Andrew Garwood-Gowers
BRICS and R2P prior to Libya BRICS and Libya BRICS and Syria BRICS and R2P in the future? Central argument: no cohesive BRICS’ position on R2P since Syria – rather, RC on one side and IBSA on the other
Russia and China – R2P sceptics/rejectionists? India – ambivalent; concerns over 3 rd pillar Brazil - R2P not a new norm; emphasised 1 st and 2 nd pillars; warned of risks with 3 rd pillar South Africa – general support but preference for non-coercive measures eg. negotiation
SC Res 1970 (26/2/2011)SC Res 1973 (17/3/2011) RussiaYesAbstain ChinaYesAbstain IndiaYesAbstain BrazilYesAbstain South AfricaYes
1 st vetoed draft SC res 4/10/ nd vetoed draft SC res 4/2/2012 GA res 66/253 A 16/2/ rd vetoed draft SC res 19/7/2012 GA res 66/253 B 3/8/2012 RussiaNo ChinaNo IndiaAbstainYes Abstain BrazilAbstainN/AYesN/AYes South AfricaAbstainYes AbstainYes
BRICS unable to maintain a single, unified position on Syria Split into 2 sub-groups: 1. Russia, China (RC) – strong opposition to any coercive measures against Syria 2. India, Brazil, Sth Africa (IBSA) – more flexible stances, though still cautious about R2P’s 3 rd pillar
RC –likely to continue strong opposition to implementation of 3 rd pillar IBSA – more flexible, unpredictable stances; remain suspicious about regime change Brazil’s ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ (RwP) as a way forward? - criticism of RwP has dampened Brazil’s enthusiasm to act as a norm entrepreneur