I ran across this interesting quote recently in this report:
Reverend Miguel d’Escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, President of the General Assembly, tried to frame the dialogue with a “concept paper” that argued that R2P was just colonialism in a new package. D’Escoto wrote that the correct way to eliminate genocide and other mass atrocities was to reform the world financial system, redistribute wealth, and reform the UN Security Council. He said in the UNGA dialogue, that “Recent and painful memories related to the legacy of colonialism, give developing countries strong reasons to fear that laudable motives can end up being misused, once more, to justify arbitrary and selective intervention against the weakest states. …We must take into account the prevailing lack of trust from most of the developing countries when it comes to the use of force for humanitarian reasons.”
And while his critique may represent one extreme, the controversy swirling around R2P has a number of countries concerned that R2P is merely a justification for interference by developed countries in the affairs of developing nations.
I find this comment extremely interesting — is the way we’re attempting to fight genocide today even an effective method of doing so? Though the Save Darfur movement has mobilized millions against genocide and created the first activist movement to do so, it hasn’t necessarily been effective in translating advocacy into action thus far. Perhaps the R2P concept must be part of a much larger process of reform and redistribution that might be more effective in the long run.
I don’t think that R2P will necessarily be misused by powerful countries to intervene in poorer countries. Indeed, countries like Sudan or other countries at risk for conflict/genocide are not necessarily countries the U.S. has an interest in. Despite the concept of R2P and the citizen movement, the U.S. hasn’t taken strong action on Darfur. The U.S. similarly may not have much interest in other at-risk countries.
But I would question, ultimately, whether the idea of R2P is even what is most necessary. As alluded to in the quote, we have to somehow be working towards prevention of genocide, towards a more just and equitable world order in which genocide would never be possible in the first place. Currently, we are so focused towards intervention that the larger piece of the puzzle – prevention – has almost been forgotten. Of course, the roots of genocide are in discrimination, inequality, and poverty. Working to eradicate these strands of hatred through development efforts might be a part of the prevention process. Rather than simply depending on individual countries to step in and play the savior, we need to simultaneously develop a longer-term vision and international framework for ensuring that genocide does not become possible anywhere in the future. While advocacy and R2P is necessary for Darfur, these tools may not be sufficient to prevent the emergence of genocide elsewhere in the future, and a more holistic strategy for prevention must be developed.
Related posts:
