The international community's responsibility to protect endangered populations when their governments fail to do so, even with the use of force, was the centre of a lively debate at a World Council of Churches (WCC) workshop at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya.

|PIC1|In particular, at the centre of the discussion was whether the church should support for such measures.

The WCC workshop heard how the "responsibility to protect" is an emerging, but controversial, international standard. Although the concept recognises that the primary responsibility to provide for the safety of their people lies with national governments, it also acknowledges that when there is a clear failure to carry that responsibility out, it is the international community's duty to override sovereignty and intervene in the internal affairs of the faulty state in the interests and safety of those in peril.

"At certain times, resorting to force is necessary," said Mr Ernie Regehr, former director and co-founder of Project Ploughshares, a Canadian Council of Churches agency working with churches, governments and non-governmental organisations to build peace, prevent war and promote the peaceful resolution of political conflict.

But the use of force - which should come only when prevention has failed - has to be temporary, restrained, accompanied by humanitarian intervention and in the framework of peace-building efforts, the WCC workshop declared.

"It's is not about regime change, but protection of vulnerable people in immediate peril of grave human rights violations," Regehr emphasised.

Debate was lively at the crowded workshop. Isn't there a gap between the ideal and practice? What or who is the "international community", and how can we trust such an entity? Don't churches include both defenders and offenders when it comes to human rights? Isn't there the risk of legitimating crimes?

In particular Regehr stressed that the international community sometimes had a lack of moral and political will to protect the vulnerable.

"It is a tragic reality that, all too often, the international community does not accept its 'responsibility' to protect, but only the 'option' to protect when it suits their interests," he said.

The risky character of the concept was acknowledged by Ambassador Bethuel Kiplagat from Kenya, a former moderator of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs.

But, "What other better option is available in cases like the Rwandan genocide or in relation to the current plight of the children of northern Uganda where, over the last twenty years, thousands of young children have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed by anti-government rebels?" he asked.

Rev. Shirley DeWolf, from Zimbabwe, a WCC/CCIA member, pointed out that if a church is not living up to its duty towards a population in serious danger whose government is not protecting it, then the "international church" should fraternally call that church to order, she suggested.

The international church should call the individual church to stick to agreed moral principles. "We have not been doing enough of this, we have not been outraged enough," DeWolf said.

"The church can fail, sometimes spectacularly," Regehr recognised. "But it still is a resource for good that needs to be fully mobilised."