Posted April 18, 2008

Human rights organizations and others have, rightly, used the Beijing Olympics as an opportunity to shine a bright light on China’s abuses in Tibet, as well as China’s human rights violations against its own citizens. Protests have taken place in London, Paris, Delhi, Katmandu, San Francisco—indeed all over the world the suffering of Tibetans under Chinese rule has never been more public.

With all this attention, the U.S. State Department’s decision not to list China as one of the world’s worst human rights violators in its 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released last month, is raising eyebrows. Cynics suggest this is connected to the planned attendance of President Bush at the games in Beijing later in the year. In fact, the U.S. State Department’s 2008 report on China reads pretty much like previous years' reports, the one major difference being that China went missing from the category of worst violator states.

Unusual, considering Human Rights Watch has reported “a sharp up-tick in human rights violations directly related to preparations for the Olympics.” Moreover, in Freedom House’s “2008 Freedom in the World Report,” the two worst-rated territories in the world were Chechnya and Tibet. Freedom House noted that “China intensified its pressure on Tibet, which suffered a further loss of freedom.”

At the same time developments in international law and international relations have seen the advance of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), which pushes back previous notions that sovereignty meant non-interference in the domestic affairs of a state. The whole concept of R2P means that sovereignty comes with responsibility and if that responsibility is not met others have duties to ensure that the doctrine is met.

There are two main components to R2P: 1)  the responsibility to prevent, to tackle the causes of conflict and other human-created crises; 2) the responsibility to react, to take appropriate action where there are compelling circumstances, including coercive steps such as sanctions or even—as a last resort—military intervention, paying, of course, due attention to the issue of proportionality and responsibility to rebuild.

R2P is widely accepted and has found its way into a number of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Significant developments in the prevention arena have also strengthened R2P as a viable and available norm in international law and international relations. A U.N. special adviser for the prevention of genocide has been appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the full-time post at the level of under-secretary-general.

A special adviser on R2P was also appointed at the level of assistant secretary-general. This post will reinforce the possibility that R2P will become more accepted and realizable. It may be the necessary impetus toward ensuring that the principle becomes acceptable and applicable in more circumstances, including Zimbabwe, Burma, Tibet and Sudan, where gross human rights violations have been occurring for many years.

The creation in February 2008 of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, an initiative of five high-profile international NGOs: the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Refugees International, and the Institute for Global Policy, is an important development in the growth of R2P. The fact that it is supported financially by a whole host of countries and major donors means that it should have a large degree of impact.

The Olympic Games is an opportunity that should be used to achieve democratic and human rights advances in China, and oft ignored parts of the world. Pressure for reform is building in places such as Tibet, Burma and elsewhere and continued violence is likely to occur. The steps taken recently to find a solution in Kenya shows there are various international players who are willing to play a role and recognize the responsibility to protect.

As far as Burma and Tibet are concerned, the U.N., China, India, the U.S. and others have important roles to play. For R2P to become meaningful it must be practically applied to the worst places in the world. Crucially, for R2P to have meaning, steps must be taken to redress gross human rights violations around the world. Situations that have been occurring for many years, such as Burma and Tibet, are in need of more urgent attention.

Mr. Sarkin is visiting professor of International Human Rights at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Boston. He was recently appointed by the Human Rights Council to be a member of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.