CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

RESPONSIBILITY WHILE PROTECTING ȃ AN ALTERNATIVE TO R2P… In fact, the course of the events indicates that Brazil has not learnt how to handle such a situation either. Optimistic and enthusiastic about the new initiative at the beginning, it seems to have reconsidered its position, once objections were raised against it, becoming much more cautious and unsure about what it wants to achieve. Instead of explaining the added value of RwP and working on a more detailed content of the concept, Brazil has adopted a defensive, if not defeatist stance, with all its recent statements being limited to generalities. This brings in the second question as to why Brazil engaged in this exercise in the first place. While no simple explanation is available, it seems that two factors have played a major role in this context. One factor has to do with Brazil and its status of a rising power. It might be that Brazil simply wanted to test what new options are available and how far it can go. Moreover, R2P/RwP seemed to be a useful framework covering many of the long- term priorities that Brazil, as well as other rising countries of the BRICS/G5/IBSA promote including the strengthening of the collective security system, the reform of the UN Security Council, the enhancement of peaceful solution of disputes, etc. Opening the debate over such questions and engaging in this debate with a more pro-active stance is certainly legitimate and it is thus to be regretted that Brazil, as it seems, has given up the test case with RwP so easily. The second factor related to R2P itself. Afraid that this concept could meet the same fate as its predecessor, humanitarian intervention, i.e. being discredited due to its failed implementation, Brazil in 2011 tried to do something similar as, in fact, the ICISS did in 2001. It sought to partly rephrase the debate, using words which should have appealed both to the Global North (sovereignty as responsibility) and to the Global South (limits on the use of force). Unlike the ICISS, it did not seek to go beyond the original concept – that of R2P in its case and that of humanitarian intervention in case of the ICISS. Again, it can be regretted that this “rescue operation” has not truly worked and that RwP has been reserved a mistrustful reception by most states. Although partly blameable upon Brazil itself, its foreign policy doing little to make RwP comprehensible to others and to attract international support, this failure can at the same time be seen as a sign indicating the unwillingness of the international community to think – about itself and about the concept it promotes – outside the box.

35