recent R2P debates at the UN

So it turns out, according to this copy of The Economist, that UN General Assembly president Miguel d'Escoto IS NOT A FAN of R2P and is TOTALLY using this July's General Assembly meetings to bring the doctrine to debate, much to Ban Ki-Moon's chagrin.

It is a General Assembly showdown, my friends!

UN leaders agreed, kind of, upon the "responsibility to protect"- or R2P- doctrine in 2005, which says that states have the responsibility to protect their citizens against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and that if they don't, other states have the right to intervene. In the aftermath of genocides and crimes against humanity like the Rwandan genocide, the doctrine sounds prudent, humane, and arriving none too soon. In the aftermath of wars like the present one in Iraq, sometimes justified by the Bush administration as a war to protect the citizens of Iraq from a cruel dictator, R2P sounds dangerous, an excuse for large powers to intervene in the affairs and sovereignty of smaller states for their own self-interest.

Ban Ki-Moon thinks it's humane. D'Escoto, along with a lot of not-quite-so-powerful states, is skeptical.

A few thoughts:

1. I still don't understand how R2P fits into international law. Is it just a more specific way to enforce international humanitarian law and the genocide convention? Does it cover human rights law as well?

2. The article notes that R2P is "carefully crafted" to respect the UN Charter and therefore the Security Council, enshrining the current power structure of which smaller states are justly skeptical. Have I mentioned that I'm a big fan of Security Council reform? Down with the P5 and their lousy veto!

3. The article mentioned that Russia used R2P to justify its incursion into Georgia last August. While Russia was not the aggressor, it certainly acted aggressively and escalated a conflict that increased regional tensions and caused death and suffering in Georgia, even as it attempted to protect the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Recently reminded, thanks to reading a friend's thesis, of the often Orwellian logic (WAR is PEACE) behind warfare, I respect D'Escoto and see that his skepticism must be justified.

But oh well. Giving up on justice is giving up on life, so try we must.