Syria’s Latest Casualty: R2P?
show comments
  • Pete

    ” …. the “responsibility to protect”, the idea that the international community ought to intervene in cases where a state is either cruelly massacring its own people or is incapable of stopping genocidal violence among its various ethnic groups”

    Unfortunately in the real world, R2P boils down to America doing the protecting — paying in blood and money — while the rest of the world either 1) watches, 2) carps from the side line or 3) provides token support that is typically more trouble than it is worth.

    As such, R2P should be buried.

    • Corlyss

      Amen. The idea always did fly in the face of international law; there never was any realism embedded in it. Nations have to look out for their interests, which in the West’s case DO NOT include flaunting the West’s once superior morality over the rest of the world. Other nations and cultures often live in several completely different and alien moral universes. It’s not that I think Western morality is not superior any more; it’s that the West has lost faith in its own moral superiority. With massive secularization and coarse cultural relativism undermining the religious principles, which always was THE only source of that morality, the West seems perfectly content to eradicate one of the elements that made it truly superior and which created the climate that so many strive to flee to. We can’t make the rest of the world think like us if they have not had our experiences. It’s that simple. We can’t give them the results of experiences that make us great; they have to actually have the experiences and earn from them the way we did. (That’s a lesson for the socialists’ dreams of equality thru redistribution as well.)

  • wigwag

    It’s not R2P, that’s the anachronism, its respect for the saliency of international law that is anachronistic. Anyone who wants to learn how ridiculous the whole concept of international law is, should read “The Perils of Global Legalism” by Eric A. Posner,

  • Andrew Allison

    IMO this post confuses the R2P issue by failing to recognize that a nation state has a R2P is citizens, but that the protection of the citizens of another state is an international obligation. I agree with the argument that a requiring a resolution from the irresolute body misnamed “United” Nations (which is united only in it’s anti-Americanism) is ridiculous. But unilateral action on the part of one or two states cannot be justified. If NATO or some other multi-national alliance wants to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Assad, fine but it is not the responsibility of the US to be the protector of the entire world.

  • Michael Brazier

    “Responsibility to protect” is the very thing the Peace of Westphalia cast out of international law as an incitement to perpetual war and decimation of nations. Bringing it back into international law risks bringing back wars of the kind the Peace of Westphalia ended. I question whether the people talking up R2P understand the dangers implied by their principle – if the vision of another Thirty Years’ War fought with 21st century weapons doesn’t terrify you, you must be unconscious or crazy.

  • Notjack

    R2P seems to only apply to US armed forces.

    Why is that? Seriously. The only people on the planet who are expected to die to protect others are Americans. And then we are called war mongers and racists.

    Until you, your sons and daughters are willing to grab a weapon and put your life at risk Mr. Meade, I suggest you shut up.

    The irony is that currently our R2P is to protect Muslims, who moderate or not, are happy to either kill us, or celebrate when extremist Muslims kill us.

  • lukelea

    “responsibility to protect”, the idea that the international community ought to intervene . . .

    Why not make the international community a fact rather than a figure of speech. The United Nations hasn’t worked out. Start over. Rule #1: democracies only.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.