Thread: R2P

preamble :

The Responsibility to Protect

In its efforts to help prevent conflict worldwide, the International Crisis Group has consistently drawn upon the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the principle that sovereign states, and the international community as a whole, have a responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes.

Crisis Group President Gareth Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that first developed the R2P concept in 2001.

crisisgroup.org


....................................


Health imperative 'justifies interventionism'
03 October 2008




Western countries should be prepared to intervene without permission when countries like Burma or Zimbabwe threaten the survival of whole populations, two global health experts have said.

Professor Lawrence Gostin and others from Georgetown University in the US call on political leaders to place the survival of large populations over "the sovereignty claims of despotic leaders".

They argue restrictions on humanitarian assistance, as seen in the wake of Cyclone Nargis in Burma, can have a devastating impact on public health in affected countries.

"Forced intervention is a complex policy question, but blanket rejection may condemn innocent civilians and prevent deterrence of crimes against humanity," they write in this week's Lancet journal.

"Where leaders engage in intentional acts of cruelty toward their populations, wealthy nations should be prepared to intervene beyond their borders to safeguard health and human rights."

The writers suggest leaders who fail to refuse aid to those in need, as in Burma, or actively create a humanitarian emergency, as in Zimbabwe, are committing a "crime against humanity".

In these circumstances the appropriate response is intervention, they argue, without host-country consent.

The report says the UN security council is often "paralysed" by vetoes from its five permanent members, making examination necessary of the legality of unilateral or coalition interventions.

This creates the need for a careful approach, they say.

"Nations should be justifiably cautious about using or threatening intervention to stop crimes against humanity," the writers add.

"Policy makers must carefully consider risks to relief workers, civilians, and troops, as well as the danger of complicating future health-promotion activities."

viewlondon.co.uk

The writers suggest leaders who fail to refuse aid to those in need, as in Burma, or actively create a humanitarian emergency, as in Zimbabwe, are committing a "crime against humanity".

agree with this and the concept of R2P , what say you ?

.

The problem is most invasions are justified to a gullible population in 'R2P' rhetoric.

It is hard to argue with the logic, but the logic is then abused by cynical, mendacious politicians.

Originally Posted by sabang

mendacious

Show off. Had to look that one up. I'm off to the what did you learn today thread.

The problem as I see it, is that whenever a country does something that makes others look bad, there's no shortage of whiners lined up to denounce the action.

They'll nitpick and split hairs and refuse to look at the big picture and continue to dwell on the setbacks. They'll claim that doing nothing and sitting back watching is far more responsible a tact.

What happened in Burma is a result. Everybody's reluctant to help.

Misery indeed loves company.

Originally Posted by Texpat

The problem as I see it, is that whenever a country does something that makes others look bad, there's no shortage of whiners lined up to denounce the action.

Such as what... for example?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Texpat

The problem as I see it, is that whenever a country does something that makes others look bad, there's no shortage of whiners lined up to denounce the action.

Such as what... for example?

Ah, to be naive about everything eh ant?

Originally Posted by Mid

preamble :

The Responsibility to Protect

In its efforts to help prevent conflict worldwide, the International Crisis Group has consistently drawn upon the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the principle that sovereign states, and the international community as a whole, have a responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes.

Crisis Group President Gareth Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that first developed the R2P concept in 2001.

crisisgroup.org


....................................


Health imperative 'justifies interventionism'
03 October 2008




Western countries should be prepared to intervene without permission when countries like Burma or Zimbabwe threaten the survival of whole populations, two global health experts have said.

Professor Lawrence Gostin and others from Georgetown University in the US call on political leaders to place the survival of large populations over "the sovereignty claims of despotic leaders".

They argue restrictions on humanitarian assistance, as seen in the wake of Cyclone Nargis in Burma, can have a devastating impact on public health in affected countries.

"Forced intervention is a complex policy question, but blanket rejection may condemn innocent civilians and prevent deterrence of crimes against humanity," they write in this week's Lancet journal.

"Where leaders engage in intentional acts of cruelty toward their populations, wealthy nations should be prepared to intervene beyond their borders to safeguard health and human rights."

The writers suggest leaders who fail to refuse aid to those in need, as in Burma, or actively create a humanitarian emergency, as in Zimbabwe, are committing a "crime against humanity".

In these circumstances the appropriate response is intervention, they argue, without host-country consent.

The report says the UN security council is often "paralysed" by vetoes from its five permanent members, making examination necessary of the legality of unilateral or coalition interventions.

This creates the need for a careful approach, they say.

"Nations should be justifiably cautious about using or threatening intervention to stop crimes against humanity," the writers add.

"Policy makers must carefully consider risks to relief workers, civilians, and troops, as well as the danger of complicating future health-promotion activities."

viewlondon.co.uk

The writers suggest leaders who fail to refuse aid to those in need, as in Burma, or actively create a humanitarian emergency, as in Zimbabwe, are committing a "crime against humanity".

agree with this and the concept of R2P , what say you ?

.

it is dream thinking lots of politicians former state leaders famous people ect ect they make a fancy conferance come whith a pressrelease when it is over and after that nothing happens the people in need are still waiting for santa

Call for inquiry into crimes against humanity in Burma

Over 60 British MPs are calling for a United Nations (UN) commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity in Burma, just two weeks before Nobel Laureate and democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is due for release from house arrest.

Former Foreign Office Ministers, Ian McCartney, MP and Keith Vaz, MP joined over 50 other MPs in signing an Early Day Motion (EDM) tabled by John Bercow MP, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Democracy in Burma, to express their profound concern at the deteriorating human rights situation in Burma.

EDM 1336 urges the UN to invoke the principle of Responsibility to Protect in relation to a campaign of ethnic cleansing Burma’s military regime is carrying out against its ethnic nationalities.

John Bercow MP said: “I have visited the ethnic peoples on both the Thailand-Burma border and the India-Burma border with CSW (Christian Solidarity Worldwide), and have been shocked by the horrific stories I have heard from victims of this barbaric regime.

“I have sat face to face with victims of unspeakable torture, including women and children who have seen their loved ones murdered. They have looked me in the eye and pleaded for the world to hear their cry. It is time their cries were answered and the junta's crimes investigated. The people of Burma urgently need the freedom and justice they have been denied for so long."

Alexa Papadouris, CSW’s Advocacy Director said: “CSW strongly urges the British Government and other Governments to take this call seriously and to initiate a commission of inquiry into the junta's crimes against humanity. We will not stop campaigning and we will not stop speaking out until the suffering in Burma is over and all Burma’s people are free.”

inspiremagazine.org.uk

Jurists say Myanmar atrocities justify U.N. inquiry
Thursday, May 21 05:06 am

The U.N. Security Council should open an inquiry into 15 years of abuses in Myanmar, like those conducted for atrocities in Darfur, Rwanda and Yugoslavia, Harvard Law School said in a report on Wednesday.

Systematic human rights abuses in Myanmar, also known as Burma, "strongly suggest Burma's military regime may be committing crimes against humanity and war crimes prosecutable under international law," said the report.

The report by five prominent international jurists came as Myanmar's junta faced widespread condemnation for putting opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi on trial for breaking the terms of her house arrest after an American intruder was arrested for spending two days at her lakeside home in Yangon.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday called the trial of Suu Kyi "outrageous" and called for the release of the Nobel laureate, who has spent more than 13 of the past 19 years in detention.

The jurists wrote that "forced displacement of over 3,000 villages in eastern Burma, and widespread and systematic sexual violence, torture, and summary execution of innocent civilians" justify the establishment of a U.N. commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes.

"In the cases of Yugoslavia and Darfur, once aware of the severity of the problem, the U.N. Security Council established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the gravity of the violations further," said the report.

"With Burma, there has been no such action from the U.N. Security Council despite being similarly aware of the widespread and systematic nature of the violations."

China and Russia have resisted efforts by the United States and its allies on the U.N. Security Council to push for tougher action on Myanmar's rights situation.

The report by the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School was written by Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa, Judge Patricia Wald of the United States, Judge Pedro Nikken of Venezuela, Judge Ganzorig Gombosuren of Mongolia and Sir Geoffrey Nice of Britain.
(Reporting by Paul Eckert)

uk.news.yahoo.com

Originally Posted by sabang

The problem is most invasions are justified to a gullible population in 'R2P' rhetoric.

It is hard to argue with the logic, but the logic is then abused by cynical, mendacious politicians.

Originally Posted by Texpat

The problem as I see it, is that whenever a country does something that makes others look bad, there's no shortage of whiners lined up to denounce the action.

They'll nitpick and split hairs and refuse to look at the big picture and continue to dwell on the setbacks. They'll claim that doing nothing and sitting back watching is far more responsible a tact.

What happened in Burma is a result. Everybody's reluctant to help.

Misery indeed loves company.

I think that both Sabang and Tex makes valid points here, there is a very real danger of political abuse, but it is also true that whatever you do there will always be someone to scream bloody murder, the real problem is however that we sometimes must act and act quickly if there is to be any point in acting at all.

We have seen a number of genocides, and famines brought on by war, in the last decades, where political discussions have delayed necessary action to the point of catastrophe.

We have also seen intervention where the reasoning proved to be a manipulated truth.

I think that Zimbabwe's dictator should have been brought down many years ago by force if necessary, and I think that humanitarian help should have been flown in to Burma whether the Burmese Generals allowed it or not.

Unfortunately it is power plays and political needs that rule our compassion, everybody most often knows when something is seriously wrong and unjust, the problem is that the same thing seems to be more wrong if there is oil or other strategic interests at play, than if it is in some shit hole like Zimbabwe nobody cares one iota about.

The only way to change that is to get the democratic elected World leaders to understand that we all are in the same boat, and that we the people demand that they act not only from narrow self interests but in the interest of all mankind.