Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rains that come to Rwanda every April are a chilling reminder of the evil season of genocide that occurred at this time of year, 14 years ago. More than 800,000 people were murdered in 100 days—one every 10 seconds—and the world did nothing. On April 7 this year, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, marked the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, stating, ‘May the searing memory of the genocide in Rwanda always spur us on our mission.’

One of the most important international legacies of this murderous genocide has been the emergence of the doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’. The doctrine, formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, states that each individual state has the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; and that member states recognise that the international community, through the UN, has a responsibility to assist states to meet their protection obligations and to respond in cases of manifest failure. This is a doctrine that challenges us to place a higher value on the human rights of the individual than the nation-states in which they live.

This doctrine represents a paradigm shift in how we think about our international system. It is a worthy doctrine, one that deserves our enthusiastic and indeed evangelical support. However, one must question whether our postwar institutions are capable of making this doctrine a genuine reality. It may be a case of seeking to pour new wine into old wineskins. In Sudan we have had a critical test of the UN’s resolve on responsibility to protect. In the face of a continuing and escalating humanitarian crisis, the international community, including Australia, is failing the test. There are 4.2 million Darfurians dependent on international assistance, 2.5 million have been torn from their homes, and according to the UN 400,000 have been killed.

In July last year, the long-awaited UN resolution 1769 established the joint United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Yet in putting UNAMID together the Sudanese government rejected the UN proposed roster of troop, engineering and police contributing countries. In April this year the special representative for UNAMID reported to the UN his significant frustration at the failure of member states to follow through on their commitments. Of an authorised strength of almost 30,000 troops and other security personnel, there is a little over 9,000 on the ground. UNAMID is also lacking in five critical operational capabilities, including attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, medium lift support helicopters, military engineers and logistical support. The special representative sadly concluded that ‘even though Darfur is at the top of the international agenda, this attention has not been matched with action to provide UNAMID with the wherewithal to accomplish the tasks assigned to it’. Australia’s commitment is nine military officers and we have provided $13 million in aid, $10 million in 2005. I understand no overtures have been made to provide Australian air assets to Sudan to this point.

In Burma, we see another failed test of our global responsibility to protect. The Burmese government have for more than three weeks prevented international assistance and humanitarian aid from permeating their borders, following the devastating Cyclone Nargis. The callousness of the Burmese junta regime has sentenced their people to death, disease and destitution. Save the Children and the UN estimate that the death toll could now exceed 200,000. We read in the media of bodies floating in rice paddies, children naked and dying, families wiped out, shooting of prisoners, broken legs and arms unset, babies sleeping on banana leaves in the mud, and incompetence and corruption in handling of aid supplies. Where 40 relief planes should have been landing every day, there has barely been one.

I commend the UN Secretary-General for his efforts in getting the doors open but, frankly, we should not have had to ask. The chairman of the UN Security Council claimed that the 2006 resolution referred only to ‘acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity rather than governmental responsibility to natural disasters’. Well, if what we have observed in Burma does not qualify as a crime against humanity, let us be more specific. Let us do what the member for Mayo has suggested and ensure that the concept of responsibility to protect be extended to humanitarian assistance. Responsibility to protect must be more than warm and fuzzy rhetoric; it must be a promise upon which hundreds of millions of marginalised and oppressed people throughout the world and their families can rely with their lives and give them the hope that they desire for their future.