Before providing coverage on the conference proceedings I would like to address a few of the comments responding to my last post. Also through my response I’ll have the opportunity to address some key issues which have been discussed over the last two days.
I’m encouraged to see people taking interest in this issue as they should. What is apparent and lamentable by the commentary is that there exists a wide gap between reactionary assumption being propelled from a western perspective and the realities of what the concept of R2P actually encompasses and how it is received by different regions.
To clear up the first misconception, the concept of R2P cannot claim Western origins. African states have been implementing a practice of R2P long before the term was coined by the 2001 ICISS commission report (an example would be in Liberia with ECOWAS) and have integrated the principle into the AU Charter. In this regard, Africa has led the way and continues to do so with the development of a rapid reaction stand-by force. The position of ownership and experiential knowledge regarding R2P is energetically espoused by African states — and this is what has happened here through Ambassador Mohammed Louilichi, Permanent Mission of Morocco to the UN and Ambassador Ebenezer Appreku, Permanent Mission of Ghana to the UN. Through their participation on a panel discussion they each made the explicit point of reminding the audience that R2P is not a Western concept. Africa’s engagement was also highlighted by Edward Luck, Special Adviser of the UN Secretary — General on the issue of R2P who is charged with, amongst other things, consensus building in the international community. The only point of contention involving Africa which was discussed was in regards to the stand-by force previously mentions and how the development of that mechanism would coexist with the monopoly on legitimate military action exercised by the UN Security Council.
In terms of concept content, the ICISS report outlines three pillars: responsibility to prevent, responsibility to respond, and responsibility to rebuild. In many ways, ICISS was the beginning of talks in developing and packaging the norm. As such, there are notable differences on what the Commission proposed and what was adopted by consensus (a much higher threshold of acceptance than a majority vote) during the 2005 UN World Summit. This marked R2P’s emergence as a norm, although as a norm it is not a radical departure from existing international law. In fact, in many ways it was simply a new lends through which to view existing international legal obligations. It is for this reason that anyone suggesting R2P is some kind of new mask to hide imperialistic ambitions and another tool to be used in the subjugation of weaker states is very ignorant of the actual composition of R2P and its roots in existing international law.
I reiterate, it’s good to see people concerned and engaged on this issue. I’ll provide further commentary and updates as soon as time permits.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
