There’s not enough R2P talk inside Myanmar, and that’s a negative. Globally, though, debate does take place, and that has to be viewed as a positive. Granted, the range of people involved is very limited, rarely stretching beyond a small humanitarian elite. Still, at least R2P is examined and thereby remains a dynamic, rather than static, feature of contemporary international society. At the heart of much analysis stands a series of annual reports compiled by the UN Secretary-General for consideration by the General Assembly and the Security Council. The sixth document, released last month, is called “Fulfilling our collective responsibility: international assistance and the responsibility to protect”.

This report is of relevance to Myanmar, because it focuses on Pillar II action – and Myanmar is best seen as a Pillar II state. The GCR2P definition holds that here the international community has the responsibility to “encourage and assist” individual states in meeting their core R2P obligations of protecting populations from the four mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing). The Secretary-General’s report asks a simple question: How to do that? Five “common principles” are articulated to guide real-world action: 1 Ensure national ownership; 2 Build mutual commitment; 3 Do no harm; 4 Prioritize prevention; 5 Retain flexibility. These principles make a lot of sense.

Also helpful when contemplating the Myanmar case is the report’s examination of the wide range of public and private actors potentially involved in R2P at national, regional and international levels. Additionally, there is food for thought in a fairly detailed attempt to break down the forms of possible assistance under the headings of encouragement, capacity building and protection. Under encouragement, for instance, the first recommendation is this: “Awareness-raising and disseminating information on human rights and humanitarian standards and norms, including the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and core international human rights instruments, can strengthen structural atrocity prevention at the national level.” That strikes me as spot on.

There is, then, much to endorse in the Secretary-General’s latest report. At the same time, it’s a little abstract and, if I can put it this way, bloodless. Several countries are mentioned, and typically given a single sentence – Côte d’Ivoire, Bolivia, Columbia, Kenya, Guyana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Towards the end, several lists of countries are unfurled. But none of this conveys much sense of what might actually work in a Pillar II state like Myanmar. It would be good, then, if the Secretary-General could commission detailed case studies of instances where concerted national, regional and international action succeeded in scaling back Pillar II concerns in an R2P watch-list state. Then there would be something concrete to chew on.