Approaches to International Security: the Brazilian and Dutch experience

Your Excellencies, members of the Brazilian National Congress, representatives of the Brazilian government, ladies and gentlemen,

I’d like to thank you minister Patriota for your hospitality during my visit to Brazil. Thanks also to Ambassador Luiz Augusto de Castro Neves of CEBRI and to Professor Ko Colijn from the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. They jointly initiated this seminar on a topic that affects everyone, all over the world: the universal need to feel safe and secure. Or to enjoy ‘freedom from fear’, as Franklin D Roosevelt put it in 1941.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The older generation can remember the era of the Cold War, the Iron Curtain and a bipolar world. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the US as the sole world power. Charles Krauthammer called this 'The Unipolar Moment'. According to Krauthammer, the position of the United States was unique in human history. Later on, in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, Paul Kennedy went so far as to claim that between 1989 and 2001, America’s global influence surpassed that of the Roman Empire. And it led Francis Fukuyama to say that the struggle for the leading ideological paradigm in history had ended. Both Krauthammer and Fukuyama saw Western liberal democracies remaining dominant in world affairs for a long time to come.

The events of the last decade, however, show a different pattern. Since 9/11 and the economic rise of nations like China, Russia, India, South Africa and, of course, Brazil, the world has been transformed from a unipolar into a multipolar order.

This new world order brings with it many challenges. Take the growing global demand for energy sources and raw materials. And the alarming scarcity of food and water, causing conflict and strife that has set mass migration in motion. The world is literally on the move. The consequences are uncertain.

In this rapidly changing world, it is hard to tell what tomorrow might bring, but one thing is clear: the rising powers are striving for a more prominent place in world affairs. Demographically, economically and technologically, the West has lost its dominance on the world stage. The international community is gradually coming to terms with this development. The founding of the G20 illustrates that process.

Besides presenting challenges, the changing world order also poses threats. The spread of weapons of mass destruction remains a serious danger to all of humanity. You need only look at North Korea, which left the Non-Proliferation Treaty after having developed a nuclear weapon. North Korea has used its nuclear status in a most irresponsible fashion. Recently, the Venezuelan writer Moisés Naim called nations like North Korea ‘Mafia states’. He signalled a growing number of states that are blurring – and sometimes crossing – the line between legitimate government and organised crime: ‘There is no telling where crime syndicates stop and states begin’. And in his bestseller Illicit, Naim uncovered the connections between drug cartels, human trafficking, the trade in illegal weapons and terrorists.

These examples show that states can still pose significant dangers to world peace. The most serious conflicts in the world today are between states or the result of clashes between different groups trying to form a state. Just consider the Middle East, Sudan or the Caucasus.

But states are not the only threat to the international community. Today small groups of people and even individuals can do dreadful things. Let’s face it. Networks of terrorists have no interest in international protocols and treaties. So we don’t have a level playing field. As former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has described this battle: ‘The conventional army loses if it does not win. The terrorist wins if he does not lose.’

Some terrorist networks also have nuclear aspirations. The world held its breath after Al Qa’ida threatened to unleash a ‘nuclear hell storm’ if Osama Bin Laden were to be killed. New threats like terrorism and the nuclear aspirations of rogue networks threaten global stability.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, the international community is trying to deal with the challenge of guaranteeing security, peace and stability in the world. What should we do if the risk of genocide arises? What if ethnic cleansing is going on somewhere? What if crimes against humanity or war crimes are being committed? The killing fields of Cambodia, the genocide in Rwanda, the atrocities committed in Darfur – these terrible events serve as a warning: that threats to peace and security can arise anywhere and at any time.

Brazil and the Netherlands have a common ambition: to do all we can to help promote international legal order and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Our constitutions require us to live up to these values. Since 2005, for that matter, global leaders have generally accepted the principle of Responsibility to Protect. The concept is an important step forward in our thinking on international security. It helps prevent mass atrocities. But it’s also a principle that needs further reflection. So it’s good to have an open debate on the subject.

The core of the principle is not up for debate. The international community must prevent genocide and the other most serious crimes. First Responsibility to Protect starts with prevention: It is the prime responsibility of states to protect their own people and to ensure that their people are protected from the state. Second, the international community has a responsibility to help states do so. For example by fostering reliable policing and promoting the effective rule of law. Finally, the international community must take action if a state is unable or unwilling to prevent these crimes from taking place.

Another aspect of the Responsibility to Protect is tackling impunity as much as possible. The Netherlands is the host state of various international courts and tribunals. As the legal capital of the world, The Hague forms the last link in the chain of prevention, protection and prosecution.

Of course, the Responsibility to Protect carries with it many dilemmas. It’s good to see scholars and policymakers coming together to discuss their respective viewpoints. And I’m glad to see this happening in Brazil, a country that has been very active – in the Security Council, for example – in the debate on this subject. The concept of Responsibility While Protecting, introduced by Brazil, contains elements that may very well reinforce the principle of Responsibility to Protect. Our countries can learn a lot from each other.

As co-chair of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect in New York, the Netherlands also takes an active part in this debate. At the last UN General Assembly in September last year, I spoke about the challenges surrounding Responsibility to Protect. I hope we can build today on the open and constructive dialogue we had at that meeting.

Some of the dilemmas concerning the Responsibility to Protect are based on misconceptions. Responsibility to Protect is not, for example, primarily about military intervention. Military force only comes into play when all other options to counter horrific crimes have been exhausted. The ultimate goal of Responsibility to Protect is to ‘prevent the worst’. The Brazilian concept of Responsibility While Protecting arose out of concerns about the application of the Responsibility to Protect. I do appreciate Brazil’s contribution to the debate. It is indeed essential to think through the consequences when taking a decision as drastic as military intervention. That’s why military action is the last resort. We both agree on that. We also agree on the relevance of collective responsibility. Even if the threat of genocide is isolated within a sovereign state, the international community still has a responsibility. We learnt that lesson in Rwanda in 1994. Military intervention must always remain an option. Only then can the international community stand up for the helpless victims of brutal oppression and persecution.

The Netherlands also believes that exhaustive analysis and military reporting must never stand in the way of timely and decisive action by the international community. A balance is required. Careful advance analysis is essential, but must not lead to ‘analysis paralysis’.

The risk of the international community taking no action may go beyond the risk of military action coming too soon or going too far. Of course, fact-finding missions to determine the situation on the ground in the early stage of a conflict are crucial. Mediation and preventive diplomacy are another element. Targeted non-military sanctions can and should also be used. But ultimately, military intervention must always remain an option. Only then can we prevent the worst atrocities in states that cannot or will not protect their people.

This brings us, inevitably, to a very topical example: Syria. When war crimes are committed in a complex, unstable region, a real dilemma arises. Obviously, the situation in Syria is a major concern for the international community. Every day we hear terrible reports. Men, women and children, civilians, opposition leaders and soldiers are dying. The situation in Syria illustrates the complexity of applying Responsibility to Protect in practice. To be sure, we have always to ask ourselves what action is the best for the people, given the highly inflammable regional constellation.

The UN is working on a political solution to protect the Syrian people. The Netherlands supports the Six-Point Plan of Kofi Annan. The fact that Annan is representing the entire international community is pivotal. This mission, too, is part of the toolkit of Responsibility to Protect. Brazil is working under difficult circumstances to help monitor compliance with the cease-fire. I applaud the Brazilian government for this important contribution. It reaffirms the global responsibility Brazil is assuring in helping guarantee international security and stability. And it builds on the country’s efforts in Haiti and Lebanon.

Returning to the global picture, the Netherlands is also doing its part. We are currently active in more than ten countries, from south-eastern Europe to Africa and Asia, helping to strengthen peace and security. We are working under the flags of the UN, NATO and the EU. We should strengthen our cooperation with partners that share our values of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the principles of free markets and free trade. Brazil immediately comes to mind, of course, but there are others, too: South Korea, Japan, South Africa and hopefully a number of countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Whether we call them ‘global partners’ in the framework of NATO or speak of a ‘UN Democracy Caucus’ or a ‘Community of Democracies’, the basic philosophy is the same.

I believe that holding an open and honest debate on the Responsibility to Protect is extremely valuable. Fortunately, Brazil and the Netherlands have similar ambitions when it comes to promoting the international legal order. We largely share the same views. The Netherlands and the Group of Friends of Responsibility to Protect remain open to dialogue with Brazil and other global players. And I’m very pleased that the principle’s development is on the agenda today. Let us enjoy a productive and harmonious debate.

Thank you.