Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[davidbfpo]

MikeF,

This concept is not new and I'm sure JMM will chime in from the international law aspect. My own historical understanding is that it really came to have an impact after 1918, principally through the post-war treaties in Europe and the League of Nations work, again mainly in Europe, e.g. Silesia. Within a relatively short time history shows the concept, let alone the practice died and has had periods of life again, principally via the UN.

IMHO it is a mixture of shame and politics - invariably after genocide, border changes - not regime change.

In 2011 certain advocates, I think mainly American, started to espouse R2P and expanded the concept and application. My objection to R2P was the apparent thinking the USA and maybe a few others had this responsibility.

Was there not a thread on the theme? On a quick search one thread in 2008 about a lecture in Canada and two SWJ items.

[MikeF]

David,

Keep this thread open. Given the strategy decision yesterday, this is the coming policy debate.

[LawVol]

I'm not up on the full history of the concept, but do recall some sort of UN endorsement back in 2005 or so. I believe many advocate tend to tie it with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It began, I think, as sanctioning of multi-lateral action to protect against genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. All of that seems fine until you peal back the onion.

By use of the word "responsibility" a requirement is implied. Responsibility equates to an affirmative act. In other words, when one is responsible for something, one must affirmatively act in furtherance of that responsibility. But who, on the international stage, has the capability to act? Often that would be the US as we possess the ability to project and maintain power globally. So is this simply a doctrine advocating a requirement for the US to act in furtherance of human rights interests that, while noble, may not comport with national interest, particularly in a budget tightened post-GWOT environment? It would seem so. Change "responsibility" to "right," and thereby empower rather than require nation-states to act and maybe we come closer to the mark. However, other problems arise.

The inability of the US to afford such a strategy/doctrine/whatever, is not really the main issue. The crux of this issue is the breakdown of notions of post-Westphalian sovereignty. Sovereignty is the heart of the UN Charter, right alongside the prohibition of the use of force as a staple of international relations. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine weakens both of these concepts. To be sure, the concept may indeed have noble underpinnings but its advocates have failed to look at its unintended consequences. Might the doctrine be used as a cover for otherwise illegal use of force under international law? Sure.

As an example, assume the illegality of the Iraq invasion (trying to avoid a political discussion outside the main topic here). Rather than argue WMD, the US, under R2P, could simply have pointed to Saddam's genocidal activity against the Kurds and/or the Shiites. Had this been the main argument in a world that accepts R2P, the invasion would have had international sanction. Its all in how something is presented I guess.

Another issue, related to the erosion of UN Charter principles, is the Libya operation. Many pointed to R2P as justification. The Charter only allows the UNSC to sanction use of force when a breach to international peace and security occurs. At the time the UNSC authorized the use of force in Libya, the threat to peace was strictly internal to Libya. Even the refugee situation had not yet risen to a substantial problem. However, even if it had, I would hardly think refugees to qualify as an international breach of peace and security given that its has occurred, and is occurring, in many places without UNSC action.

Lastly, look at Syria. Certainly, the possibility of an international breach of peace and security is much higher there than in Libya when the UNSC took action yet no action has been taken. Why? How can R2P be advocated when it cannot or will not be evenly applied? Also, where does one draw the line? What ends may be sought in an R2P intervention? Should it only encompass the crimes against humanity type issues or lesser issues as well? The Libya operation would seem to indicate something less. If this be the case, then can China be subject to R2P due to its human rights violations? Could Russia? And what of internationalists that argue American human rights violations due to the death penalty, vestiges of racism, etc.? Of course, these three nation-states will not be subject to R2P due to their massive militaries. So then does R2P become merely another post-colonial tool for the developed world to play cop for the undeveloped world?

Fascinating topic because there is much more than meets the eye here. I look forward to reading the thoughts of others.

[MikeF]

All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves. Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

[LawVol]

All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves. Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

In a word: no. I agree with what is implied in your comment. Change must be desired, otherwise the weak merely accommodate until they can fight back or the one seeking change gets bored and leaves. I've never really believed the US has benevolently sought to help others. We, like all nations, act in our own interests (or at least think we do). The desire to help others is merely window dressing for the masses.

[MikeF]

That was my inner Edgar Allen Poe talking. Now, I'll switch to whom Ken calls Waldo (Emerson).

The only way a man, village, or state can change, transform, or transcend is through self-reliance.

[davidbfpo]

MikeF,

Perhaps your question:

Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

This may need to be changed? I assume your use of 'we' refers to the USA, perhaps with a few other friends.

It looks very different, especially if you ask Americans and others, when it reads Can others force us to change our ways and transform societies? Somehow I expect those who use R2P rarely consider it being applied to them.

[MikeF]

MikeF,

Perhaps your question:

This may need to be changed? I assume your use of 'we' refers to the USA, perhaps with a few other friends.

It looks very different, especially if you ask Americans and others, when it reads Can others force us to change our ways and transform societies? Somehow I expect those who use R2P rarely consider it being applied to them.

Under R2P and the UN, WE could be anyone.

[carl]

All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves.

I don't accept that at all. The reason for protecting others may, or may not, have been selfish ones, but the others got protected nevertheless.

Of course Ken, but good leaders bypass the minefield once they realize they've gone the wrong direction; they don't charge ahead to prove they were right.

That is a critical point. Our leadership classes characteristically will charge ahead and lie. They will never acknowledge a mistake.

[Ken White]

...Our leadership classes characteristically will charge ahead and lie. They will never acknowledge a mistake.

I hope I'm wrong. I am occasionally...

It has been my observation over the last 30 plus years that Planners -- who typically do not have to make quick, leader decisions are even more reluctant to admit mistakes -- or change their plan. In my experience the system that works best is to not have a Plans cell, but rather two Ops cells who rotate in planning and executing and will have the responsibility for executing the plan they designed -- tends to focus them admirably.

[carl]

In my experience the system that works best is to not have a Plans cell, but rather two Ops cells who rotate in planning and executing and will have the responsibility for executing the plan they designed -- tends to focus them admirably.

I like that. Simple, clever and cognizant of human nature.

[ganulv]

Mahmood Mamdani’s book Saviors and survivors deals provocatively but well IMHO with the topic(s) under discussion in this thread.

If the rights of the citizen are pointedly political, the rights of the human pertain to sheer survival; they are summed up in one word: protection. The new language refers to its subjects not as bearers of rights—and thus active agents in their own emancipation—but as passive beneficiaries of an external ‘responsibility to protect.’ (pp. 274–75)

[MikeF]

Mahmood Mamdani’s book Saviors and survivors deals provocatively but well IMHO with the topic(s) under discussion in this thread.

Now, throw in a bit of Machiavelli about how "We" deal with "those" who would do others harm and you have sound policy that doesn't have to bankrupt anyone.

[MikeF]

"You ask me about what is called imperialism. Well, I have formed views about that question. I am at the disadvantage of not knowing whether our people are for or against spreading themselves over the face of the globe. I should be sorry if they are, for I don't think that it is wise or a necessary development. As to China, I quite approve of our Government's action in getting free of that complication. They are withdrawing, I understand, having done what they wanted. That is quite right. We have no more business in China than in any other country that is not ours. There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

Autobiography of Mark Twain

[jmm99]

As LawVol correctly points out, the modern genesis of R2P at the UN level is found in 2005's World Summit Outcome Document, Paragraphs 138-139:

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

This statement is notable for placing the obligation on each individual state to prevent the various "badnesses"; and then affirming Chapter VII "Peace Enforcement" powers in the UN if a state fails that obligation. While the statement does not explicitly cover Violent Non-State Actors (acting in a failed state, for example), the failure of the failed state to prevent their "war crimes" would be adequate grounds for the UN to act within the terms of the statement.

The R2P arena is marked by Politik (politics and policy); and cannot be validly claimed (in my opinion, obviously) as an area governed by a determinative international law. That came home to me in connection with our (USAian) Libyan venture based on the UN Resolution and Presidential "Non-War Powers". While a number of voices shouted non-compliance with the War Powers Resolution and outright unconstitutionality, the salient fact was that Congress took no action opposing the President's actions. Thus, the President did not act illegally (since Congress did not act at all). That was an object lesson (some might say abject lesson) in what the Supreme Court has called "political questions" - and therefore, outside of the legal realm.

Part 2 will cover the 2001 "Canadian" Report, which is the intellectual basis for the R2P concept. Part 3 will covern some of the international organizations which are involved in the lobbying effort for R2P.

.... end part 1