Why even bother with R2P?
There has been a justifiable amount of criticism for the way that the international community has neglected to call upon Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the wake of the military brutalizing the citizenry. That was the basis of the podcast conversation with Liam Scott of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. While acknowledging the unmitigated failure on the part of large international bodies as well as influential countries, he points out that the problem is not with the actual doctrine, but with the inability or unwillingness on the part of countries to support it.
“I think R2P is really essential in responding to the ongoing atrocities in Myanmar because, well, what else is there?”
Host: I have a follow up question, that is in fact coming from a member of my audience. They ask, ‘Why even bother with R2P, if it can't be used and applied effectively?’
Liam Scott: I think that's a valid concern, considering how poor the international community's response to the crisis in Myanmar has been over the past year. And I think my first point is, again reiterating that although R2P is imperfect, it really will only ever be as effective as practitioners make it.
The faults really aren't with the doctrine, they aren't faults with the norm. I think the faults are with the international community and their failure to uphold R2P, as a function of unwillingness or a lack of capacity to do so.
It is important to know that R2P is the cornerstone of atrocity prevention. There isn't anything else like it. So even though this might not be a super-satisfying response, but when I think, ‘Okay, if R2P isn't effective, at least in the case of Myanmar, well, what else is there?’
I think that it's also important to keep in mind that we don't need more institutions, we don't need more norms. We don't need more legal frameworks for what R2P is. I think it really is essential still in responding to the ongoing atrocities in Myanmar because, well, another point is, what else is there? R2P is a global commitment to respond to atrocity crimes. And without that global commitment, without that moral imperative to respond to atrocity crimes, what else is there? We still need it!
It’s so crucial in my advocacy work to point to the Responsibility to Protect, and to remind countries that they made this commitment to uphold the Responsibility to Protect. They made this commitment to protect people, their own people, and really all people from atrocity crimes.
So if you can't point to this concrete principle, this concrete international norm, then I struggle to think of what else really there there is.”