessly seize any opportunity to crowbar my knowledge in this area into current affairs. My thesis focused on the preventive arm of (R2P) and I continue to examine any responsibility which the international community may have in preventing human suffering in fragile states.
In April 2014, the first cases of Ebola were brought to international attention. The outbreak had started in Guinea the previous year, but quickly spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone with isolated cases in neighbouring Senegal and a transported outbreak in Nigeria. Without a hashtag to cling to or an ice bucket challenge to surmount, the world largely ignored the outbreak. It was not till selfless American and British aid workers, who contracted the deadly virus, were flown to their respective homelands for treatment, that the mass hysteria of an imminent biological apocalypse caused several governments around the world (outside West Africa) to begin to consider what they may do to avoid the virus killing their own citizens. Nevertheless, by October 2014 infections had occurred in the US and Spain.
By November 2015, 19 months since the first confirmed case on 23 March 2014, there had been 11,314 recorded deaths in six countries; Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, the US and Mali. The total number of reported cases on that date was more than 28,607 and counting. A report published in the Lancet in 2015, blames the epidemic spread of the disease on the slow international response [Moon, Suerie, et al 2015]. The outbreak was declared over in January 2016. 11,315 deaths reported. One of the deadliest epidemics in modern times.
This brings us back to R2P and the international community. The purpose of R2P, according to the ICISS report was to enable the international community to act to prevent human suffering in fragile states. The rapid spread of Ebola was largely due to lack of suitable medical facilities and adequate numbers of medical personnel in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea [the first two were recovering from internal conflict, Guinea had suffered years of internal strife.] R2P is very much a people-centred ideal, but this quality has however been lost in the haze of world events. There is also the unwarranted euphoria of UN at the adoption of the 2005 UN Outcome Document which significantly dilutes and/or misunderstands the original intent behind R2P. As a result R2P has been reduced to giving states an excuse for military intervention in other states. Which is not the most redeeming aim of R2P. The beauty of R2P lay in giving the international community a more people-centred focus. An impetus to build bridges and not walls, as well as the motivation to act in concert for the good of humanity. The beauty of R2P was the beauty of possibility. The possibility of fostering a true international community with egalitarian aims, not a society of disparate and disaffected actors. Nevertheless, I believe that the spirit of R2P can still be salvaged. But, there are various lessons which I would like to point out from the foregoing, moving forward.
Lesson One: The international community as a unitary actor as the world stands now is pure fiction. While the phrase ‘international community’ is used to imply a common point of view, that commonality is almost always overshadowed by personal and political self-interest. The UN and WHO, both seen as evidence of the existence of an international community, barely managed to get a handle on the crisis. The crisis could have been contained with adequate readiness by a cohesive international community in April 2014, but the lack of such a community has resulted in unnecessary loss of life and increasing expenditure. Lesson one: Relying on the international community is like sitting on a chair made of tissue paper, it will let you down.
Lesson Two: So R2P is severely handicapped by a non-existent international community. Yet, the core of the responsibility to protect (R2P), as encapsulated in the report, is stated thus:
‘[w]here 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 avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect’.
Therefore, R2P embraces 3 responsibilities; a responsibility to prevent, a responsibility to react, and a responsibility to rebuild. Thus encapsulated, but maybe not outrightly stated, the vision of the architects of R2P can clearly cover a situation such as the Ebola outbreak, where populations in West Africa are suffering serious harm, and the states concerned are unable to prevent it. Especially when that incapacity is linked to conflict and state fragility. The international responsibility to protect cannot be fulfilled if there is no international community to bear such a responsibility. This is most important to the first part of the continuum, i.e. the responsibility to prevent. Lesson two – R2P without a functional international community is like a toothbrush with no bristles, completely redundant.
Lesson Three: If the international community is to be built, it should start from a sense of human oneness. A sense of equal humanity. Our understanding of community is based on the fictional presumption of shared values. These non-existent shared values rarely result in shared action unless, shared interests are at stake. Each state still believes that its survival is not related to the survival of the rest of humanity. Therefore, the enforcement and implementation of international human rights law will be merely academic until both interests and values coincide. The basic fact of shared humanity should suffice to ignite human compassion. Only when this is taken as read, will we have an international community. The existence of an international community does not require more resources, the world has enough, though unevenly distributed. The international community requires more humanity, not money or security, compassion and human kindness, not rhetoric or bombast… the world needs consistent acts of benevolence. Lesson three – calling the international community a community without any sense of communion is like calling a dying cactus a rose bush, placing it in your parlour and hoping its non-existent fragrance will adorn the premises.
Lesson Four: So, Africa must look to herself. Now more than ever, Africa, [especially the place often called sub-Saharan Africa] must realise that self-sufficiency is required. Aid has solved no problems, interventions have probably done more harm than good, and the recommendation of constant elections, have become a smoke-screen for undemocratic democracies. Both Liberia and Sierra Leone were unable to handle Ebola due to the lack of manpower and infrastructure that have resulted from sustained yet preventable conflict (I suggest you read my thesis, remember, its scintillating). In contrast ever-tense Nigeria, and sporadically conflict-hit Senegal contained Ebola without any external help. Therein lies a truth – if Ebola can be contained in these states, viable economies can be built and the move made from fragile to solid statehood. The international community should eschew aid and promote fair international business practices. Africa should look to herself, adopt its own home-grown solutions, and do good to all people. For Africa, the concept of an international community is a dangerous myth. Lesson 4 – a person who lives at the bottom of a hill, should be the first to build a floodwall during the flood… But for those at the top there is still no escape.
Lesson Five: My final truth – we are one world, one human race. ‘The world has become like a drum – if hit on one end, the whole thing will vibrate.’ At no point in history is this truth more glaring. We see this through the prisms of economic downturns, the fears of climate change, the pressures of petrol prices, the push and pull of migration, the visual horrors of terrorism, and the insecurity of the internet – international law losing its validity at a time when its role should be predominant. Lesson 5 – Different colours, nationalities, genders, dreams, political leanings, social standings, and beliefs – but we breathe in the same air, walk on the same planet, lie under the same stars … and Ebola can kill us all.
Ipinyomi, Foluke Ifejola. “The responsibility to protect and the responsibility to prevent: a legitimate and structural framework for an international non-military responsibility to prevent mass atrocity and internal conflict in West Africa.” PhD diss., Lancaster University, 2011. [full text available upon request]
Moon, Suerie, et al. “Will Ebola change the game? Ten essential reforms before the next pandemic. The report of the Harvard-LSHTM Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola.” The Lancet (2015).
Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,. “The Responsibility to Protect.” (2001): 155-75.
UN General Assembly World Summit Outcome Document 2005. A/RES/60/1.