What might have been...

posted by Susan

While the Rwandan genocide happened before the doctrine of R2P was codified, if there were a case in my memory that begged for intervention, Rwanda was it.  And what happened in Rwanda is how I came to my personal belief that we have a responsibility to intervene. There is no “easy” answer in situations like Libya, and apparently world leaders felt the same way about Rwanda.  Frankly, intervening is probably the hard way to go.  It costs money and lives.  It is hard to make a case to citizens that they should be helping people half way around the world. And there’s the issue of sovereignty.  

Despite all that, how many lives could have been saved in Rwanda if the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Nations had actually united to take action?  This article talks about the early warning signs and lead up to the genocide indicating numerous places where intervention could have stemmed the tide. If we had imagined the full scope and horror of what happened would that have made a difference?

And, next week, we'll be looking at commentary from some pundits who are saying that the “political” ramifications of invoking R2P in Libya may stop it from being used in the future. 

With you all in solidarity.

Libya, specifically.

posted by Susan

The use of the R2P doctrine to intervene in Libya is what got us started on this line of thinking so today we're looking at Libya, specifically.

This is a country profile from the BBC

Next is a link to an article at the Council on Foreign Relations website that specifically addresses R2P in the context of Libya.

And this link goes to an article that explains (from the writer's perspective) why Libya is a different situation from Yemen and Bahrain.

One question that lingers with me is why we didn’t step in during the stand off between political leaders in Cote d’Ivoire.  I’ll be looking for articles about that for Friday.

As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Possible Readings

posted by Susan

This was intended to be yesterday's post...sorry if you dropped by and were disappointed.

This list includes titles that have been recommended to us, although I've not read them all personally.  Have you read any of them?  What do you think?  Are there other books that address R2P that should be on the list?  Let us know!

Responsibility to Protect-Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All — Gareth Evans

reviewed here

Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect — James Pattison

reviewed here

Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention — ed. Jonathan Moore

reviewed here

Mass Atrocity Crimes: Preventing Future Outrages — ed. Robert Rotberg

If you find a review let us know!

To Intervene, or not to Intervene...

The idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in of and of itself isn't necessarily controversial, putting it into practice however is. Before we look more deeply at situations that can be considered candidates for R2P action, let's look at the two sides of the issue full on.  This link will take you to the Munk Debates site.  Their mission is to provide a lively and substantive forum for leading thinkers to debate the major issues facing the world and Canada.

The following link will take you directly to the debate on Humanitarian Intervention

There you can click on the argument for R2P and the argument against.  The statements are clear and well written and, I know for my part, generate a lot of thoughtful reflection.

We'd love to know what your thoughts are. Please share them in the comments section.

June Advocacy Focus

posted by Susan

This is the introduction I wrote from our last email newsletter so some of you may have seen it already, but to all others read on!

The last couple months have provided fodder for some interesting conversations about the righteousness, efficacy, and political ramifications of the military action in Libya. It was/is a complicated question and we don’t pretend to know “the” answer.  What we decided to do however was spend the month of June looking at the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, also known as R2P.

This is an introduction to R2P from the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect website:

“Recognizing the failure to adequately respond to the most heinous crimes known to humankind, world leaders made a historic commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity at the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit. This commitment, entitled the Responsibility to Protect, stipulates that:

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility.

3. The international community should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take stronger measures, including the collective use of force through the UN Security Council.”

Over the next month we’ll look at the organizations that promote R2P, situations where it has been called for and not used, or called for and used.  We’ll also have our monthly advocacy packet focusing on R2P that you can receive via email by sending a request to susan@onemillionbones.org

If you have ideas for ways to investigate R2P, or thoughts on the ramifications of it as a policy please do share them in the comments.  As I always say, all of us here at OMB are learning as we go along and conversations, virtual or otherwise, are an important part of that process.  Hope to hear from you!