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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Have you read Ambassador Rice's speech on this topic? It's the US perspective of course, but I respect her as a thoughtful and wise source.
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20090615_126.html
First of all, I laughed out loud at your second paragraph/sentence. Second of all, wow, hm. I wish I had something insightful to add, which I don't, but all I can think about is how we talked about R2P in Angela's law class but felt like in this regard, she left us hanging. Or maybe I, as a student, didn't challenge the idea enough (I've always been a slow thinker - I tend to take my time).
I agree with SC reform. Oh, and mention of the big 5 reminds me of china, which reminds me of an article I had to proofread here at work - will ask if I can email it to you but here's an excerpt (from a lovely lady by the name of Jan Egeland):
"It is not in the interest of humanitarian or human rights action that it is identified with one Western corner of the world only. The right country must push the right cause, not the most eager actor with the most engaged domestic audience. [...]
Clearly, the age of investment in joint, collective and coherent action through the United Nations has come for the rich and the powerful member states of the organisation. As we move from a uni-polar world of US dominance to a multi-polar world, it will be as important to recognize the political importance of Beijing and New Delhi as to demand that they assume their part of political and economic burden sharing.
Just as the US cannot shrink from its obligation to push for a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the EU for reconciliation in the Caucasus and the Balkans, - China cannot pretend to be a developing nation when it is the dominant investor in Africa and, as such, must play a leading role in enforcing an end to the carnage in Darfur. In the new world the Security Council and the G-8 should reflect economic and political reality in this century and not the world as it was in 1945. [...]
In spite of, but also because of all of these experiences, I believe that in the coming generation much greater global progress can be achieved. We now have means to end so much of the suffering that was seen as inevitable during previous generations. We have, in spite of temporary financial meltdowns, greater resources at hand than at any time before. We have superior technology and information. We have advanced early warnings for hunger, epidemics and conflict which make it impossible to claim we did not know what was brewing.
We also have the biggest and best network of like-minded inter-governmental, governmental and non-governmental organisations as channels of future investments in peace and development. They represent great hope as we embark on a generation that has in its hands to end massive misery and prevent conflict and disasters."
Wow, Andrea, very insightful blog and way to represent for IPCR. I see that you were paying attention in class. You have given me a lot think about. Will have to process some info and then get back to you. Ambassador Rice's speech was also interesting so check it out when you get a chance.
Andrea-
I love reading your blog posts.
like the others before me have said, you have given us much to think about.
also, Heather is my mom. :0)
also, what i meant to say about Jan Egeland is that he is a lovely man.
Thanks, guys. Thanks for the link, Heather! Rice says a lot of good stuff. Michelle- your mom seems awesome. :)
And yeah, turns out R2P is specifically for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
I found this site that has links to all the GA speeches on R2P. D'Escoto outlines four "benchmark questions" that he thinks need to be answered about R2P- pretty interesting. And I think The Economist was probably overstating the case that he's "against" R2P.
By the way, if you guys haven't read about D'Escoto, you should- he seems pretty awesome.
http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/generalassembly.html
Eun, I found this like of that excerpt most interesting:
"...it will be as important to recognize the political importance of Beijing and New Delhi as to demand that they assume their part of political and economic burden sharing."
So, partnering rather than commanding?
That is, this LINE of that excerpt.
in case you haven't found this yet...
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/2493-general-assembly-debate-on-the-responsibility-to-protect-and-informal-interactive-dialogue-"
Post a Comment