Why Bother with R2P?
Last year, Liam Scott of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (Global R2P) appeared on our podcast platform to discuss the role of R2P in the current conflict in Myanmar. While he did not hold back in expressing his disappointment and even condemnation in the international community for not taking steps to support the democracy movement in Myanmar by calling on the principles of R2P, he also argued that the ideals behind R2P are still valid and should not be abandoned.
“In summary, despite the current limitations and challenges, R2P provides a moral and normative foundation for collective action and serves as a reminder of our responsibility to protect those facing mass atrocities.”
“I'll never truly understand what it's like for protesters in Myanmar and the people experiencing the ongoing crisis! I want to acknowledge that my perspective is limited in that regard. However, despite the apparent failure of the Security Council to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), what gives me hope is recognizing that R2P itself doesn't possess agency. It is a norm, not an actor. Therefore, it falls upon the international community to uphold and institutionalize R2P through their actions.
In my view, the effectiveness of R2P relies on the actors who implement it. One year since the coup in Myanmar, it has become increasingly evident that bilateral action is necessary and urgent in response to the ongoing atrocities. A notable example of enhanced bilateral response is the European Union's recent imposition of sanctions, including those against MOGE, the state-backed oil and gas company in Myanmar. By targeting the military's access to funds, these sanctions seek to limit their ability to perpetrate crimes.
While multilateral organizations like the United Nations and ASEAN have not shown effective and substantial responses, the growing trend of bilateral actions gives me hope. The European Union's recent sanctions are a positive development in the absence of a strong response from the Security Council. However, it is important to continue calling for action from these multilateral organizations while actively pushing for increased bilateral responses.
Now, addressing the question from your audience member, it is a valid and serious question: Why bother with R2P if it hasn't been effectively used and applied so far? It's crucial to recognize that this question isn't rhetorical or critical but seeks a genuine understanding of R2P’s purpose. R2P serves as a guiding principle, providing a framework and moral imperative for the international community to intervene and protect populations facing mass atrocities.
Even though the implementation of R2P may face challenges, it remains essential to have a normative framework in place that emphasizes the responsibility of states and the international community to protect vulnerable populations. By working towards R2P, even in the face of current limitations, we uphold the moral obligation to prevent and respond to mass atrocities.
While the effectiveness of R2P is open to debate, it is important to continue discussions, advocate for its implementation, and explore ways to enhance its practical application. It may require continued efforts to strengthen and improve the mechanisms, strategies, and actions associated with R2P to ensure its effectiveness in the future.
In summary, despite the current limitations and challenges, R2P provides a moral and normative foundation for collective action and serves as a reminder of our responsibility to protect those facing mass atrocities. By engaging in discussions and pushing for improved implementation, we strive to enhance the practical application of R2P and make a meaningful impact in preventing and responding to crises like the one in Myanmar.”