Recall that a year ago (happy anniversary!) I kicked off the Web of Democracy with a few posts about the humanitarian imperialist doctrine that Canada helped create, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). A year later, R2P's well- (and predominantly Western-) funded advocates continue to try and 'operationalize' the doctrine (ie. make it hegemonic). In May, the Obama administration encouraged such efforts by endorsing R2P in its National Security Strategy (.pdf, p. 48)
I've just finished reading one of the best critiques of R2P to date, Edward S. Herman & David Peterson's The Politics of Genocide (reviewed favorably here and here, & not so favorably but rebutted, here), and encourage you to do the same some weekend. I'll do my best to review it before the end of the summer.
Now, to the reason for today's post. Although the 'R2P lobby' has been undeterred by legitimate critiques (which they also refuse to engage), those critiques continue to be voiced. Most recently, during yesterday's UN Security Council 'debate on civilian protection,' here's what Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, voicing the concerns of many, had to say:
"emphasizing the primary responsibility of protecting civilians during armed conflict, [Valero] said human right violation[s] should be condemned in all circumstances. The principles of consent of the parties concerned, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defence should guide peacekeeping operations, he said, while the strategy to protect people should be based on systematically attacking the causes of conflict, such as discrimination, poverty, injustice and the lack of channels for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the responsibility of peacekeeping operations was limited to specific occasions to protect civilians when there was a real threat of loss of life, he said. In light of recent experiences, however, international interventions in such cases were worrisome. There had been discrepancies in the timing and manner of military interventions, he said, noting that in some cases, States had been accused of violating human rights. What had been ignored were the destabilizing processes set underway by world Powers that caused coups d’état, territorial disintegration and socio–economic crises. Some Powers employed rhetoric based on the premise of humanitarian support and human rights, while undermining the true nature of things, he said, citing Iraq as a good example.
He went on to state that many countries in the global South had concerns about the Responsibility to Protect, adding that Venezuela understood such worries because international solidarity was indispensable. But intervention to dominate was another matter altogether. The concept of Responsibility to Protect must be rejected since it covered up violations of sovereignty in the name of neocolonial interests, he said, emphasizing the importance of supporting the people of Gaza. He asked why there was an effort to keep Palestine from becoming a sovereign State, and stressed that it was incumbent upon the United Nations to implement the Charter for the benefit of the people, not in the interests of the powerful."