Do you believe that the Responsibility to Protect is a good idea?

[joshcryer]

Poll question: Do you believe that the Responsibility to Protect is a good idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect">Responsibility to protect
The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.

1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).

2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.

3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

In the international community RtoP is a norm, not a law. RtoP provides a framework for using tools that already exist (like mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VI powers) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the operationalization of RtoP. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.

[bobbolink]

1. I have one question for you, joshcryer.....

Sometime ago, there was a tweet from Libya asking the US to jam G's communications, which, the tweeter thought, would put a end to G being able to round up mercs, organize and order attacks, etc.

Do you have any idea why this wasn't done? I didn't see anything about the UN considering this option.

Any comments....?

[joshcryer]

6. There were attempts by amateurs to do it, I followed it closely.

I even said that if I had the equipment I'd try to help (it would've been illegal so I'm glad I didn't have the equipment! It was a really dire time when that was happening and I probably would've been stupid).

I'm not sure if the UN can actually enable communication jamming, but it certainly would've been illegal for the United States to jam the communications in another country without international consent.

[bobbolink]

11. Thanks, josh. I wasn't even thinking of USians trying to do it on their own!

I won't ask you more questions about your "involvement" ~~wave to Agent Mike.

So, as far as you know, this was never brought up in the UN?

I admittedly don't know much at all about this, but it seems like it would have been a logical step before knocking out AAs missles.

[joshcryer]

14. It's not in the UN resolution, nope, however, in a broad sense it could be done.

I mean, if you are trying to protect citizens and all.

BTW, the whole jamming thing I was talking about, there was a PDf file being shared about how to set up a small LBN (satellite dish like Dish Network or Direct TV uses) and use it to send signals to the state TV satellite in Libya. That PDF file is perfectly legal to own under free speech grounds. The equipment, likewise, is perfectly legal to own. It's the whole act that's illegal. :P

[bobbolink]

15. How many of those dishes aimed correctly would it take?

So, 1+1 = NoNo? ^_^

[joshcryer]

16. No idea, probably thousands.

They never did get the State TV to go offline. :(

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Half of the 'yes' votes...

...will also be opposed to the operations against Qaḏḏāfī, somehow.

[joshcryer]

5. Absolutely, I wanted to ask a more directed question.

I am anti-war as much as anyone else, believe me, but I dream of a world where the UN is legitimized and tyrants can be disposed of and conflicts can be handled, either diplomatically, or if it escalates, with force.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Exactly.

The alternative -- watching people who do exactly what the theory says they should, from protest through general strikes, to rebellion, and the actual taking up of arms against their oppressors, failing and being destroyed anyway -- seems to have broad popular support, however.

There's never going to be a world without violence, not this fallen world. Because it can't be fixed, however, we apparently can not attempt to ameliorate it.

The first step in our climb out of Hobbesian barbarity was to give the state exclusive control over the legitimate use of lethal force -- and that gave us broad stretches of local peace, and occasional outbreaks of unimaginable state-on-state violence.

The next step in the climb out of barbarity is to get that exclusive control over the legitimate use of lethal force out of the hands of nation-states.

[Hosnon]

3. Without a doubt, yes. nt.

[leftstreet]

4. Why the fuck does the US have 16+ Intel agencies?

:shrug:

"No one could have predicted...."

:grr:

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. At this point in time I honestly feel I don't have enough information to make an informed decision

eom

[joshcryer]

9. I'm not asking about Libya, I'm asking about your feelings on R2P.

I assume you were an "other" vote? If so could you tell me how you feel about R2P as an idea. That is, the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility.

[AlabamaLibrul]

17. The short answer is that I support responsibility to protect in theory

the long answer and kind of a dodge is that I'll have to see how this plays out, to know how it ends up actually working. Kind of like nuclear power plants or communism vs how Stalin ruled.

It can quickly turn into nation-building, world police nonsense.

[Raksha]

8. Yes. The responsibility to protect is the ONLY moral reason for the use of military force.

[Drale]

10. So its great to protect the weak, as long as they are in the good old US of A?

but the second they are outside our boarders, they are not out problem?

[notesdev]

13. It's a good idea

The question is whether this is genuinely such a situation. I honestly don't know what to believe about it, but there is this feeling in the back of my neck that this was a bit too smooth. That responsibility was there a month ago, and this sudden widespread assumption that it's the right thing to do to protect innocent civilians from their own government, if it goes rogue, wasn't there - at all. It's just a bit unsettling to go from that to this without really having intermediate steps that make a whole lot of sense.

Maybe I'm too suspicious; I have learned not to take anything at face value. I agree with the above, if we had intelligence agencies that didn't have immense resources and the incentive to foment and capitalize, I'd be a little bit more trusting of what I see.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. I think we need to quit playing world police and start taking care of our own first

It might make me sound like an asshole, but it is what it is. We have people living on the streets, starving, and dying on the streets right here at home. We need to take care of our own, clean up our yard so to speak, before we go worrying about the rest of the world. We spend billions of dollars per year in aid to other countries but can't even provide the simple basics for our own people?? Something is wrong with this picture.

[joshcryer]

19. I agree, which is why I'm impressed Obama has made the US military take a back seat.

People here are calling for a Declaration of War, but you won't read much about airstrikes from the United States in the coming days. The NFZ and the actions are being done by the French and the Brits.

The two countries who have armed Gaddafi with modern weapons the most, btw.

[bobbolink]

22. That's like saying should we take care of our own, or send foreign aid.

The answer is BOTH.

Don't fall for cutting the less-evil choice.... that is a false setup, and just what they want us to do.

The problem is ..... giving the rich more and more and more tax breaks, and corporate welare, and a bloated pentagon.

Helping revolutionaries who are being killed by a monster doesn't mean we can't adequately house and feed and provide health care for out own.

[barbtries]

20. i think it's a smokescreen

we let many other peoples fall by the wayside if helping them is not in "the nation's interest"

[Puregonzo1188]

21. Which version? The one the UN accepted or the one that's being pushed by the West

that would give NATO intervention rights?

They're very different things, though less than honest people and the actually confused try to conflate the two.

[Hosnon]

23. The one adopted in 2005 that recognizes the international community's

right to intervene.

[joshcryer]

24. The link speaks for itself.

[Hosnon]

25. And the link contains a link to the resolution itself. nt.

[joshcryer]

26. Kick

[PurityOfEssence]

27. ANYONE would be better than the Shah

I remember this screed at the time. Being extremely anti-religion even back then, I was extremely wary of Khomeini and the fundamentalists.

Just because the current regime is evil doesn't mean the insurgents are necessarily better.

Enough of that, though; to me, the most important issue is national sovereignty: what right have we to intervene in a full-on civil war?

If it was a series of peaceful demonstrations like Czar Nicholas II's Bloody Sunday in January 1905, that would be one thing, but it's simply not the case. There were some demonstrations with bloodshed early on, but the scope was very limited, there were very few of them, and it quickly devolved into a shooting war with armed combatants.

[joshcryer]

29. Sovereignty is a responsibility. Gaddafi ended that responsibility.

[timtom]

32. If only the US had allowed the Shah to be turned over to the people of Iran

for trial. Cronyism never ends well.

[joshcryer]

33. How would that have changed Khomeini's return and rise to power?

[timtom]

34. It would certainly have changed the tone of the dialog

between the US and Iran.

[joshcryer]

37. While I agree the Shah shouldn't have been protected, I doubt it would've changed anything.

Iran needed another leader and it didn't have it (to my recollection), so Khomeini took advantage of it.

[timtom]

28. Yeah, when applied equally.

It's the cherry-picking that repulses me.

Gaza, for example.

[joshcryer]

30. I would support a UNSC resolution on Gaza and I would denounce the US vetoing it.

[timtom]

35. Thank you. Me too!

[joshcryer]

38. Unfortunately the US would veto it, so I am happy that Russia and China didn't veto Libya like Burma

Remember Burma was getting the same treatment in 2007, but China and Russia vetoed it. The United States was for intervention in Burma.

[Quantess]

31. Oh, whoops!! I went ahead and did the wrong thing. Sorry.

[pampango]

36. Norway announced support for the UN's invoking of R2P for the first time.

Norway offers F-16 jet fighters to Libya mission

http://www.norwaypost.no/news/norway-offers-f-16-jet-fighters-to-libya-mission-24911.html

“Norway is prepared to provide up to six F-16 fighter aircraft to participate in the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1973,” Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said following the summit meeting in Paris on Saturday.

At the summit, Støre said that Norway strongly supports the historic resolution adopted by the Security Council two days ago. For the first time, the Security Council invokes the principle of Responsibility to Protect as the primary reason for authorizing the use of force against a Member State.

As a firm believer in this novel principle, and in the importance of an UN-led world order, Norway stands ready to contribute to its full implementation, through political, military and humanitarian means, the Prime Minister said.

"In addition to military contributions, Norway stands ready to help develop a broad and effective response, including economic sanctions, international legal action, and a well coordinated humanitarian assistance", Prime Minister Stoltenberg said in Paris.

[joshcryer]

39. It was invoked for Burma! Russia and China vetoed it! :(

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-burma

[joshcryer]

40. To clarify, I'm not disputing the link, just clarifying. This is the first *implementation* of it.

[highplainsdem]

41. Yes. K&R

[joshcryer]

42. Was wondering if you saw this.

[highplainsdem]

43. Yes, and I'd voted in it earlier, but wanted to kick it. I've been considering kicking your other

poll for a third time, too. It's disappointing that so few people responded to that one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x701030

[joshcryer]

44. I'm pleased with the poll results in both, I think it reflects the more sensible posters.

[highplainsdem]

45. I agree.