Seventy-eight, Part 1

Continuing on talking about classes, I figured I’d come back to Humanity in Globalization, coded POLI0078. This class has been by far the most applicable to what I studies overall, and continues to surprise me (and did surprise me, see part 2!) every day.

In response to genocide (specifically talking about Rwanda), we began talking about the Responsibility to Protect, lovingly abbreviated as R2P. This article itself came as, in part, a result of the Rwandan Genocide. Apparently, it seemed, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted back in the day (itself a response in part to the holocaust), forming an integral part of the United Nations, was no longer effective, so another piece of whatever you’d call it was drafted same in scale, larger in implications, would remedy the situation.

It reminds me of a problem that we have back in Los Angeles. It isn’t dealing so much with human rights as with convenience, but the same logic can easily be applied for both. In Los Angeles, we lack serious public transportation. Yeah, there are tons of bus routes that I’ve yet to hear any one I know of take, regarding what I’m talking about, buses crowd the roads too. It’s pretty apparent that we love our cars in (Southern) California. We have our sprawling freeways that traverse the landscape that frequently get clogged to the point of stopped traffic. For years and years, the solution has always been to expand the freeways, costing billions of dollars in the end, more often than not requiring the acquisition of additional right-of-way to accommodate the additional 12-foot-wide lanes.

In Thousand Oaks, California, my hometown, the secondary freeway was expanded from two lanes to three just a year or two ago and just a few months later began experiencing massive congestion again. Yeah, cars moving off surface streets onto freeways create a lot of the additional traffic, but the fact of the matter is that cars are big and roads are bigger, and creating more efficient infrastructure by expanding roads rather than building light rail/a subway system proves both illogical and inefficient.

For a city of Los Angeles’s size, it’s amazing that there are only a handful of light rail/subway lines. There is one dedicated bus route running at street-level that encountered more than its share of accidents in its first year of opening as well. The one (or two as they’re labeled) subway lines barely go anywhere, though I think that in the last I’ve read they’re in the process of being extended.

The Responsibility to Protect is, in essence, an expansion of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and while it purports increased accountability for states failing to intervene in critical situations, the fact of the matter is that in the current state-system set-up, it really can’t.

Take what France and Belgium did during the Rwandan Genocide. As people were being slaughtered in the country, they sent a surprise mission to rescue all the French and Belgian nationals, despite the fact that the Tutsis were in more dangerous than either.

Take what Bill Clinton, president of the United States of America did during the Rwandan Genocide. After all the Americans were successfully evacuated, he managed to say that there are no more American interests in Rwanda, so it would not be necessary to continue any further in the Rwanda conflict.

So what makes this piece of pseudo-legislation any different from the former? As I posted on the Humanity in Globalization class blog in early October, I said:

“What stands out to me the most in reading about R2P and watching Lloyd Axworthy go about this ‘responsibility’ is the thought that changing the words regarding such acts does nothing but change the words regarding such acts. Codifying rather than broadening the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, it seems, in my opinion, to serve as a feel-good measure ultimately lacking teeth.

“I would have to agree with Hannah[, friend and fellow blogger,] in saying that R2P seems rather difficult to fully implement. Ultimately the differences between a ‘right to intervene’ and a ‘responsibility to protect’ dissipate as leaders contemplate spending resources on something that has little national benefit.

“In the documentary ‘Ghosts of Rwanda’ that we watched in class, change of wording would likely do little to push states into protecting another state’s nationals. The original wording of the term ‘genocide’ was a majorly insignificant issue that turned politicians into lawyers as while people were being murdered, the official line of United States leadership was that what was happening were “acts of genocide” but not genocide itself, hence no right to intervene.

“To say that countries now have the ‘responsibility to protect’ would then have bureaucrats defining ‘responsibility,’ no matter how well or narrowly defined the term is in the appropriate documents.

“Not to sound overly pessimistic, but it appears that in the international community it is easier to do nothing and then apologize afterwards. And it makes sense (devoid of morality). If country A intervenes in country B’s business, it would be difficult to justify, not to mention resources would be diverted to something that may not have any benefit for country A. Alternatively, country A, not having any interests in the affairs of country B would not intervene, choosing instead to abstain from the conflict and apologize for not having done something after the fact. Apologies cost no money.

“And as a last point, to say that there would be some sort of framework so that developed countries intervene when appropriate, such as fines, would be to say that an organization such as the United Nations is entirely effective. Ultimately states are their own sovereigns and do what they please in our accepted international law framework.

“So in my logic, where would the solution be?

“Well, there is no easy solution of course. In order for us as a people and as a world to be entirely effective at preventing such events from occurring, we must see ourselves as a collective whole in the cosmopolitan sense, and by extension, the government.

“And unfortunately, there is no legislation for this. (Though R2P seems to promote cosmopolitanism.) We can try our best, but ultimately only time and our future history will tell.”

Copyright © 2009 James Philip Jee
This work may not be reproduced by any means without express permission of the author.