Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[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.

[MikeF]

The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History
by Samuel Moyn
Lawfare

Only after the end of the Cold War in 1990 did the human rights movement affirmatively embrace internationalism as the preferred vehicle for its own utopian vision, alongside an ever more expansive and progressive substantive human rights corpus as international law, including all manner of group, social, and economic rights. International law of human rights joins with international organizations gradually to overtake the nation-state as the source of legitimate authority, at least over questions of rights – which is to say, more or less, over everything. The extent to which the institutions of internationalism—created with the consent and power of national governments but often rooted in intellectual and historical underpinnings vastly different from those of the human rights movement—will actually serve as witting champions for the human rights movement is, however, much less certain.

[M-A Lagrange]

But what else could you expect from UNSG

“I am also acutely aware of the need to preserve my own diplomatic space for the crucial moment when the UN’s good offices may be needed.
“Such is the nature of the Responsibility to Protect. It can be a minefield of nuance, political calculation and competing national interests. The result too often is hesitation or inaction. This we can not afford.”
He said that, in a short period of time, the world has embraced the Responsibility to Protect – not because it is easy, but because it is right.
“We therefore have a moral responsibility to push ahead,” he stated. “Together, let us work... with optimism and determination... to make the Responsibility to Protect a living reality for the peoples of the world.”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...to+protect&Cr1