Click here to access the online version of Canadian Voices on R2P.

This April marks the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide. Over the course of just 100 days in the spring of 1994, over 800,000 Rwandan civilians were slaughtered while the international community watched in silence. Throughout this period, this genocide was conveniently categorized as an “African tribal problem” by the rest of the world. But far from being a tribal war , it was the deliberate killing of an ethnic group, the Tutsis, that took place in Rwanda 20 years ago.

Had the international community called the genocide what it was, it would have had an obligation under international law to take action. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, compels contracting parties “to prevent and to punish” such acts.  Yet, the rest of the world, especially the western countries and the United Nations, failed to live up to its collective responsibility. Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, who was on the ground in Rwanda at the time overseeing a helpless UN mandate for peacekeeping, called it a “failure of humanity”.

Since 1994, our thinking on international humanitarian intervention has evolved a great deal. Under the leadership of the Canadian government, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty gave birth to the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” in 2001. In doing so, the architects of the R2P principle hoped to shift the language from “right to intervene” to “sovereignty as a responsibility.” The principle states that when countries manifestly fail to protect their own populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, the international community has the responsibility to protect the population at risk. However, it emphasized that the use of military force was the absolute last resort, to be used only after exhausting all other options. This was a turning point in our Westphalian understanding of state sovereignty.

Since then, the normative journey of the R2P principle has had its ups and downs. After 9/11 and the start of the “War on Terror” it was seemingly forgotten by the Western world. At the 2005 World Summit, it was unanimously endorsed by the world leaders in the outcome document. The war in Libya, an intervention that ultimately resulted in a regime change, bolstered both supporters and critics.

As we look around the world today, with the warning signs that a genocide could break out in the Central African Republic and the on-going crisis in Syria, the international community’s pledge of “never again” remains as relevant as ever. But Canada’s role as a champion of the Responsibility to Protect has grown more ambiguous, despite such compelling and urgent needs on the ground.

Throughout the month of April 2014, the Canadian Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and OpenCanada.org will be publishing reflections from prominent Canadians who have shown leadership in promoting global humanitarianism. Through this project, we hope to reflect upon the lessons learned since the Rwandan Genocide, the journey of the R2P principle, and the role that Canada can still exercise in the face of mass human atrocities around the world. While it is not intended to be an exhaustive survey, this project aims to bring together politicians, policy-makers, scholars, civil society representatives, and religious leaders to share their ideas on this important anniversary.