The high priests of R2P clustered in global advocacy groups have a marked tendency to interpret its policy implications in the grandest possible manner. I’ve written before about GCR2P, but it’s worth looking again at the “necessary action” it specifies for Myanmar. The list given in the latest issue of R2P Monitor, dated May 15, 2014, is this: citizenship for the Rohingya; accountability for rights abusers; safe return of IDPs to their communities; unhindered humanitarian access; a comprehensive plan for inclusive reconciliation; constitutional reform to address the needs of ethnic minorities; creation of an independent judiciary. As a set of work tasks, it’s nothing if not formidable.

But does the notion of R2P endorsed at the 2005 World Summit require such an expansive interpretation? This is the core doctrine (from paragraph 138 of the outcome document): “Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” Nothing is said though about how states should go about doing that, which opens the door to a wide range of policy scenarios. Consistent with the core doctrine, thick and thin versions of R2P can be developed.

The version specified by GCR2P for Myanmar is clearly at the thick end of the spectrum. Moreover, there are sound reasons for taking a position there. Essentially, this list would deliver sustainable R2P, rather than merely stopgap measures that risk a return to mass atrocity crimes. In an ideal world, the full set of policies would therefore be quickly implemented, and for the foreseeable future populations throughout Myanmar would be protected from extreme forms of human rights abuse.

In the non-ideal world in which we live, however, the Myanmar government is either unable or unwilling to undertake anything more than a small fraction of GCR2P’s work tasks, and bimonthly insistence that it address everything will only become more and more grating. For GCR2P, stationed near the top of the R2P hierarchy, there is perhaps no alternative but to keep issuing the list regardless. For everybody else, though, there is no need to remain tied to such a very full understanding.

Rather, a thinner version can be developed to take account of contemporary political reality in Myanmar. At a minimum, R2P requires that all people be protected from the four mass atrocity crimes. To deliver on that, which tasks from the GCR2P list are essential? I would prioritize unhindered humanitarian access, make this the focus of all immediate lobbying efforts, and leave for a later day other “necessary action”. By putting to one side, for now, contentious issues such as Rohingya citizenship, it might be possible actually to become an effective force for change inside the country.

R2P focuses on safeguarding individuals from the very worst that can befall them in life. Thick versions must seek to engineer sustainable reform. But there is also a place for thin versions designed to ward off looming catastrophe and edge communities in the direction of lasting change further down the line.