Protecting Civilians Responsibly
A recent policy discussion in Beijing reveals that China and the other BRICS countries do not reject the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, including humanitarian intervention to stop mass-atrocity crimes. But they do have serious reservations, which must be taken seriously if the effectiveness of "R2P" is to be sustained.
BEIJING – Would China ever be willing to host an international policy discussion about the conditions that would legitimize invading another country to stop genocide or other mass-atrocity crimes from being committed within its borders? Given China’s long history of antagonism to “interference in internal affairs” in general, and to “humanitarian intervention” in particular, and in view of its contribution to the UN Security Council’s long paralysis over much less coercive measures in Syria, you would be in good company if you answered, “No.” But you would be wrong.
I have just been at a two-day meeting in Beijing that wrestled with just this topic. The meeting, hosted by the foreign ministry’s think tank, the China Institute of International Studies, brought together specialist scholars and practitioners from China and the other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa). And this month, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy will host a conference in Moscow, with local and international experts discussing the same subject.
Both meetings are, to my knowledge, the first of their kind. The fact that they are happening at all – and, if my Beijing experience is any guide, in a constructive, problem-solving spirit – is an encouraging development.
We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.
To continue reading, subscribe now.
Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.
Already have an account or want to create one? Log in