Staff Writer
Countries which voted against the draft resolution on the Right 2 Protect (R2P) at the United Nations have explained the decision, saying its formulation was not thorough and many critical elements remain undefined.
The Right 2 Protect is an agreement entered in 2005, which was formulated in principle to give countries obligation to protect their citizens against genocide and gives the United Nations system right to bypass sovereignty if a country appears to be unable to protect its citizens.
However, the doctrine has been abused, as in Libya in 2011, where the evoking of the R2P instrument left the country in a worse state than it was at the point of intervention.
In a vote at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the United States, on Tuesday, countries which include Zimbabwe, China, Russia, Thailand spoke in clear terms against the further amendments on the application of the doctrine, which are likely to make it stronger despite its shortcomings.
The draft resolution, which has been rejected by countries that do not worship Western ideas, seeks for the inclusion of R2P doctrine on the annual agenda of the General Assembly and also requests the UN Secretary-General to report annually to the General Assembly on the subject.
Critics say the resolution wants to activate the instrument of invasion.
Western media has been demonizing everyone who voted NO, without attaching any nuance to the debate, a deliberate bid to try and conflate the flawed suggestion with the general idea of human rights.
In a letter written by China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, to countries explaining the flaws of the proposition, there was a noted departure from the original agreement of 2005.
“States have not been able to agree on a uniform definition and scope of the notion, or modalities of its implementation. Nevertheless, its hasty implementation was advocated and fraught with devastating consequences.
An informal interactive dialogue was initiated to remedy the situation. But a number of states decided to end the informal open dialogue and force a vote to pursue formal discussion within the General Assembly Agenda. The proponents of the decision promised that the inclusion of the item on the agenda concerns a debate in the seventy second session only,” read part of the letter.
Some countries have begun suggesting that due to the nature of the debates likely to emanate, the adoption of the doctrine and its application in the full agenda is more appropriate, thus smuggling the conversation to the UN General Assembly annual agenda, making it join permanent debates.
Questions were also asked on the perceived good effects of R2P when the only it was applied on, is yet to see stability a decade after the intervention.
“The responsibility to protect was conceived as an instrument capable of making a contribution to strengthening international peace and security. The idea carried a powerful, positive humanitarian potential, but its implementation is associated now with illegal interference, including by force, into internal affairs States and their ensuing destruction,” read the letter.
The letter further suggested; “The proposed resolutions only contributes to deepening the divisions. The formalization and perpetualization of the Consultations in the General Assembly and the Secretary General`s reports are not conducive in deep, meaningful and honest discussion that may address all the drawbacks of the notion and its implementation, thus driving the international community further away from the 2003 consensus.”
In Zimbabwe, the opposition and embassies, which represent Western interests have been attempting to rile people on the matter without sharing much detail on what the resolution actually entails.
It has been described as a document which unleashes the dogs of war.
Although it abstained from the vote, Namibia voiced its criticism of the suggestion.
The country`s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah said;
“However, discrepancies in the interpretation of the doctrine continue to hamper discussions on the matter, specifically within the context of the third pillar, and as such its interpretation remains a serious concern, and poses risks for abuse.”
Recent Comments