Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[MikeF]

Who has a responsibility to protect the people of this world?

[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.

[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

[jcustis]

Who has a responsibility to protect the people of this world?

I specifically posted my thoughts without reading any of what I'm sure are good responses. My very first thoughts were:

No one has the responsibility to protect the people of the world. They have the responsibility to protect themselves, inasmuch as they self-identify as a tribe, a sect, a state with recognized borders, etc.

You want protection? Form alliances and pacts with stronger or peer neighbors, as with NATO or the Arab League. Don't start sh*t you can't or don't want to finish, when somebody bigger comes around and doesn't like what you started. Get up off of your knees and defend yourself, even it requires every fiber of being and the last breath of every able-bodied man and woman.

The notion of protection is slippery, and has been used as the thin veil to cover outright aggression, genocide, and miscalculation on the part of countless nations that have started conflicts. It has also dragged countless states into conflict over issues that they felt were theirs to champion, and where they felt they were protecting something or someone from aggression.

Those were my first thoughts, but I realize that it would have to be a perfect world sort of situation, and I know the world doesn't turn that way as much as I'd like.

The more I thought about it (across, oh, say 30 minutes of watching Wheel of Fortune with my two youngest), I think the question needs to get turned on its head a bit. I think the premise of protecting people comes from some internal wiring that drives the thought that we can (or should at least strive to) achieve Utopia, where there are no haves and have-nots, and where there are no wars if everyone can just get along. That wiring also believes that we can influence other aggressive actors through action, deterrence, etc., and make the root causes of that aggression go away somehow.

Then I went back to the classic adage that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I remembered my realism theory roots. We will not achieve utopia and states and actors will always attempt to change the environment to improve their position relative to a competitor state. The same can apply to races, sects, etc., I believe.

Protecting people of the world only has true relevance when there is any bearing on our national interests. The rest is just grist for the mills of pundits, politicians, and fools.

The question that needs to be asked first is "why?" Only then can we ask "who?"

Is there a letter "T"?

[MikeF]

I'm gonna post this video on the frontpage in a bit. I imagine Slapout will be up on the net later screaming, "See, see, this is what I've been trying to tell y'all all this time ."

Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift

Paddy Ashdown claims that we are living in a moment in history where power is changing in ways it never has before. In a spellbinding talk at TEDxBrussels he outlines the three major global shifts that he sees coming.