While Jean Bricmont has published his recently delivered speech to the UN General Assembly's informal dialogue on R2P at Counterpunch, as one might have expected, the R2P Lobby has taken the 'Economist line' (or did the Economist take it from them?) on the recent R2P debates:
"Despite the efforts of General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto and a few government detractors, such as Cuba, Pakistan and Venezuela, to derail the debate, the exchange between governments is viewed by observers as an important step in building greater support for implementing RtoP. The opponents’ attempt to equate the Responsibility to Protect with the discredited concept of humanitarian intervention was soundly rejected, as was the idea that RtoP is an imperialist concept only supported by the West."
The ICR2P is in good company. The Euston Manifesto (a liberal imperialist organization whose "specific role is influencing British opinion on the War on Terror," and, according to historian Tony Smith, who have a "close affinity to the Project for a New American Century") enthusiastically linked to the Economist's R2P distortion, calling it "excellent."
Also, a newly emerging voice of R2P determinedness, the Huffington Post, proclaimed that despite Chomsky and Bricmont's (Ngugi was absent from this account) arguments, all told:
"Bashing the U.S. became passé. The dangers of skewed power-play were acknowledged but "the weaker states are screwed over" routine was laid to rest. R2P ceased to be a western norm. What emerged was the willingness and excitement to give this principle a fair chance."
I wonder if the Post's newfound interest in R2P has anything to do with their "excitement" over the Obama administration's recent advocacy of it?