By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 12 -- During the debate on the Responsibility to Protect in the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Brazil's Permanent Representative Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti cautioned against R2P being used for “regime change.”
Moments later, US representative Rick Barton said that the “decisive action in Libya” shows that the UN has learned its lesson.
If the lesson was Rwanda and the UN's inaction, largely at the instigation of the US after the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia, then the passage by the Security Council of Resolution 1973 to authorize air strikes to save Benghazi can be seen as learning the lesson of inaction.
But when months later the resolution is cited in support of air dropping weapons into another part of Libya, and of bombs viewed as intended to simply kill Gaddafi, some think the concept of Responsibility to Protect has gone too far, or been abused.
This is an issue that should have been addressed head on by UN R2P expert Ed Luck and his Prevention of Genocide colleague Francis Deng.
The evening before the debate, Inner City Press asked Luck if he thought the session would involve some R2P bashing, as occurred at a previous session organized by then President of the GA Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, or in last December's budget negotiations.
No, no, Luck said, backing away. “I think it will be productive.”
Whether it was or not remains to be seen. By late Tuesday afternoon, PGA Joseph Deiss announced there were still 18 speakers, so each would be limited to three minutes. He tried to cut Kenya off as its representative spoke out against collective punishment and selectivity.
Georgia spoke out against one country -- Russia -- using R2P to invade, without Security Council approval. That was the argument cited when George W. Bush went into Iraq, but it seems to have been forgotten. France, which criticized the action in Iraq, is now air dropping weapons into Libya in the name of R2P, or at least protection of civilians. Where will this debate be had? Watch this site.
Footnote: in reporting out this story, a number of Western diplomats told Inner City Press they found Brazil's statement consistent with what they called its "obstruction" of a draft resolution on Syria. But it's worth noting that Brazil was out in front of the EU members when the US demanded a carve out for itself from the referral of Libya and Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court...