Adding momentum to the paradigm change has been the federal court decision that declared Metis and non-status Indians as “Indian” under the Constitution Act, and therefore under federal jurisdiction. Gone are the days when Ottawa and the provinces can play ping pong over who has responsibility. The buck stops at the Rideau Canal.

Disappointingly, there appears to be a “hardening” of attitudes and shortage of empathy around these issues amongst non-Indigenous Canadians. A recent poll suggests that a majority of Canadians harbour a sense of distrust when it comes to First Nations’ leadership and financial accountability and there is a general sense that Treaty issues remain thoroughly misunderstood within the general population.

So what to do?
Clearly there needs to be an agenda of reform to match the new reality. And there must be an increased public awareness to generate support for this reform. This is not just a responsibility of government. It must include business, academics, civic groups, churches, and a wide swath of Canadians. We need to overcome the fracturing of interests that presently cancel our ability as a country to envision broad sweeping change. As Wab Kinew and I wrote in a Globe and Mail op-ed earlier this month, this is not a zero sum game. In fact, the well-being of all Canadians is dependent upon a major series of improvements in housing, education, employment, health of Indigenous people.

In figuring out a pathway to follow, there is strong guidance to be had from an emerging set of new international norms and practices. In a graduate class I am teaching, as part of the University of Winnipeg’s Masters in Development Practice program, we’ve been examining the way in which international initiatives have a strong bearing on domestic practices. Canada just recently became a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which sets out a series of criteria for resetting relationships with Indigenous communities. Of particular interest, it outlines set of criteria on how to deal with the heavily contested topic of mineral and resource rights on Indigenous land — an issue that was at the heart of the chiefs’ presentation to the federal government last week.

Recent history has provided us with a series of decisions by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that have set out the principle of Indigenous participation in decisions affecting their land. This goes beyond the present rulings by our own Supreme Court on the right to be consulted. Here is a standard that needs to be incorporated in resource developments in Canada.

There has been an increased attention in the field of development to the principle of Legal Empowerment as a tool to tackle poverty, based on a UNDP sponsored Commission that reported in 2007. It makes the definitive case that improving property, labour, political rights and insuring their implementation is a significant way to enable disadvantaged communities and individuals to realize their potential. It is important to build these lessons into the reform agenda for Indigenous people in Canada , as they incorporate precedents, best practices, a respectful recognition of rights and a set of beacons for us to move forward. There is of course much more to these ideas than the brief description I’ve offered. But, I hope this encourage some of you to respond with commentary and suggestions. This is a time for all of us to be involved.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

However, if the Mayans prove wrong and December 22nd dawns another day (likely at well below freezing here in Winnipeg), my sense of relief will be tinged with an ongoing feeling of dread and remorse. For there is a major and consequential shift taking place in the world I know, and the principles I believe in.  Namely, the demise of a period of time, where the world appeared to be working toward a system of cooperation and collaboration.

When was that period you may well ask? Last week, I attended the 15th anniversary of the Land Mines Treaty in Ottawa. There, I had the chance to talk to many had been involved in making the treaty happen, and one common theme arose out of our conversation: It was how in that period of the late 1990s, it was indeed possible for governments, NGOs and international organizations to work together to advance the principle of human security.  This collaboration then became the standard for collegial behaviour between nations and people to build up institutions and standards that offer protection  from threats and risks that cross border.  “Problems without passports,” as Kofi Annan described them.

Today, there is not the same motivation or commitment to multilateral problem solving. As a result, we are regressing to a world system that is becoming fractured and divided without a common cause to uphold, or stand on. Consider recent evidence: The Doha talks on climate change collapse without any serious movement towards an agreement to limit carbon emissions. At the same time, to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius there will have to be drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. This understanding exists as new information reveals that 1200 new coal plants are planned around the world, the majority in India and China.

Then there is the Eurozone financial morass. Once the model of interstate cooperation, and integrated, cross border policy and practice, the EU has become a sorry example of failure and bickering.

For those of us who took pride in peacekeeping, the sorry sight of UN peacekeepers being pushed aside in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as civilians are killed or rapes, or the tragic case of the Haitian cholera epidemic being traced to peacekeepers is an embarrassment. This is especially true of the effort of UN officialdom to downplay its consequences.

This is only surpassed by the futility of the UN membership, especially the P-5 to mount any form of protection for civilians in Syria, causing the institution to have lost any credibility as the keeper of peace and security.

Al of this simply adds up to a deepening crisis of international institutions to play the role of governance in a world of quarreling, quibbling nation states, sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to acting in a global interest. Why? Possible answers are the failure of leadership in the institutions, or the institutions themselves are becoming too unwieldy vis-à-vis the tens of thousands who populate the large UN conferences. Or is it that in difficult economic times, leaders have to hunker down on domestic issues and don’t have the time or inclination to focus on broader global issues that don’t have immediate political payoff. Daniel Rodgers in his recent book “The Age of Fracture” simply asserts that the consensus — the common acceptance of certain values and commitments has “disaggregated” to use his word and there isn’t much that we believe in together.

Whatever the reason, it is having disastrous effects, both domestically and globally. There is a real loss of direction and purpose, which results in an unwillingness to work much beyond our own immediate narrowly conceived national interests. This folly is symbolized by the refusal of the US Senate to ratify a treaty on disabilities that mirrored practices already in domestic law.

In this one sense maybe the Mayan prophecy is right. The sense of one world, of belonging to a community of shared interests is breaking down. Meanwhile, as the earth warms, natural disasters increase in severity, the public purse is strained to meet these catastrophes, and worst of all millions of innocent people die because of the failure to find common cause on prevention and solutions.

Too pessimistic? Maybe.

Ultimately, I want to issue an invitation to those who might be reading this blog. Let me know whether or not you agree that there is a crisis in our international governance. If you do tend to agree, or partially accept the argument, then offer your own suggestions on how to rehabilitate the concept of a collaborative system that can both incorporate the myriad of competing pressures and override this self-serving trend. Let’s get a conversation going on how to find a consensus to restrain violence, control emissions, exchange ideas and design better functioning international architecture.

Until then, Happy Holidays

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

First, R2P should not be judged on the basis of the military response in Libya. Somewhere along the way, R2P has become synonymous with military intervention. Just last week, Alex de Waal made the argument in the New York Times against the perceived “idealism” of R2P. His argument relies on a misunderstanding of the concept as the use of military means towards the ends of democracy and justice. The reality is that the original International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, released in 2001 made clear that the implementation of R2P is about the protection of civilians, should be considered primarily preventative and considers military action a very last resort.

To follow up from Garth Evans’ response to the article, the intention behind the doctrine is to reset the dialogue around sovereignty, as a responsibility, and to establish a set of criteria upon which to base any future intervention in humanitarian crisis – whether through diplomatic political and economic means, or if and when it is needed, the use of the military. Even with the current situation in Syria, it remains vitally important that employing the words “Responsibility to Protect “ in an international resolution need not mean military intervention. There are a variety of such options being looked such as the provision of “safe zones” or “humanitarian corridors” in an effort to protect civilians along the border with Turkey. Or the possibility of an armed group of observers or “peacekeeping” force on the ground, as proposed by the Arab League, would all increase pressure on Assad to end his violent campaign and negotiate a transition without the actual use of force. President Obama makes the case that the increasing bite of more robust sanctions will have a withering effect on the Assad government.

If anything, it is not the doctrine itself, but its misinterpretation which could cause the most harm, if it is to be discounted. This indeed is the case in the Middle East where there has been a variety of initiatives taken that have helped in the restraint on violence and in several cases changes in government or it’s behavior that have not yet been identified as falling under R2P. Take Yemen as an example, where negotiated amnesty for President Saleh led to a more or less peaceful ending to what may have otherwise been a lengthy crisis. This is R2P in action. As is Kofi Annan’s current involvement in Syria, so pointed out by Roland Paris yesterday.

Another question that is raised has to do with the Russian and Chinese veto on Syria. No question that this has set back the UN ’s credibility. There has to be a response to this quandary. Again, it seems appropriate to refer back to the original ICISS report. One of those ideas is working to create a “code of conduct” by the permanent members to refrain from using the veto on initiatives that are designed to protect people and apply R2P principles. While not a perfect solution, it would offer a midway point between the current status quo – which is threatening the legitimacy of council – and total reform, which would be difficult to say the least. The term applied in the report is “constructive abstention” and it remains under explored as an option. Those who discount it are caught in a myopic insiders view of what is acceptable to the P-5, instead of looking at the broader necessity of UN reform and change.

I mention this in particular because this is one initiative that Canada could take on that I believe would win favor, at least with non permanent members of the UN. It would help offset some of the dissatisfaction with the Security Council and require the Chinese and Russians to explain more thoroughly what their position is when it comes to R2P. Canada as the original sponsor of the idea would have credibility in promoting this kind of reform.

There is a very real possibility that this rebellion in Syria could erupt into a civil war, which could have long term destabilizing and terrifying consequences for the region as whole. This increasing risk shows how closely R2P is linked to the fundamental mandate of the Security Council in promoting peace and stability. There needs to be active and purposeful action to try and restore credibility to UN Security Council and underline the necessity of the international community taking action against mass murder and serious threat to civilian lives — the very essence of the Responsibility to Protect.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

This, as the Secretary –General stated, “undermines the world body” after the heady days when a UN resolution kicked off a successful effort to thwart the murderous threats of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. In that case, the resolution was backed by the Russians and Chinese, but the ensuing result, the fall of Gadhafi scared the rulers of those two countries who began to sense that the international community might turn attention to their own dictatorial practices. The fact that Syria buys its arms from Russia and supplies China with oil might just have also figured into their calculated decision that flies in the face of not just of western governments but also the Arab League. To quote the sentiments of Secretary Clinton, this is indeed a “travesty” of the UN process.

What is now at play are calls for a new coalition of countries that will try to find alternate diplomatic, and economic means to put pressure on the Syrian Government to stop the killing. This bypassing of the UN is repudiation of the international body, but it is not without precedent. The same thing happened in the case of Kosovo over ten years ago when threat of a Soviet veto caused a coalition to be formed through NATO to give robust diplomacy a try. But when that failed, air strikes were launched which stopped the Serbian leader Milosevic in his rabid efforts at ethnic cleansing and ended up with the Serb leader being brought before an international tribunal. The same scenario will likely be necessary if the deliberate murder of thousands of Syrians is to be stopped. But we end up with the same result of a weakened UN and the need for a strengthened international capacity to stop crimes against humanity which is what gave birth to the Responsibility to Protect idea.

Ultimately, the undermining of the Security Council by the double veto gives urgency to the need for reform of the UN, in particular the revamping of the membership of the Security Council and the downgrading, if not elimination of the veto. In the past I’ve argued that the veto (which is a hangover from world War II thinking that the permanent members of the Council needed protection against the launch of an invasion across their own borders) needed to be specifically excluded in cases where the protection of civilians was at stake. Surely, the blatant resistance of two of the five permanent members must now call into question the use of the veto for such self interested purposes, and the very concept of permanent members with exalted status and powers.

The impact of this present situation cannot be left to just end with a whimper. It needs active and purposeful action to try and restore the UN and underline the necessity of the international community taking action against mass murder and serious threat to civilian lives — the very essence of the Responsibility to Protect.

Prime Minister Harper finds himself in a very strategic position to show leadership at this critical time. This week he is off to meet the Chinese leaders, to sell them Tar Sands oil and engage in trade discussions. But he can’t go there and let this egregious decision of the Chinese leadership go unmentioned. He needs to clearly let them know that Canadians have long supported the UN and were the initiators of the Responsibility to Protect, fitting with the human rights values of the country and that they are deeply opposed to the veto on action to stop the bloodshed in Syria and want to see some remedial action.

It has been touted by commentators that that our Prime Minister is not all that interested in the UN or in the world wide efforts to constrain the violent repression of citizens by their governments. But this is a government that did actively participate in the Libyan action. And therefore has demonstrated its willingness to support international action to suppress state led murder. He is therefore in a position to express the broadly felt opposition to the Chinese position and if he wants to move the yardsticks even further to engage the Chinese leadership on what they are prepared to do to stop the deterioration of the situation in Syria that will most likely lead to civil war and many more lives lost.

The prime minister this week will find himself in a unique position to lead in starting a dialogue with a major protagonist in one of today’s most pressing circumstances. Let’s hope he takes up the challenge.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Our interactions had been brought about by the rapidly melting Arctic sea ice – one of the most dramatic and visible signs of climate change. And during my visit, I could see open water about a mile off the coast of the Hudson’s Bay, standing as a reminder of this very fact. While I must acknowledge that climate change presents certain opportunities for residents of Churchill and its Arctic neighbours, it also poses many more environmental and economic challenges for all Canadians. The significance of this visit was highlighted by the timely announcement that our government had decided to remove itself from its Kyoto obligations.

It is upon reflecting on these experiences that I find it necessary to express my disappointment at our government’s decision to remove itself from the Kyoto climate talks and to relieve itself of our international commitment to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions. While the Kyoto process was complex and labourious, it also represents some twenty years of multilateral negotiations attempting to find global solutions to a truly global problem. While all is not lost now that we have removed ourselves from negotiations, they will continue on with or without us.

The point that seems to have been lost in discussions on this topic is that international norms and treaties (such as the collective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) are, as a rule, difficult and arduous to bring about. I’ll use as an example, the Ottawa Treaty. After nearly a decade of lobbying by non-governmental organizations, what ultimately pushed the treaty through was the deliberate and diplomatic leadership of a collection of like-minded states, with Canada playing a major role. What began with a group of 122 signatories now has 158 state parties. Consensus around the use of landmines has even yet to be reached, and yet a broad and effective norm has been established that heavily discourages their use and deployment. Progress has been made. Thousands of lives are saved every year and countless more injuries are prevented today despite the fact that the U.S., to this day, remains outside of the treaty.

There is evidence that a similar gradual process of norm building is occurring with climate change. Progress is painfully slow, but even China has produced an ambitious plan to invest in green technology. It and India have also accepted the proposal of taking on cuts to their emissions after 2020 as a result of the Kyoto negotions. Australia, once a climate laggard and a late signatory to Kyoto, is implementing an impressive carbon tax program.

We have so much to lose. If we are to follow through on our Northern Strategy and secure the people, culture, and ecology of our Arctic, then we will have to take the threat of climate change to heart, for it is our responsibility. As Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change stated, “Whether or not Canada is a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

Here’s to a New Year of effective policies and solutions towards this truly concerning and immediate problem.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

I had been asked by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan to act as his envoy to try to resolve the bitter and debilitating border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, a situation which caused a major breakdown in political, trade and economic relations in the Horn of Africa. In my view a contributing factor in the parlous state of famine and poverty that affects that region.

One of the techniques that I and Joe Stern (an experienced development advisor who had worked extensively in the region) employed was to try to persuade the leadership of African states to apply pressure to the respective and recalcitrant presidents of the two countries to come to the negotiating table.

In the midst of our efforts we were advised by UN headquarters that Gadhafi was hosting a meeting of African heads of state in his home city of Sirte, located in the Libyan desert and there were signs that he might be prepared to put the border impasse on the agenda. Talk about wishful thinking.

In any event, Joe and I made our way to Libya and soon found ourselves in a cavalcade of somewhat aged Mercedes racing down a deserted four-lane highway with security operatives in tow. Then on the horizon we saw what can only be described as a mirage inspired by the tale of Arabian Nights. A vast compound of pink marble buildings appeared signaling our arrival at the site of the conference and the beginning of one of the more bizarre experiences of my career.

We were first shuffled off to an empty villa with multiple rooms decorated in an extravagant and ostentatious array of furniture and artifacts, where we cooled our heels waiting our summons from the “Brother Leader”. We finally asserted ourselves and went to the palatial conference center where we were able to buttonhole several African leaders — who promised to take our brief to the meeting — resulting finally in being invited inside the hall where we were then treated to a diatribe by Gadhafi on the perfidy of the UN trying to stick its nose into African affairs, another example (in his mind) of western imperialism. That outburst led quickly to our decision to get out of town as soon as possible, chalking it up to the vagaries of UN envoyship.

On our way out we asked for a tour of Sirte as seen from outside the compound walls. The contrast couldn’t have been greater. Even though this was the beloved birthplace of the Gadhafi, it was as drab and impoverished as the other parts of Libya we visited –clearly it had not been a beneficiary of their leader’s largesse.

The point to be made is that the downfall of the Gadhafi regime, whatever the twists and turns yet too evolve in the governance of Libya, is to be applauded and supported in any way possible. Both for the sake of the people of Libya, and the hope that a different kind of leadership will arise that enables Libya to play a constructive role in working towards similar displacements of despots who abuse power and extravagantly consume resources purely to satisfy their mega egos, along with the greed of family and cronies who feed off the monopoly control of the instruments of the state.

This is also an appropriate opportunity for the Western leaders to reevaluate its policies when dealing with similar tyrants. If we are to position ourselves as the paragons of democracy, based on human rights and the rule of law, it remains in our future best interest not to prop up violent leaders such as Gadhafi. His excesses and those of others like him are merely reflections of our over focus on security and protection of oil interests.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The topic of discussion was on how to breathe new life into international institutions. The concern is that regarding security, human rights, trade and environment the various international organizations, most notably the UN, were falling behind global events and not providing the place for effective action. It is a significant topic that will require more examination than we could provide it in a mere two days worth of meetings.

As you might expect, the important happenings in the Middle East and North Africa appropriately occupied a lot of our time. In a related vein, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) (both initiatives having a good deal of Canadian engagement in their development), came in for discussion, particularly because of the active involvement of these new international tools in application in Libya.

There was a great and intense set of discussions, which is remarkable when you think that neither one would have been on the agenda or an item of interest ten years ago. It demonstrates how they are both becoming highly relevant to the world we live in.

Ultimately, what I want to point out in this piece is the necessity of bringing both the ICC and R2P into play against the Syrian government. With the most recent events in mind, more than a thousand civilian deaths have been reported, and perhaps as many as ten thousand refugees are crossing the border with Turkey. By the principles that allowed for the creation of both the ICC and R2P, this type of action by a ruler against their people is unacceptable. Assad should be indicted along with his henchmen for committing crimes against humanity along with a much tougher set of sanctions directed against him and his family. Indeed, there should be planning underway as to what kind of direct military intervention could and should be mounted when the need arises. If the UN member states are to hold fast to these principles then there has to be much stronger action by the international community. Libya is a preliminary bout compared to the actions needed in Syria and there must be a public outcry.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Recent news of Osama Bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. special ops and the recent bombings of Ghadafi’s compound in Tripoli present the resolution of this quickly protracting conflict as easily fixable. There is already consensus that Libya can not move forward with Ghadafi at its helm and some have begun to question whether or not it may be easier just to remove him from the equation all together…with the drop of a bomb.

There is some concern that the NATO mission is beginning to enter into the untenable space that is mission creep, potentially affecting the legitimacy of not only the mission in Libya, but also the R2P concept. But I will continue to remain steadfast on my convictions, and clarify that the present situation in Libya is not a civil war; it remains a humanitarian catastrophe and should continue to be treated as such.

We must stay the course. With the most recent meeting of the Contact Group on May 5th, there appears to be continued commitment and support for the mission. And we should applaud the efforts by the U.S. to release frozen assets to the Transitional National Council (TNC) to cover basic costs and humanitarian needs. One of the basic tenants of R2P is the commitment to post-conflict rebuilding and reconciliation. The conflict has yet to end, but we may have to accept that drawing a distinct line between conflict and post-conflict may not be as easy as we would like. Violence is a dirty business, and appropriate actions should be taken in order to prevent the most egregious of humanitarian crises before the dust does in fact settle. Food and medical supplies are already running low.

Finally, let us not forget that what the people of Libya fight for. They fight for a free democracy, one which respects human rights and values the rule of law. We should not play the despots’ game by resorting to extrajudicial killings simply because the alternative is more cumbersome and more expensive? The alternative is to step down off our soapboxes and act as we preach. Great effort has been made since the end of the Cold War to establish an international justice system. Already Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court has announced that he is requesting arrest warrants for Ghadafi and his son Saif al-Islam as well as intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi. Get Ghadafi into court. Present his crimes against his own people to the world.

We have been presented with a historical opportunity. Let us follow through in our efforts to protect the people of Libya, and support their efforts through to live their lives free from fear.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

But this historically desolate place that has lead many a foreign explorer to a grizzly end, is becoming increasingly influenced by the presence of outsiders, and great changes are appearing over the horizon. As the Earth’s climate changes, its effects are most prevalent in the Arctic. The annual summer sea ice melt has accelerated in startling ways. For the Inuit, the sea ice is a keystone to their culture and they rely upon it for their livelihoods. As the quality and quantity of the ice is transformed, they must adapt quickly and bear first witness to the consequences of the warming that will eventually affect us all.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to decide how to govern this space. There are disputes over boundaries to resolve, but the warming temperatures are also granting us access to great storehouses of natural resources: oil, gas, and minerals. In an earlier issue of Global Brief, Dan Hurley and I (here) explored the idea of network governance as a means of governing the Arctic in a cooperative manner, and on multiple levels. To a certain extent, this process has already begun. The Arctic Council which was established in 1996 with the signing of the Ottawa Declaration, is a multilateral forum made up of eight Arctic states, along with six permanent members representing Indigenous groups.

This past week, I traveled to Toronto for the Canadian launch of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on Climate Change in the Arctic (here). I was there participating in a panel discussion hosted by both the University of Winnipeg and the Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation on the findings of the report and the recommendations listed within. Of note, the report highlights the important role that the Arctic Council can play a significant role in bridging common interests and in mediating commonly-beneficial agreements on the issue of governance. For example, this May, member states of the Council will be signing an agreement which will coordinate search and rescue operations in the north. This is a big step forward toward a future of Arctic governance based on networks which include stakeholders at every level.

To date there has been little discussion on this important foreign policy issue in the current election. The future of Arctic governance is crucial to the prosperity and security of Canada and its people. Canadians should demand the know how their political leaders stand on the Arctic.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

It’s been interesting to read some of the commentary (see Margaret Wente piece from the Globe and Mail) suggesting this is some deep plot by “liberal intellectuals” to foist on the unsuspecting world a new form of colonialism. What this simply shows is the superficial treatment of a barbaric reality that goes back to the Holocaust and the subsequent acts of genocide that have plagued the modern world, that in the name of the state mass murder can be committed and that international action will not be mobilized to stop the killing. This year marks 17 years since the Rwandan genocide, we must take stock of how far we’ve come. It is applying the rule of law internationally to constrain state power that is at stake.

That is the reason why after the experience of Kosovo the Canadian government of the day established a Commission made-up of distinguished thinkers and practitioners from around the world to come up with recommendations. It was endorsed by world leaders at ban UN summit in 2005, and overwhelmingly supported by the General Assembly in 2009. Now it is being put into practice.

While chances for resounding victory by the rebels appear untenable, there is good news here on the diplomatic front. At this junction we’ve seen two high-level political figures flee Libya, foreign minister, Moussa Koussa and former energy minister, Omar Faithi bin Shatwan. The list of officials within the Libyan government subject to sanctions is being expanded with the hope that by increasing pressure, more of Gadhafi’s inner circle will fall away and tip the balance of power in a favourable way.

There will have to be much further refinement of the principle in the days and years to come, especially in the peace building elements of RtoP. But Libya represents an important step forward in the fundamental goal protecting innocent people from rapacious leaders.

What needs to be focused on now, is the long-term strategy. By this I don’t mean increasing the military presence, but how to adequately address the humanitarian situation that has resulted from the conflict. RtoP was intended to stand on three legs: prevent, protect, rebuild. How are we to assist the Libyan people in moving forward after this ends? By following through on our commitments, we’ll lend legitimacy to the effort.

A secondary issue that needs to be addressed is the necessity to more fully prepare the international community to undertake serious missions of civilian protection without relying on the United States. They have been the reluctant dragon in this initiative, hampered by a recalcitrant congress and a less than enthusiastic military (Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Gates argued strenuously against the involvement). They have by far the most sophisticated capacity but a vacillating political will. Therefore it behooves other states and the UN to begin seriously the planning and preparation of an alternative force that is capable of engaging successfully against violent governments in the protection of people.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.