Sunday, September 30, 2007

The Responsibility to Protect

Adam, I think, might find this particularly interesting.

While I was searching for a good news article to use for my blog post, I came upon this article discussing a document called the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P). The main theme expressed through this doctrine is that sovereign states and the international community have a responsibility to guard people from mass killing crimes (genocides and it extends to other related mass atrocity crimes as well).

To be honest, reading over this document has made me feel a little bit torn. In general I tend to identify myself as someone that would like the genocides of the world recognized. I also feel, however, that the United States should not have to take complete responsibility for saving other nations that might be in genocidal peril. The idea that we must 'act for the sake of our own humanity' (as is stated in the doctrine) made me feel as though my viewpoint was something to be ashamed of. Needless to say, the whole thing makes me pretty uncomfortable.

The doctrine points the finger at everyone sitting idly by in the face of genocide and labels them as 'inhumane'- essentially, monsters. This approach, while powerful in evoking an emotional response, is hardly the way to go about introducing legislation. All too often the cries and pleas of people calling for a stop to genocidal madness go completely ignored. In what way would simply slapping an official title on this same point of view help bring about future change? It's like putting pretty wrapping paper on a used Ipod and trying to pass it off as a shiny new birthday gift.

Sadly, while the principals of the R2P doctrine are widely accepted and acknowledged, spoken and written words are never translated into actions. (Or if there are actions, they are often meek and not nearly to the effect that is required by the doctrine that was accepted.) To recruit a sovereign nation even halfheartedly into something remotely like R2P, the world needs to put a different spin on the old ideas. (Maybe something less accusing, for a change.)

And those are my two cents.


No comments: