Civilian protection in peacekeeping

By Jun Mercado, OMI
Friday, February 12. 2010

On the 27th of October 2009, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed an Agreement on Civilian Protection.

The agreement reconfirms the parties’ commitment to observe the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.

By signing this important agreement, both the GRP and the MILF assume all the obligations under the Convention on Human Rights and the International Humanitarian Law.

This, in a special way, has elevated the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF into a higher plane.

What is Civilian protection, especially in areas of conflict?

By definition, Civilian protection refers to all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individuals and communities in accordance with the letter and spirit of the relevant bodies of law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law.

The objective of civilian protection agreement is to reduce the risk and extent of harm to civilians and non-combatants during the actual conflict or during military operations.

The protection of civilians and non combatants is a foremost duty of government and the liberation front.

Both the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law impose duties on all the parties to the conflict. They also set limits on the methods and means of warfare, particularly as they impact the vulnerable groups.

Worldwide, there is a growing concern over the impact of internal conflict on the non combatants, especially women and children.

Today, the international community requires combatants, government and rebels alike, to respect the dignity and right to life of non-combatants, the wounded and sick, and the prisoners of war.

The principle of civilian protection is anchored on human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions, the additional Protocol II covering non-international armed conflict, and the Philippine Constitution.

In short, the agreement on civilian protection takes the protection of the civilian population as the cornerstone.

With this agreement the question now centers on the so-called ‘collateral damage’ to non-combatants.

Concretely, the debate revolves around the issue of whether or not a degree of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable.

In the past, the legitimacy of ‘collateral damage’ was premised on the ‘greater’ good and proportional damage.

The theory was debunked following the lost of the Americans in the Vietnam War.

The slogan, “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it,” was the epitome of the abandoned principle of collateral damage.

In view of the on-going discussion on the terms of reference (TOR) for the combatants on the civilian protection, there are basic questions that need to be answered.

1. Should combatants avoid military encounters in civilian communities?

2. In times of population displacement, do the protagonists provide safe passage to fleeing non-combatants?

3. Do the protagonists allow the non-combatants and the internally displaced unhampered access to relief and rehabilitation assistance?

4. Do the protagonists allow or assist in the return of the displaced to their areas of origin?

Notwithstanding the outcome of the present talks, the Civilian Protection (CP) is a good development and should become more robust as more people participate in the process, particularly of the Local Government Units and Civil Society, including the Private Sector (Business).

The Agreement on Civilian Protection, no doubt, provides challenges to both the protagonists and the stakeholders.

The protagonists and stakeholders must think through and beyond the conflict with a view to a common vision of individual rights and responsibilities.

From peace and development perspective, the more the process is coherent and has integrity, the better it becomes in terms of protecting lives and respecting rights.

http://blogs.gmanews.tv/jun-mercado/archives/2010/02.html