Terrorism or genocide? We should be fighting both.

The international norm of Responsibility to Protect R2P for short was

devised to protect populations from atrocities, to reinforce that every state has the
obligation to protect its citizens, and to guide the international community in helping
them do so. In 2005, more than 150 United Nations member states formally endorsed by
consensus the principles of the R2P and limited the focus of potential humanitarian
intervention to four mass-atrocity crimes: genocide, major war crimes, crimes against
humanity and ethnic cleansing.
The past several years have shown that states do not have a monopoly on
carrying out mass atrocities: Non-state actors and terrorist groups like the Islamic State,
Boko Haram in West Africa and al-Shabab in the Horn of Africa region have also been
perpetrators of heinous violence. However, R2Ps focus on the responsibilities and
actions of states limits the international communitys ability to respond to these crimes.
To fulfill the purpose it was meant for, the international responsibility to protect must
evolve to also address populations that are suffering the brunt of terroristic, genocidal
non-state actors.
Take Boko Haram: The Islamist militant group claims a desire to establish a
caliphate in northern Nigeria. Since its rise to international notoriety in 2009, the group
evolved from carrying out crude, guerrilla-style attacks to overtaking massive swaths of
territory at the height of its brutality in 2014. Boko Haram and its toll on human life and
property have faded from the worlds attention as the Islamic State dominates the
headlines. However, with 6,644 deaths in 2014, Boko Haram not the Islamic State
is the worlds deadliest terrorist group.
Since 2009, nearly 15,000 have died in the insurgency. Boko Haram has
kidnapped and enslaved thousands of women and girls, used children as suicide
bombers and destroyed scores of schools and hospitals, all acts that count as systematic
crimes against humanity. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced due to violence.
The group reportedly burned children alive in an attack on a village in the northeastern
part of the country, and the carnage has spread to the neighboring countries of
Cameroon and Chad. Yet Boko Harams violence is framed primarily as a problem of
fighting terrorism rather than fulfilling the international responsibility to protect, despite
the fact that the Nigerian military has failed in its R2P duties: not only to protect its

citizens but also to prevent Boko Harams violence from spreading to neighboring
countries.
Alex Bellamy, director for the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to
Protect, points out that in some situations . . . counter-terrorism and R2P are simply
different ways of talking about the same problem: violent attacks on civilian
populations. The United States anti-terrorism agenda could actually be better served
with R2Ps focus on protecting populations, as opposed to our current kill-them-thereso-they-dont-kill-us-here approach, with its outsize focus on eliminating terrorist
targets and enemy combatants.
Adapting R2P to the current threats from violent non-state actors poses difficult
questions: Should R2P require states to prevent terrorism? If the economic
marginalization of communities, particularly in developing countries, counts as an early
warning sign for terrorism and, by extension, atrocities what are governments
obligated to do? How should governments respond to early signs of their citizens
leaving to join foreign terrorist groups, as has happened in the case of the Islamic State,
which is estimated to have nearly 30,000 foreign fighters, 250 of whom are American?
How should R2P address state military forces committing heinous crimes against
civilians while pursuing counterterrorism objectives?
There are small signs that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is being
revisited, opening the door to address the threats posed by non-state actors. Last June
an annual meeting on R2P, with senior-level government officials, R2P experts and
U.N. officials, included discussions about the emergence of new players such as Boko
Haram and the Islamic State. Last week, U.S. senators also introduced the
bipartisan Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which acknowledges shocking acts
of violence perpetrated by governments and non-state actors. Sen. Thom Tillis (RN.C.), whilecommenting on the legislation, made sure to point out the rise of terrorist
cults like ISIL and al-Shabaab that are committing genocide.
These linguistic advances may seem small, but they are important steps in
reframing the fight against terrorism as essential to the international communitys
obligation to help prevent genocide and atrocities.

Fonte:

ATTIAH,

Karen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-

theory/wp/2016/02/19/terrorism-or-genocide-we-should-be-fighting-both/.
fevereiro de 2016.

19

de