Statement by H.E. Ambassador Bui The Giang, Deputy Permanent Representative of Viet Nam, at the GA’s Plenary Meeting on Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
07-24-2009, 02:28 pm
Statement
by H.E. Ambassador Bui The Giang,
Deputy Permanent Representative of Viet Nam,
at the GA’s Plenary Meeting on Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
(24 July 2009)
Mr. President,
I would like to start by thanking the President of the
General Assembly for his persistent efforts to solicit views from a broad range
of sectors in preparation for this plenary meeting. I appreciate the
Secretary-General for his report on R2P that has attested to his tireless endeavors
to take into account a vast spectrum of diverse and even conflicting views on
this topic.
My Delegation associates itself with the statement
made by the distinguished representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement.
Mr. President,
With the adoption of the Outcome
Document in 2005, the international community at its highest level accepted for
the first time a key instrument on R2P, a concept which has been an actual part
of the life of humankind for a long time yet had not been officialized until
then. With this adoption, we now do not have to discuss whether R2P is
necessary. Also, as the Outcome Document determines in a clearcut manner the
four crimes, i.e. genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and nothing else, that are subject to R2P, we do not have to struggle
to define the scope of this concept. In this context, we share the view of other
delegations that the report represents an excellent ground for discussions on
how to render the Outcome Document operational today when conflicts continue to
spread and escalate in many parts of the world, making R2P more imperative and
urgent than ever before.
Mr. President,
We cannot agree more with the
Secretary-General in his comment that “the responsibility to protect, first and
foremost, is a matter of State responsibility”. This goes unambiguously in line
with paragraph 138 of the Outcome Document which confirms that “each individual
State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. We are grateful to the
world’s top leaders for their wisdom when asserting in paragraph 138 that “the
international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to
exercise this responsibility”. The Secretary-General is absolutely right when in
his report deliberating this encouragement and help into four forms of
assistance. In other words, the international community and the United Nations
system have a very critical role to play in helping countries concerned,
including through political mediation, peacekeeping operations, and provision
of assistance and capacity building. And recalling the “first and foremost
responsibility of the State” in R2P, let me add that such international assistance
can be most effective once it is based on engagement and cooperation with
related States. Subsequently, given the diverse interpretations of paragraph
139 of the Outcome Document, we believe in the need to refrain from singling
out one qualifier or two as more important than others. Rather, it is necessary
to equally emphasize all the 5 qualifiers/components as we perceived them, i.e.
the voluntary engagement of States, the application of timely and decisive collective
action, the ‘case by case basis’, the conformity with the Charter, including
Chapter VII, and the cooperation with relevant regional organizations as
appropriate. In this context, this qualifier “timely and decisive collective
action”, described as Pillar 3 in the Secretary-General’s report, requires
clear and rational definition to avoid its possible confinement to coersive
military force as the only alternative. Similarly, measures like economic
sanctions and reference to the International Criminal Court should be carefuly considered
on the case-by-case basis, free from politicization, selectivity and double
standards, before a decision is made on their enforcement. And in all
circumstances, impact of such actions on the population, particularly the most
vulnerable segments, should be the top priority consideration.
Mr. President,
Motivated by a comprehensive approach,
we have always maintained that the best way to protect the population is to
prevent wars and conflicts and to address the root causes of conflicts and
social tensions, which lie in poverty and economic underdevelopment. Cultural and
religious tensions must also be adequately attended to and tacfully dealt with in
order to avoid their potential of flaring into conflicts and wars, as has been
the case more than once in history. In this connection, education and public
awareness must be conducted intensively and regularly, particularly in remote
and disadvantaged areas. We believe that the United Nations, being the world’s
largest pool of experience and expertise, can and should contribute to this
process. On our part, we commit to proactively and constructively working with
other members of the international community to ensure success of this process.