R2P

One of the least used weapons in the tool shed of regime change is UN's R2P clause. AKA "Responsibility To Protect" -- R2P essentially means that if unelected and some nigh unhinged regimes wish to retain and claim incredible control powers over their own people while enjoying the thong of 'sovereignity' then they have got to protect their people from genocide, and mass atrocities.

Responsibility to Protect captures a simple and powerful idea. The primary responsibility for protecting its own people from mass atrocity crimes lies with the state itself. State sovereignty implies responsibility, not a license to kill.

When a nation state is unwilling or unable to halt or avert such crimes, the wider international community then has a collective responsibility to take whatever action is necessary.

NYT has an interesting bit that shows how a murderous creeps in chief enabling enablers are tempted to take the R2P regime change casus belli off the shelf.

Many countries fear R2P will invite Great Satan or any of the league of Hot! Democrazies to sweetly meddle in internal affairs, and so General Assembly President D'Escoto and former Indian Permanent Representative Sen have rallied a coalition in opposition to the concept.

NYT gets it bass ackwards though and claims that 43

"disliked the doctrine on the ground that it might tie American hands in foreign policy decisions."

Au contraire' mon frer'!

In fact, 43 endorsed R2P in 2005 and worked throughout the admin to do the R2P dance. Secretary Dr Rice, for example, cited R2P in calling on the Security Council to act in Darfur, and has many times cited her disappointment that Great Satan and her allies were not more successful in ensuring effective R2P action.

Great Satan worked with other Security Council members to reaffirm R2P in U.N. Security Council resolution 1674.

Whatever the outcome of the General Assembly debate, the Great Satan. should continue to work to defend and strengthen the international community's ability to take action under R2P. Columbia Law School professor Matthew Waxman is currently finishing a report for the Council on Foreign Relations, due out this fall, with a number of important recommendations on how Great Satan can move ahead on R2P.

One idea about the current stymie attemptus:

Great Satan make clear that it will not support any country for U.N. Security Council permanent membership without a demonstrated commitment to R2P.

This means countries that have worked to shield Burma and Zimbabwe and Iran from international scrutiny need not apply. (Congress should also make clear that this is a requirement of Great Satan official ratification of any Security Council expansion proposal.)

R2P action is challenging enough under the current membership. If 44 is serious about supporting R2P (and re reading Dr Susan Rice -- current UN girl's readables -- serious is the best word for her stuff), Great Satan needs a Security Council with members fully committed to effective action.