In an article a couple of days ago, Gareth Evans attempted to articulate why - and especially why not - the concept of "Responsibility to Protect" applies to the humanitarian disaster in Burma. It is an important article, which is part of an important debate; but both serve to illuminate the deep morass in which the international system is mired.
R2P, as it has come to be known, is in essence a simple concept. As Evans notes, it "is about protecting vulnerable populations from 'genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity' in ways that we have all too miserably often failed to do in the past." However, this very simplicity is also the core problem, which is that implementation of the concept is dependent on the political will of states and national leaders, and that is the rarest of commodities.
R2P came into the world for all the best of reasons, as are all attempts to address the horrors that beset various corners of the world, be they manmade or unleashed by the elements. However, such reasons tend to be divorced from the harsh reality of the international system and the institutions which are meant to deal with them. These were created within the high ideals after the second world war, but they evolved and stabilised during the Cold War as cynical tools of the two sides. As a result, the UN charter, which is a wonderful document, has been systematically ignored, misapplied and thus simply denigrated.
Since the end of the Cold War there has been an admirable effort to roll back this evolution, and attempt to recreate the system as it was envisaged - and R2P is part of this effort. But to paraphrase Cher, you can't turn back time. The system is just as many like it. We live in a world set to a default of deep cynicism, largely led by weak politicians who are becoming increasingly suspicious of the international world; and they are most suspicious of R2P and the thinking that lies behind it.
The second line of the UN charter states clearly that its purpose is to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". In other words, it enshrines the individual together with the state, on equal footing. But the signatories to the charter were representative of states, and it is the state that has been enshrined above all over the past 65 years.
This prominence of the state is the main reason the system has failed in recent times, with the rise of conflicts involving non-state actors that trap whole populations - or with the growing incidence of recognised governments committing crimes against their own populations. To help, to be effective, there is therefore a need to reach out directly to the trapped and afflicted people - but doing so involves, practically by definition, reaching across the boundary of the state. It is effectively to tamper with the creators of the system.
Acknowledging this problem, the international community - or rather, the developed world - decided to do what it does best: create a committee populated by senior "wise men", who can deliver a message that serving politicians cannot. From such a committee came R2P.
But now there is Burma - flooded and devastated, its people afflicted not only by nature but with the horrors of political oppression which we all had confirmed but weeks ago with government attacks against protesting civilians and monks - and we are wringing our hands. Is this a case for R2P or not? Is a publicly confirmed venal government committing a crime against humanity?
These are difficult legal questions, but the real hurdle is the question that lies behind them: is the international system going to be able to fully implement its charter, giving the individual equal rights with the state, or will it persist in ignoring the needy people of this world?
There is no simple answer to the question, since there is little to say that a world ruled by individuals is necessarily better than one ruled by states. Moreover, given that the change must be instigated by states headed by politicians who gain their power from the national unit, there is little chance of finding out: they will always prefer to create a committee and sign nice declarations which they have no intention of implementing.
R2P is a nice idea, but perhaps it would be better to seek a solution that does more for bridging the gap between the individual and the state rather than create an ideal that cannot be lived up to. In the meantime, since Burma is rotting and a mass outbreak of disease is not far off, it is possible to suggest it is becoming a danger to regional, and international security. Perhaps that will merit an intervention to save lives?
