Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[LawVol]

MikeF: you are absolutely correct. Although I didn't discuss it in detail in my initial post, this is what I was referring to when I spoke of R2P being a tool for the developed world. Particularly with regard to a broadened interpretation of R2P, as with the Canadian documents, I can easily foresee R2P as an excuse for action. Maybe a Russian-Georgian conflict part two based on perceived "crimes" against ethnic Russians in Georgia? I'm sure you can imagine other examples. While the moral underpinnings of the doctrine may seem worthwhile, the doctrine itself leave too much open to interpretation and misuse. Of course misuse is in the eye of the beholder, so criticism can be made of nearly any intervention I guess.

[MikeF]

MikeF: you are absolutely correct. Although I didn't discuss it in detail in my initial post, this is what I was referring to when I spoke of R2P being a tool for the developed world. Particularly with regard to a broadened interpretation of R2P, as with the Canadian documents, I can easily foresee R2P as an excuse for action. Maybe a Russian-Georgian conflict part two based on perceived "crimes" against ethnic Russians in Georgia? I'm sure you can imagine other examples. While the moral underpinnings of the doctrine may seem worthwhile, the doctrine itself leave too much open to interpretation and misuse. Of course misuse is in the eye of the beholder, so criticism can be made of nearly any intervention I guess.

Well, the SWJ team here (JMM, Ken White, Steve Blair, and many others) have been helping me for the past four years really sorting through things, and I wanted to find reoccurring patterns throughout history that reflect today. Initially, I narrowed it down to 1866-1910, but I am now convinced that we are literally in a period that reflects the beginning of the twentieth century-small protracted wars of limited ends, contested global hegemony, economic shifts with the rise of the middle class and the Industrial Revolution, and the Rise of the West with an nascent American Empire blossoming. Theodore Roosevelt rose to the challenges of the day by building the Panama Canal and sailing the Great White Fleet.

As we (US, UK, and everyone else) move past Iraq and start to figure out how we're going to talk to each other, interact, trade, etc, in the future, we must understand what happened last time, but we cannot be bound by feelings of guilt either. We must move forward wisely.

This will take leadership.

When design theory was first introduced in the late 1960's, it came from systems thinking, and one rule that has since gone away, but has always stuck in my mind is

The planner has no right to be wrong.

[MikeF]

From a mentor

Mike, the future is less likely to be what "we" want and more of what others demand. Neither of these solutions, which appear to be two ends of a continuum of US intervention policies, appear to be workable from my perspective. Policy is likely to be grounded in context and the worldwide context is very different. The US will most likely be pulling out of certain regions, developing coalitions in others, and pursuing some unilateral interventions (broadly defined to include MOOTW) in others. We also are in Age where grassroots movements worldwide are toppling oligarchy. What will replace them is uncertain, but it will be a very different world and very difficult to make unilateral policy. The US not longer has the ability to "control" what is going on although our we will continue to try to shape things. The defense establishment (and I am including politician-hawks) needs to understand the limits of military power; my guess is that they haven't learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they drag us into more combat into Muslim countries or with China, we are done for

[MikeF]

From a Friend

1. I think Ms. Slaughter makes a good point of the rise in importance of SOF operations and more flexible options, however, I believe that she is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and is in fact making a key philosophical error in assuming that the nature of war has fundamentally changed. While the techniques and tactics certainly change and the frequency of large scale conflict may be far less than “small wars”, the idea that the world has moved beyond large scale conflict is both incorrect and has dangerous implications as we refashion the defense apparatus.

2. We (the royal, collective “we”) are often perpetrators of “Chronological Snobbery”, to use C.S. Lewis’ term, and somehow assume that the problems of today are unique and those before us were not as clever as we are nor did they have as good understanding of the topic (whatever it is) as we do now. While I am not arguing about technological issues (tanks are better than chariots), I would offer that the fundamental nature of war is a very human endeavor, has not changed much, and that the problems faced throughout histor, are essentially the same, albeit with different restrictions, enablers (constraints, restraints, etc.). e.g. How do we raise and pay for a military, defeat our adversaries, subdue a population, turn the win into a beneficial and sustainable endstate, etc. Until we change human nature, I do not think that this will change much.

3. Historically speaking, we are also off the mark as we look back at all the big wars that were never supposed to happen. But did.

4. So, while I believe that the military was far too force on force focused prior to 9/11, I also hesitate to advocate that we dispose of all of our tank and attack helicopters in light of a pure SOF force. In the end, I hope to see balance come the Force and that the nation ensures that it develops/maintains an array of options that can be used to achieve our ends in a flexible manner.

[MikeF]

From another friend

South African Albie Sachs wrote a prize-winning book called The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter. In 1988, an assassin found him in Mozambique, where he was exiled from South Africa, and blew up his car. Sachs missed death but lost a leg and an eye. Upon return to South Africa, he met the man who ordered the bomb. The man offered to shake his hand. Sachs said no. “I will shake your hand after you go through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Sachs went on to become responsible for constitutional protection for equality of marriage in South Africa. Why did he refuse the hand of his would-be assassin? Because, in his words, "seeing a future, that has a process by which to arrive at it, is much more beautiful than ordinary punishment. It is to bet on a huge transformation of our country that will validate everything we went through."

[Ken White]

The planner has no right to be wrong.

He or she often will be...

[jmm99]

LawVol:

With respect to the US, three branches are potentially involved in deciding constitutional and international law issues. With respect to decisions to go to war (jus ad bellum), the Supreme Court has made it clear that it won't get involved in second guessing those political questions, leaving them to Congress and the Executive. If the Executive acts and Congress does not act, the Executive's actions will stand (in practical effect, will be "legal"), regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them. UNLESS, and this may or may not be a big "unless", UNLESS the people then take action to cause the Executive to change course.

In the case of the UN, the SC is the Final Decider as to "peace", "international security" - and to Chapter VII actions. Given the concurrence of the permanent members and the acquiescence (or silence) of the General Assembly, the SC actions will be the "law", regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them.

While the velvet glove has been used by the UN versus the iron fist in Chapter VII matters, the latter is available under Arts. 48 & 49 to a greater extent than, say, under Art. 5 of NATO:

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Of course, if you are a permanent member (or a functional equivalent, such as Germany), you have less to fear from Mr Hiss' well-drafted arrangement.

Like Zhivago, you might say to the UNSC: "That only gives you the Power, it doesn't give you the Right." But, I find that of little comfort.

Regards

Mike

[LawVol]

In the case of the UN, the SC is the Final Decider as to "peace", "international security" - and to Chapter VII actions. Given the concurrence of the permanent members and the acquiescence (or silence) of the General Assembly, the SC actions will be the "law", regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them. . . .

Like Zhivago, you might say to the UNSC: "That only gives you the Power, it doesn't give you the Right." But, I find that of little comfort.

As you are aware international law comes in two varieties: treaties (and the like) and customary international law. Customary law is built upon state practice and evolves over time. Thus, a single act by a state is not enough to constitute customary law. There must be action and acquiescence over time. I think this applies to Inter-governmental bodies such as the UN as well. A one-off action like Libya, even with acquiescence from the General Assembly, can become "law." However, the UNSC can now use Libya as precedence to build upon the concept of R2P (or whatever their basis) which can them become customary law. Only objections can prevent this from occurring. While objections would certainly hold more water if they came from States, sometimes they must come from individuals academia or other organizations. Does this work? Not always, but R2P and the UN Declarations of Human Rights, among other concepts, were initiated by non-state entities.

I guess I am just not as quick to call UNSC action with regard to Libya "law." Of course,m it occurred and nothing will change that, but we must look to next time. So, yes, I do take some small comfort in the evolutionary nature of customary law.

[Bob's World]

R2P is a slippery slope. Like "controlling WMD" "protecting the populace" sounds honorable and noble, and will be employed to slap an honorable and noble rationale onto all manner of adventures, regardless of the true purpose and intent.

Even when the purpose and intent are largely pure, it is by its very nature the worst possible abuse of the sovereignty of some other nation. The primary duty of government in their exercise of the sovereignty granted them by their populace (be that into one man or a vast conglomerate of democracy) is to "protect the populace."

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

This is so fundamental that it must be placed in the proper context to really appreciate the magnitude of what we are saying.

Sometimes in the exercise of one's own sovereign duties a government gets so carried away that it becomes easier and easier to justify violations of the sovereignty of others in the pursuit of one's own. The US has come to cast too wide of a net over that past 60 years of what we see as our interests and our sovereign duty to protect. This drives a rationalization process as others seeking their own destinies outside of that US-shaped construct push back. What the US needs is not new rationale for violating the sovereignty of others in pursuit of our own, what the US needs is a new assessment of what our sovereign duties truly are. Controlling outcomes was nice, but not necessary. Influence is enough, and it comes at lower costs of almost every variety.

[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.

[jcustis]

Sometimes in the exercise of one's own sovereign duties a government gets so carried away that it becomes easier and easier to justify violations of the sovereignty of others in the pursuit of one's own. The US has come to cast too wide of a net over that past 60 years of what we see as our interests and our sovereign duty to protect. This drives a rationalization process as others seeking their own destinies outside of that US-shaped construct push back. What the US needs is not new rationale for violating the sovereignty of others in pursuit of our own, what the US needs is a new assessment of what our sovereign duties truly are.

And I think two examples of how this mindset could creep into policy and action come from none other than the mouthbreathing Governor of Texas, in the Sat debate, when he tried to put together a cogent sentence on the pending budget cuts and the issue of Iraq:

“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”

That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.

“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”

Those where my thoughts when I listened to him say that.

[MikeF]

He or she often will be...

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.

[Ken White]

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.

Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...

[MikeF]

Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...

Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?

[Ken White]

Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?

Probably about 50% ala Jack Singlaub but upper level managers (managers are civilian, right? Right?? ) are a small problem. Upper level uniformed leaders who are more concerned with protecting the institution are a far greater problem -- and the Congress is almost as significant a problem for several reasons we all know. Military excellence is not high on their priority list...

However, such focus on people in positions is not the real issue, the systemic malaise and dysfunction engendered by too many laws, too much well intentioned but pervasively stupid regulations and a focus on from over function; appearance over competence; and the enhancement of the institutions (plural) are the problems. The senior people are products of the system, they are doing to the best of their ability what the system says they should do (as is true of far too many less senior people but that's another story...). Cuts will be simply another Band Aid ® on a system that is very much in need of total redesign. You want better performance and results, you will have to change the system. Pretty radically, too...

That would entail Congress emphasizing competence instead of pseudo-fairness (and it is very pseudo...) and 'objectivity,' . It would entail dumping the 1917 Personnel system (as amended in 1940, 1963, 1980, etc.); dumping the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard based BTMS system; removing grade creep (there are too many Officers, especially FlagOs, too many senior NCOs -- I'm fully aware of Mob requirements but there better ways to get there and improve quality in the process); testing people for promotion; rigorously testing units for performance and removing incompetent leaders from the service (acknowledging that Congress and HRC truly hate that idea for very different reasons...) and a few other things. You want it fixed, all that is necessary but any one item remediated would bring some improvement, two would help a lot. Good luck with any of it.

Lacking major surgery, the tumor will just continue to grow, a few slices here and there won't stop it. Make no mistake, the protectionism, CYA-ism / risk avoidance, political correctness and stifling bureaucracy are malignancies that have corrupted the system...