Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[M-A Lagrange]

R2P is the essence of sovereignty when exercised at home. R2P exercised abroad is the essence of overriding the sovereignty of another.

R2P can be seen has the obligation of the States to protect their populations against any threat. What Bob calls sovereignty.
But R2p can be seen also as an extension of the regalia power/rights of the States vs their population and then is the basement for legitimacy. In other words, a State apparatus is legitimate when it uses its regalia power to protect the individuals and properties of the population that is under his grip. (Couldn't find a better word but my english is sometimes limited).

What we are witnessing those days is a back fire from the States who felt endangered by the extension of the R2P principle (they do not apply at home) to international relations; the fear from States that R2P would restrein their "independance" and sovereignty.
This is a concervative understanding of R2P which is based on the old principle that aState apparatus has all liberty to act on his soil. (Basically you can do what ever you want to your populations as long as you do not conduct operations out side of your borders).

R2P was used in Ivory Coast and Lybia to support regime change under the argument that government do not have the right to arm their populations (strict application of the R2P at national level extended to the international level on the obligation from others to ensure that a regime in place is applying R2P at national level).
Now, in Russia and DRC, we can witness the back fire of such an audatious move and interpretation of R2P from "progressist countries". We are back to the legitimacy problematic: who is legitimate? the institutions or the people?
R2P tries to impose the people as the source of legitimacy. In response, States are imposing the institutions as the first source of legitimacy, do government protect or not their populations. (Fraudulent elections not respecting the will of the people are nomore a good reason to ban a government)

Further than a legal practice, R2P is an attempt to introduce a real change in what are the basement of a State and in governing practices.
Will take time and the light at the end of the tunnel is far away. But there is still hope that one day, government first priority will be to ensure their population protection against any threat, political, socia;l, natural or man made.
But some say I'm a dreamer.

[Bob's World]

But there is still hope that one day, government first priority will be to ensure their population protection against any threat, political, social;l, natural or man made.
But some say I'm a dreamer.

One's inability to perform their duties to standard only redefines their duties when their employer submits to accepting this substandard performance.

The people are the "employer" of government. Many populaces have submitted to accepting substandard performance from their employee because they felt they had no other good options. In the modern information age they are much more aware of others who either have more effective employees (governance) or have taken it upon themself to either improve or replace ineffective employees (governance).

The fundamental duty of sovereignty is indeed as M-A describes above. Increasingly government must step up to perform to standard or risk popular action to address their shortcomings (legally where legal means exist, or illegally where such sub-standard employees have written rules to pretext their ineptitude). Also increasingly it is unacceptable to violate the sovereignty of another in the pursuit of one's own interpretation of their own sovereignty. This is where this R2P concept falls apart. I don't know the government wise enough to apply it without doing at least as much harm as good.

[M-A Lagrange]

One's inability to perform their duties to standard only redefines their duties when their employer submits to accepting this substandard performance.

The people are the "employer" of government. Many populaces have submitted to accepting substandard performance from their employee because they felt they had no other good options. In the modern information age they are much more aware of others who either have more effective employees (governance) or have taken it upon themself to either improve or replace ineffective employees (governance).

Bob,

I would like to introduce here the distinction between subjects and citizens.
In most democracies people are citizens: the employers of the government. They get the government and governance they deserve as it is them who choose. As they can influx on government composition, government is forced to protect them and apply R2P.

In most of the countries where State is failing to assume its protection duty, people are subject of the government. Unlike citizens, subjects have a very limited capacity to influx on government composition and governance.

Failure to implement R2P at national level is mainly taking its roots in such distinction of population status by the ruling persons but also by the population itseld. If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

[MikeF]

R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

Salut Marc Andre,

I hope all is well. The problem is that most revolutions are violent, and when you force change quickly, i.e. free the subjects, what do you do then?

[jmm99]

The distinction between "citizens" (with avenues of non-violent recourse for "bad governance") and "subjects" (who have no such avenues) is well-known enough. Also, your comment:

If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

is, for example, something that we old folks could have heard and read from (e.g.) Bill Corson re: the impossible position of the South Vietnamese peasant who was beset by the Government of South Vietnam (predatory and "bad") and the Communists ("worse").

In that type of situation, a foreign power (IF it can affect the outcome positively at all) has two bad choices - does it select the "lesser" of two evils; or does it simply walk away ?

The experience of the US in Cold War and post-Cold War "peace enforcement" and associated "nation building" has not been positive. Perhaps, it's time to withdraw from that role ?

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Bonne annee Mike and Mike,

The distinction between "citizens" (with avenues of non-violent recourse for "bad governance") and "subjects" (who have no such avenues) is well-known enough.

Hopefully we do not have to reinvent the wheel every day and at each generation.

The problem is that most revolutions are violent, and when you force change quickly, i.e. free the subjects, what do you do then?

The experience of the US in Cold War and post-Cold War "peace enforcement" and associated "nation building" has not been positive. Perhaps, it's time to withdraw from that role ?

May be there are lessons to learn before throwing the baby with the water of the bath.
The real problematic with state building and the R2P as source of legitimacy is may be in te assumption that people can just jump from subjects to citizen in a snap. West tries to build institutions that are fully functional when people are citizen. And when it does not function, there is the big temptation to go back to enlightened dictatorship on the basic that people are not ready.
What we probably do not fully embrase is why ruling class is such context is always trying to deconstruct gorvernance tools and state apparatus we build for them and refuse to apply R2P.
My personnal opinion would rather go in a flawed evaluation of the ruling class (government, rebels, insurgents...) to actually implement this change from subject to citizen than in a rejectof the R2P principles.

If we look at the great global picture, in fact, result is not that bad. Yes there is, now, back fire from States/institutions against the people (Syria and Russia are good exemples) but this does not mean that the arab spring did not happen and that its offshoots will not blow one day.
The fact that on the fringes of this world, some are finghting against the establishment of democratic institutions and the principle of R2P can be seen as a good sign: we heading in the right direction. This does not mean the road will be easy and the journey without traps.

We have to understand why deconstructing the State and bad governance are so appealing for the new rulers once they are in power.

[MikeF]

We have to understand why deconstructing the State and bad governance are so appealing for the new rulers once they are in power.

Merci Marc. Meet Nancy Roberts, one of the smartest people that I know, and one of my personal mentors. She was brought in by the UN (1998?) to try and facilitate the International Community to work with the Taliban at the end of the civil war. She wrote this paper in 2000.

WICKED PROBLEMS AND NETWORK APPROACHES TO RESOLUTION
by Nancy Roberts

Collaboration for Relief and Recovery in Afghanistan

http://www.idt.unisg.ch/org/idt/ipmr.nsf/0/1f3bcad88f16e7c6c1256c76004be2c4/$FILE/IPMR_1_1_WICKED.pdf

International Public Management Review · electronic Journal at http://www.ipmr.net
Volume 1 · Issue 1 · 2000 · © International Public Management Network

[Bob's World]

Bob,

I would like to introduce here the distinction between subjects and citizens.
In most democracies people are citizens: the employers of the government. They get the government and governance they deserve as it is them who choose. As they can influx on government composition, government is forced to protect them and apply R2P.

In most of the countries where State is failing to assume its protection duty, people are subject of the government. Unlike citizens, subjects have a very limited capacity to influx on government composition and governance.

Failure to implement R2P at national level is mainly taking its roots in such distinction of population status by the ruling persons but also by the population itseld. If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

Whether one is a "subject" or a "citizen" the ultimate power and the ultimate source of authority always rests within the populace rather than in the government. Governments who forget this find themselves on the business end of any manner of populace delivered "weapons" systems (ballots where ballots count, or bullets where only bullets count).

The duty of every government is the same regardless of system of government in place, though granted, many do not recognize this duty and would scoff at the idea. They whistle past the cemetary when they do so. There is a day of rekoning coming on the back of information technology that is, or will be, a rude shock to many governments. Better to undergo planned, orderly evolution now, but many will wait until forced to act through some form of revolution.

[jmm99]

without belaboring what I've already written in many posts.

1. The US has proved during my lifetime (1942-?) that, with the exception of three military occupation "successes" (Italy, Germany and Japan; where pre-war governmental structures had been well established), it is not ready for primetime in the "nation building" (aka "state building") arena. We (USAians) are better at breaking things.

2. The R2P concept has theoretical validity - is not the prime function of a "good government" (and of its security agencies) to "protect and serve" ? But, the terms that come to mind (e.g., "justice", "democracy", "governance"; just to name three of the many terms that can be used) have different meanings in State A and State B. They may, in fact, have different meanings in different parts of State A (e.g., urban vs rural viewpoints in 1955-1975 SVN).

3. Therefore, a foreign state is at a disadvantage in taking on the indigenous government's R2P role. Experience suggests to me that multiplying the number of foreign states involved does not minimize the disadvantage - and may do more harm than good in the long run.

Like "COIN", "governance" (as seen by me) is an indigenous project. Note that both of these must involve the "political struggle" - which by its very nature must be indigenous.

Regards

Mike

[LawVol]

Mike is spot on with his three points above. The contrast between theoretical viability of R2P and differing meanings is exactly why I cannot support it. It is much to easy for R2P to be perverted and abused.

Some comments have pointed to R2P as emanating from a State's responsibility to protect its own citizens. This, indeed, is the genesis of the theory. However, R2P expands that responsibility to the international community when a State is either unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligation. Thus, when the government of Libya, Syria, or Rwanda (pick a country) acquiesces in the breakdown in security for its population, the international community becomes burdened with that responsibility and should act to alleviate the suffering. From a moral standpoint, most would agree that the concept here is supportable. However, the tendency will always be to exceed that mandate.

In satisfying this new responsibility (new because the "social contract theory" is between a people to establish a government for their own protection; nothing is said about protection of outsiders to the contract), a State will invariably seek regime change. While this may certainly be required under the circumstances, the substitute regime will habitually be made in the same mold as the country conducting the R2P intervention, whether culture dictates it or not. Thus, the intervention morphs into a bellicose chauvinism wherein the populous of the country in which the R2P operation is conducted are "conquered into liberty" (see book of same title by Eliot A. Cohen) whether they desire our version of liberty or not. This brings about the nation-building that Mike correctly points out we are not particularly good at doing.

While there may certainly be instances in which regime change and nation-building are within our national interest (although I know of none currently), not every situation requires COIN-style rebuilding on our part. The realist in me believes we should do only that which serves our interests. R2P imposes burdens that may or may not do that, so we must resist it.

[M-A Lagrange]

In satisfying this new responsibility (new because the "social contract theory" is between a people to establish a government for their own protection; nothing is said about protection of outsiders to the contract), a State will invariably seek regime change. While this may certainly be required under the circumstances, the substitute regime will habitually be made in the same mold as the country conducting the R2P intervention, whether culture dictates it or not. Thus, the intervention morphs into a bellicose chauvinism wherein the populous of the country in which the R2P operation is conducted are "conquered into liberty" (see book of same title by Eliot A. Cohen) whether they desire our version of liberty or not. This brings about the nation-building that Mike correctly points out we are not particularly good at doing.

I might be wrong but the social contract theory is just about the agreement of power sharing between the rulers and the one who are ruled. THere is nothing there about protecting the people.
By extension this can be interpreted as the contract between the people on how they protect themselves but it is basically only focussed on the legitimacy of the use of violence. (Cf Webber). The excellent book rebel rulers (Zachariah Cherian Mampilly, Cornell University Press) shows very well how insurgents government success or fail to go further than this.

R2P comes with the idea of the Just War: the just use of violence by a government. And, its roots can be found deep in history as the roots of most of the regimes. There are, in fact, very few regime (DRC, North Corea and few others) which openly say: we are here to enjoy power and not protect you. Even the initial social contract of feodality is based on the principle of sharing the responsability to protect (I, noble, protect you and you, peasant, feed me). The R2P is just the formalisation of the moral roots of that contract which has been biased into the only legitimate user of violence are the formal State institutions.

The question, at international level, is not do we have to impose R2P to others but rather: government based on R2P (and respecting and implementing it) are the sole form of acceptable government in this world. As we see the world as a global village, there is a need (and not a responsability) for all to have only neigbours that respect R2P to ensure that all mankind lives in a friendly and respectfull environment. This is a need for all as it participates in building a peacefull global environment which improves each and every country home security. Nothing much altruist in that. (If my neigbours are all nice and friendly, then my personnalsecurity is improved).
Somehow, rejection of R2P makes me think of the rejection of democracy by the European Kingdomes in the 18th century when USA and France made their revolutions.

While there may certainly be instances in which regime change and nation-building are within our national interest (although I know of none currently), not every situation requires COIN-style rebuilding on our part. The realist in me believes we should do only that which serves our interests. R2P imposes burdens that may or may not do that, so we must resist it.

Like "COIN", "governance" (as seen by me) is an indigenous project. Note that both of these must involve the "political struggle" - which by its very nature must be indigenous.

I agree with those both statements as Regime change and Nation building are just tools to achieve the establishment of a government based on R2P. Their use is limited to the formal form of the State not the moral contract that supports and roots the institutions.

Such change, as Mike rightfully spoted it, is indigeneous and can be only indigeneous. Saying that, it does not mean that others do not have a need/interrest in promoting the emergence of such government in its neighbours by making a clear choice among the forces of those indigeneous political struggles.

And it is true that none on this earth is really good at using violence to build.