The author raises serious considerations but appears to be off track with respect to the intent for the APB. Reading between the lines, one can construe this article as a criticism of preventive warfare policies or more specifically a diatribe against perceptions for the potential for military adventurism to take place. I do not agree with the criticism Here is my view.
First and foremost: Despite an almost unwavering disregard for the concept of R2P by the international community's military establishment, the APB is about just that. Call it what you will, genocide, mass atrocity, ethnic cleansing or what have you, the fact is that the concept of R2P is central to whatever kind of collective or unilateral response that takes place.
Secondly: There should be concern over the likes of the Samantha Powers and Susan Rice types in the world who promote the use of force in support of R2P, (from an emotive standpoint vice a calculated standpoint) without adequate consideration beforehand for issues such as collateral damage, vital national interests, and, how much force is necessary to get the job done along with the associated resources to do so.
Third: Idealism v. Realism - We have to consider that R2P is dangerous and dirty. It is not a clean, clinical, academic treatment sanitized of the goriness of war. It is about the tactical use of force, and all the inherent ugliness that controlled military violence brings, in support of protecting civilian populations at risk. In my view, R2P runs counter to the aims of civil society in the short term but clearly supports those aims in the long term.
Fourth: Clearly, from a purely historical context, there has been a lack of political will to engage on behalf of threatened populations using military force. Political inertia / indecisiveness and competing national interests contribute to a mindset of wanting to wait to see how things unfold before commiting to any type of substantive action. Just think in terms of what took place in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Myanmar.
Fifth: So what is the reality? The APB in my view is another feel good measure championed by idealists who harbor disdain for the use of military force and bemoan the use of military force in support of national interests, despite the fact that R2P emanates from the deepest most rudimentary core of human values. As such, they percieve those values as being somehow poltically manifest, and aligned with western values, without due consideration for the amount of violence that even the most minimal of military interventions entails.
In summary: The article is purely judgemental and speculative without consideration for the true purpose or intent of the APB -- establishing a mechanism to effect R2P collectively when required. The APB is an outgrowth from perceptions of political malfeasance and a need for personal as well as political atonement (aka Romeo Dallaire) as a result of mass atrocities which took place in the late Twentieth Century. The reality is that the APB will not drive military decision making in some constructive manner unless the collective western military establishment changes its views on R2P. In the meantime, innocent people will continue to die, cultures will continue to be lost, and national interests may or may not evolve to incorporate humanist interests as they related to the senseless killing of innocent civilians.
What does the APB do? A response
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Turning off radios...
Bookmarks