Restoring peace in complex emergencies
Plenary session no 5
Sunday 1 June 2008, 10.45 am
SPEAKERS
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Malaysia
Major-General Aye Myint
Deputy Minister of Defence, Myanmar
Dr Julio Tomas Pinto
Secretary of State for Defence, Timor Leste
Dr Jakob Kellenberger
President, International Committee of the Red Cross
In the wake of the natural disasters in Myanmar and China, this session addressed a particularly important and poignant theme, as speakers, highlighting natural disasters as one key type of complex emergency, considered issues of sovereignty and the role of the international community and the military in supporting affected governments.
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, set out the conventional definition of a ‘complex emergency’ as induced by violence or conflict, and argued it should be seen in a wider context, to include situations in which a state was badly affected by natural disasters when these went ‘beyond the capacity or capability of that particular nation to manage it’. Examples included the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and the recent devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in southern Myanmar. Najib welcomed Myanmar’s confidence in ASEAN’s coordination of the international response. There was no need to resort to force in efforts to assist Myanmar. However, faced with challenges of this magnitude, a ‘more comprehensive and dynamic approach’ was called for.
Najib also welcomed the establishment of an interim Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management in Jakarta, Indonesia, as part of ASEAN’s agreement on disaster management and emergency response. He offered suggestions for developing the centre’s capacity: militaries had a key role to play, the provision of appropriate manpower and resources was vital, as was inter-agency
coordination, training and information sharing. Najib said intervention should not be unilateral, and the sovereignty of the affected state should always be respected, with peace-building based on trust and transparency rather than conditionality.
Major-General Aye Myint, Deputy Defence Minister of Myanmar, gave an account of Cyclone Nargis, the extent of the damage caused, and the work of his government to date. He said the government had warned the public about the cyclone through newspapers, radio and television from 24 April onwards. On 2–3 May the storm hit southern Myanmar, severely affecting 7.1 million people. Currently 77,738 people were recorded dead, 55,917 missing and 19,359 injured. Total damage to properties was estimated at $10.7 billion. However, ‘due to the prompt and immediate supervisions of the supervisory central body, headed by the prime minister and member ministers, emergency rescue and relief was undertaken’. There were civilian medical teams from 11 countries now providing support. Myint said that the ‘government of the Union of Myanmar is fully cooperating with the UN agencies and the international NGOs for the rehabilitation of the storm-hit people’. Altogether 27 countries and 10 organisations were helping with relief supplies.
Noting that there was still a lot of work to do, Myint declared that his government ‘warmly welcome[d] any assistance and aid, which are provided with genuine goodwill, from any country or any organisation, provided that there are no strings attached’. He thanked the international community for its assistance to date.
Dr Julio Tomas Pinto, Timor Leste’s Defence Minister, focused on his country’s experiences of two complex emergencies in its short six-year history. In 1999, the violence that followed the vote for independence had displaced a quarter of the new country’s population, and, in the absence of a sovereign government, the UN assumed executive power, co-ordinating humanitarian assistance. Immediate needs were met relatively quickly, but the transition to sustainable economic recovery proved more difficult. ‘The long-term effect of the crisis and the response contributed to the dynamic that resulted in the 2006 crisis,’ he said. In the 2006 crisis, the UN had taken charge of law enforcement at the invitation of the government, and a trilateral coordination forum had been set up with Australia’s involvement to discuss security arrangements, including for the elections held in 2007. Pinto said that the subsequent important progress made in security-sector reform had been demonstrated in the effective work of the police and the military following an assassination attempt on President José Ramos-Horta in February 2008, when rebels had been persuaded to surrender without the use of force.
Calling for a culture of conflict prevention, Pinto noted that Timor Leste was currently undertaking a major review of security-sector reform, aimed at reinforcing national cohesion. The plan was for ‘an integrated system of forces, able to prevent political and military crises, and to intervene in future civil emergencies’.
Dr Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), focused on the unique role that the ICRC could play in natural disasters, where quick reactions to an unexpected tragedy could prove crucial in containing and alleviating the situation. ‘When the needs of a population exceed the national capacity to respond, governments should take advantage of the help offered by international actors,’ he said. Concerns about sovereignty and interference in domestic affairs could lead to preventable deaths.
A key challenge in providing effective assistance was coordination, which needed to be ‘action-oriented and reality-based’. In the case of armed conflict this meant gaining access to those in need of help, which necessitated dialogue with all parties to the conflict. The ICRC sought regular dialogues with militaries all over the world, but this did not undermine its neutrality. Kellenberger stressed ICRC’s mandate as enshrined in the Geneva Convention and ratified by all countries, describing the ICRC as an impartial, neutral and independent organisation with an exclusively humanitarian mission. Its action was based on a dialogue with affected parties and acceptance by them. The ICRC had shown its capacity for disaster relief after the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, when it had worked closely with Pakistan’s armed forces. It also worked closely with military forces in Afghanistan. The ICRC sought complementary relationships with regional organisations such as ASEAN in order to strengthen regional responses to emergencies.
Questions and answers
Barry Desker, Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, asked whether Myanmar’s handling of the humanitarian crisis might undermine ASEAN and in particular its commitment to good governance and humanitarian relief, especially given Myanmar’s current chairmanship of ASEAN’s Committee on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief. He also wondered why Myanmar had not allowed ASEAN militaries to be involved in disaster relief, and whether, after differences with ASEAN, Myanmar might be turning towards the South Asian Regional grouping of SAARC.
Kishore Mahbubani,Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore,wondered how ASEAN should react to the UN’s growing emphasis on ‘responsibility to protect’ in the light of ASEAN’s traditional
emphasis on the need to protect the sovereignty of nation states. Fleur de Villiers, Chairman of the IISS Trustees, wondered whether relief in situations such as the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis should be directed solely through ASEAN. Narendra Singh Sisodia, Director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India, wondered whether the regional disaster relief coordination centre that was being established could also conduct studies on the regional impact of climate change, set up a system for alerts and warnings, and provide a training function to improve interoperability.
In response, Najib noted that ASEAN understood the situation in Myanmar to be serious, and that it wanted to play a bigger role in disaster relief. The only viable organisations that could act effectively were military forces. However, support from the sovereign host was vital. ASEAN did not need to be the sole organisation channelling aid, but realistically it was the one with which the government of Myanmar was most comfortable. The minister also argued that the disaster relief coordination centre should be action-oriented rather than involved in research.
Pierre Lellouche, Member, French National Assembly and Chairman, French delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly, challenged Deputy Defence Minister Myint’s official account. For example, France had a cargo ship with relief supplies off Myanmar’s coast for three weeks, but was not allowed to dock because it was a military vessel. Lellouche argued that international law should permit prosecution of the leaders of a state before the International Criminal Court if they capriciously refused life-saving aid. Professor François Heisbourg, Chairman of the IISS, noted the large sums of money that Myint’s government would like to see allocated to its reconstruction effort. In the light of the ‘infamous’ statement about foreign chocolate bars not being welcomed, he wondered about Myint’s comment about ‘no strings attached’, questioning whether Myint expected donors to be enthusiastic about playing by such rules. Christian Schmidt, Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Defence Minister, also expressed concern about the situation in Myanmar, especially at the possibility that the government might be ordering displaced persons back to the devastated areas. He called for the international community to be given more access. He also enquired of Dr Kellenberger whether there was a need for international rules to be formulated to mandate the right to access in the event of a natural disaster. Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, Chairman of E.L. Rothschild Ltd, wondered whether education at school on how to survive in the event of natural disasters could be improved. Dr Masashi Nishihara, President of the National Defense Academy of Japan, asked for more detail on the ICRC’s role in the use of armed forces in relief efforts.
Kellenberger replied that the ICRC had no problem respecting the sovereignty of nation states. The ideal situation would always be that a government had the capacity and will to provide for its own people in the event of such emergencies. It was only where capacity was lacking that the ICRC sought a role. The ICRC had offered help in several capacities in Myanmar, and at least one of those offers had been accepted. But the operation was small in comparison to the ICRC’s role elsewhere.
General Myint chose to respond in general terms to the questions and comments put to him. ‘We are trying our best,’ he noted. ‘Every process will not be totally perfect.’ He repeated that Myanmar welcomed assistance without politics or preconditions, and that on these terms, access would be facilitated.
