R2P

When you hear this sound a-coming
And you hear the drummers drumming
I want you to join together with the band
--The Who

An acronym floating around w.r.t. the Syrian situation is 'R2P.' R2P stands for 'responsibility to protect.' A product of United Nations discussions, R2P posits that countries have a responsibility to protect its citizens against large-scale lethal movements such as war crimes and genocide, and that other countries have a responsibility to help a nation deliver such protection.

In the case of Syria whose citizens have been subject to sizable gas attacks by violent factions inside the country, this is construed by some to mean that the US and other countries are obligated to intervene in Syria's internal conflict by employing military force.

Several problems with R2P doctrine are readily apparent. First and foremost, it intrudes on the sovereignty of nations. Country borders are drawn because of differences. Human tendencies toward sovereign living space reflect natural conditions of self-interest, cooperative exchange, and social diversity. What appears to be unjust violence by outsiders may be viewed as just revolution by inhabitants of the country.

Sovereignty of outside countries is also challenged by R2P. Some countries, such as the United States, have internal processes for legalizing war that supersede collective wishes of other nations. Moreover, it is easy to envision external pressure being applied by the 'international community' to join interventionary action against a nation deemed to need military aid. Conceivably, this leads to the paradoxical situation where country A acts with aggression on country B because B refuses to join in on aggressive actions to 'protect' people in country C.

Determining the type and extent of internal violence that triggers response is another problem with R2P. Is shooting people OK but gasing not? How many people need to be killed before R2P provisions kick in? Do people need to be killed or does there need to merely be a threat of killing before intervention occurs? How big does that threat need to be? How do outsiders looking in even obtain reliable answers to such questions to begin with absent the use of some degree of force?

Finally, R2P situations are likely to be rife with opportunism. Because economizing is a fundamental feature of human action, countries are likely to employ R2P to further their own interests at the expense of others. This might involve using R2P as an excuse to gain favorable access to raw materials (e.g., oil), as a means to install regimes deemed to be friendlier to domestic pursuits, as a way to express certain religious beliefs, or some other motive.

Because government is legalized force, its role must be limited to helping people defend themselves against aggression. It is straightforward to view R2P doctrine as another mechanism for expanding government aggression rather as a tool for limiting government to its legitimate role as a facilitator of self-defense.