* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Oxfam looks at inconsistencies in U.N. Security Council's approach to civilian protection
By Katie Nguyen
LONDON (AlertNet) - From Afghanistan to Sudan, and Somalia to Iraq, the United Nations' response to protecting civilians in conflict was uneven and often biased in 2010.
In some cases where men, women and children were killed, wounded, raped, threatened, forced to flee their homes, recruited by force or deprived of food and water, the world body acted, in others it did little or nothing at all, according to a report released by aid agency Oxfam today.
With the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) due to discuss the situation in Libya later on Monday, Oxfam's report offers a timely reminder of inconsistencies in the Council's approach, which is more often than not shaped by member states' interests.
Oxfam said Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, Central African Republic and Chad all maintained a spot on the U.N. Security Council's agenda last year. However, only around half the resolutions relating to these countries made explicit reference to the protection of civilians in their operational paragraphs.
Another omission relates to Colombia, which has the second biggest internally displaced population after Sudan. In 2010, it saw some 280,000 people uprooted due to conflict, but the country failed to register at all on the U.N. Security Council's agenda last year.
Neither did ongoing conflicts in Thailand, the Philippines, India and Turkey.
Oxfam also noted that the U.N. Security Council failed to produce any concrete actions or statements regarding Pakistan, which suffered high numbers of both civilian and combatant casualties.
"We've seen over the course of 2010 that the way the international community decides who to prioritise, who to protect, is very arbitrary," Nicolas Vercken, author of the report, said in a statement.
"The first months of 2011 are no different, with events in several troubled spots failing to generate nearly the same level of political engagement, or willingness to act swiftly as recent events in Libya did."
Academics, analysts and humanitarian aid workers are still gauging the significance of Resolution 1973, which was passed on March 17 and described in some quarters as "the first military implementation of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect".
The resolution allows U.N. member states to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians under threat of attack in Libya. Humanitarian mission or meddling? The difference in opinion seemed to have been reflected in the fact that five countries - Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia - abstained from voting on the resolution.
"The authorization of military force to protect civilians by international forces outside of U.N. peacekeeping missions, and without the consent of the host government, is a vastly different context from the way protection of civilians has been discussed in the UNSC prior to this year," the report said.
"Using military means to protect civilians is risky and challenging and must be based on thorough assessment of civilian vulnerability to threats of violence; it must not be reduced to only attacking belligerents."
Oxfam also drew attention to how the ability of member states to make decisions that would strengthen protection was hampered by there being little or no data on threats to civilians, such as information on rape and sexual violence.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
