In a memo of 2008, the Fund made an inheritance (The Heritage Foundation) on the doctrine of the "responsibility to protect", articulates one of the most unsafe qualities of the doctrine: "R2P would give way to perfectly Municipal U.S. sovereignty and the power to make decisions on major component of national security and external policy and would subject them to the whims of international community. " The fact that we litsezreem, now unfolding in Libya, can be a very good precedent for this doctrine: The United Nations "has borrowed" South American armed forces to enforce the idea of the "responsibility to protect" against Gaddafi. Then deep concern one more question: can the UN also "borrow" the South American and other Western military forces in the future in order to impose its will on the Member States, which, she feels, do not comply with the UN vague idea of the obligations of the country?
Before we examine the components of this potentially devilish scenario, you need to remember a little story. The doctrine of "responsibility to protect", which is deliberately vague and unclear formulated, is not new. The fact that Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland was justified by "humanitarian reasons." Hitler's propaganda machine has made the atmosphere of mass hysteria in Germany, incorrectly accusing Czechoslovakia in atrocities against ethnic Germans. Hitler negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the grounds that he was going to step in, just to save lives. Chamberlain, perhaps, did not buy the heresy of Hitler, but, nevertheless, took place in Munich.
During the next 50 years doctrine used sporadically, as a military intervention at least some kind of cool during the war risked cause a nuclear confrontation. Although, for example, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Moscow as a "humanitarian" action. There were several other cases.
As Russian Alliance was gone, in the 1990's had a lot of situations that stimulated debate in the UN on the possibility of using humanitarian interventions, in order to prevent the government from killing their own people. The special nature of such interventions gave a chance to people who want to enter, to codify the intervention of the UN in international law. Most of these same people also recognize the humanitarian intervention means the overall strengthening of the role of the UN and the weakening of the sovereignty of states.
The history of "Duties Protect"Confirms this. International Commission on Intervention and municipal sovereignty (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty — ICISS) was formed by the United Nations' Millennium Summit "in September 2000 with a mandate -" to promote the comprehensive discussion of relations between intervention and sovereignty, to the merits of the global political agreement on how to move from debate to action within the international system. "
In December 2001, the ICISS issued a report, dubbed the "responsibility to protect" which contains within itself the "presentation of special commissioners to intervene and municipal sovereignty and their advice for action." The document was aimed at the United Nations for discussion and approval.
At the UN, hot heated debate broke out on the very concept of R2P (now the official name of "humanitarian intervention"), the line of separation took place in the main between the industrial West and the poor South. Former colonies story of the R2P only legal reason to Western powers to invade them, while the West, including the United States, considered the R2P as a massive cannon to prevent another Rwanda.
Chairman of the ICISS was Gareth Evans, a former minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, whose thoughts in the report, and, namely, the sovereignty, set out carefully. Mr. Evans sought to turn the debate on sovereignty "on its head", describing it [sovereignty] is not the "right" of the country for anything, but, rather, as their "responsibility" to protect people from serious risks. "
What is this "responsibility" should be defined by the United Nations. Mr. Evans implies that of the world where sovereign states are not sovereign in the sense in which we understand the term. Indeed, Evans suggested that the other does not, as a completely new definition of sovereignty, as he calls it — "a new method specifically read on sovereignty." The starting point, he said, is that sovereignty "Must now be defined not as a" control "as a centennial tradition Westphal, but again and again, as 'responsibility'."
Do not "right." Not "control." In the latter case, Mr Evans is ready to allow countries to keep their borders, so far, although it could also be under threat R2P. You can imagine for yourself the UN, which deprives the United States the right to prevent the millions of illegal immigrants crossing our border: we have no "rights" prevent hungry, desperate people to encroach on the best life. Can our border policy violate the doctrine of R2P? Indeed, such an argument has already been given.
In 2004, the secretary-general Kofi Annan made a special committee to see the results of the ICISS and issue a report to the UN. Committee on Threats, dilemmas and Changes (Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change) swallowed the "new" definition of sovereignty and recommended the adoption of R2P as the current policy and the law. Their report, "A non-hazardous world: our shared responsibility" to recommend that it was the responsibility "of each country when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe, mass killings and violence, ethnic cleansing, forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and epidemics . "
In other words, the "responsibility" was reincarnated from the concept of the 1990s (which is the cause of world society or voluntary coalitions to intervene where necessary to protect the innocent), a number of rules, which themselves sovereign countries should meet the UN or the hammer to fall off blocked.
In direct violation of its own Charter, and the UN met to act as a judge of where sovereignty begins and where it ends, discarding point Chapters 51 minutes of the "inalienable right to self-defense." Office of the Special Adviser to the UN on the Prevention of Genocide makes clear grasp it. The idea of the sovereignty of individual countries upstaged the UN resolution: "Sovereignt
y is no longer only in protecting the country from outside interference, it is the responsibility of the country to be responsible for the welfare of its citizens."
Can R2P be applied to combat enemies of Israel to the Jewish state during its war of national survival against the Palestinians? It has already become a reality. Michael Rubin, been writing in «Commentary Contentions», reports that the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey Bulan Arns said last week: "We would like to see the UN adopted a similar resolution, and countries have taken measures regarding the incidents in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, and other areas. "
Can you explain this unusual decision of the Arab League to allow for R2P intervention in Libya? Remember that the Arab League, African Alliance and numerous other regional organizations in developing countries initially opposed the concept of R2P. Could the prospect of UN intervention in Gaza to encourage the Arab League to support the Libyan adventure?
Even if this is not the case, be sure that in the subsequent time when Israel will be obliged to defend themselves by entering troops in the Gaza Strip and capture terrorists who attack him, the League will shout, to seek international response to the "crimes". It will argue that Israel is not doing his "duty" to protect the Palestinians. Such an argument will assure many, especially those who are predisposed first intolerable Israel. United States then would be in the unenviable position because the will be required in the Security Council to veto such action, putting themselves under the charge of hypocrisy.
If we would have imposed a veto on such a resolution? Taking into account the impact of counselor of the State Security Council Samantha Power on Obama, it's very clear. Power — an energetic defender of R2P; her 2002 book «A Problem from Hell» Obama so impressed that he invited Power to your team in the Senate as a consultant on foreign policy. It is also short-lived time in [presidential] worked in the company of his "think tank" on the outside of politics.
She is also credited with the impact of the president to accept R2P as part of its foreign policy. But her presentation specifically about Israel should concern us most. She has a very long track list antipathy toward the Jewish state. In attracted extensive attention and meticulously dissecting the interview Institute international research Berkeley, Power said that "the great strength of protection" means "outside interference" where "will be needed," settle things between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Its somewhat chaotic and zamudrennoe statement on the conflict, nevertheless, clear vinyl Israel of violating human rights that guaranteed intervention (R2P) in the same way as it did the genocide in Rwanda.
Such action "would mean distancing internal recipients of great political and monetary support," and would involve redirecting billion that the U.S. spent on "service" of the Israeli armed forces, "investment" in the Palestinian government. Clearly, the Power — the man who readily applied to the doctrine of R2P to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But its anti-Israel stance yavna so that at least some man would shudder, only presenting himself for a moment, it looked like in reality.
Among the defenders of the doctrine of R2P includes numerous NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that promote it for ideological reasons, and also because of the UN grants and funding. International Coalition for the "responsibility to protect" voedinyzhdy connects many of these non-governmental organizations under one umbrella, where they can be more effective and to lobby their own interests at the UN and "shaking" international monetary tree. The list of participants — «Who's Who of internationalists», «Who's Who of worlders» and left «Utopians», including «Oxfam», «Citizens for Global Solutions», «International Crisis Group», «World Federalist Movement», «Human Rights Watch »and« Stanley Foundation ».
What do all these groups have, so this is a common desire to damage or significantly reduce the sovereignty of States. And yet — towering above them all their brain financier and mastermind — George Soros and his "Open Society Institute".
Strongly little hesitation in the fact that Soros has long understood the power that posed a vast international movement, and that would bring the fulfillment of his dream of a constructive change in the municipal boundaries of sovereignty, thus allowing Makar, establish modern economic and monetary system. He calls himself "a statesman who do not have citizenship," which is a beautiful description of the world in which he wants us to live.
In addition to being a major investor in the "Global Center for the" responsibility to protect "," Open Society Institute also provides significant support to other NGOs that are part of the coalition R2P, including the «International Crisis Group» (ICG) and «Human Rights Watch . "
For you do not have to connect a lot of dots to find the impact of the Soros on the Obama administration. Samantha Power has worked in the executive committee of ICG («International Crisis Group») together with Soros, before she went to the United Nations in 2009. And several members of Obama's foreign policy team have worked previously in the "Center for American Progress» (Center for American Progress) — think tank funded by Soros.
The future of R2P has come now. The situation in the small African country of Côte d'Ivoire growing uncontrollably towards civilian war with enormous potential for atrocities and mass casualties in the middle of a civilian population. Several states, including African Alliance and non-governmental organizations involved in the "movement» R2P, has called for a military intervention, and the UN expressed its "concern" regarding the deteriorating situation.
Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad is killing demonstrators in the streets of Syria, and the world does nothing. It is clear that R2P needs a clear setting. ICISS and UN Theme Group on R2P are promoting the concept of "thresholds" that will have to be crossed before any actions will be considered, but the UN is at the moment to take some clear rules on intervention.
While it will not be made, the Council will wander in darkness, stumbling and hesitation in their actions. But the real danger will be if they ever will gather all act together and begin to seriously interfere in all the world's hottest point. This broad mandate of R2P, which contains the [protection] "hunger and disease" as an obligation of the Member States, it expands the list of countries in which the intervention can be carried out. And for devotees of R2P is not a fluke.