Alternative headline for this post, for those of you who thought that one a bit too lurid:
I’m down with R2P
I refer here to the alleged United Nations principle of "responsibility to protect," which Trudy Rubin wrote about in her column on today’s op-ed page. I say alleged because it’s one of those things the U.N. talks about, but doesn’t do. To help you catch up, here’s an excerpt from the column:
What do you do when the world is lined up to help more than a million desperate people hit by a cyclone, and Myanmar’s hard-line junta blocks that help?
That is the unprecedented situation confronting the United Nations, Western aid agencies and humanitarian organizations. No one has ever seen anything like it….
So should, or can, U.N. member states force the junta to accept the world’s outstretched hand?
Ironically, U.N. members adopted a concept back in fall 2005 that would seem to answer that question. At the urging of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the General Assembly endorsed the following principle: The international community has a “responsibility to protect” civilians when their governments can’t or won’t stop genocide or crimes against humanity — even if this means violating a country’s national sovereignty.
This concept, known variously as “humanitarian intervention” or by the abbreviation “R2P,” has gone nowhere. It has not proved useful in dealing with the quasi-genocide in Darfur. Authoritarian regimes view R2P as a potential cover for Western military efforts at regime change.
But if it ever had any relevance, the concept ought to apply to the horrific situation in Myanmar…
Trudy says that this situation would not involve regime change, but hey — wouldn’t that be a wonderful byproduct?
Unfortunately, instead of using our military proactively to shove thugs and tyrants out of the way so we can help our people, we’re still arguing over whether we should have gone into Iraq. In other words, instead of expanding our capacity to project force — the way China’s doing like gangbusters — we’re arguing about whether to make use of the military we have.
Not only can we not get off the DIME as the world’s one (for the moment) superpower, we can’t even decide to use the "M."
So the dying continues in Darfur. And Myanmar, a.k.a. Burma.
Related Posts
Why don’t we just rename Earth “The United States of America” and be done with it?
Is there ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it says the United States has been elected the policeman for the world and must act militarily to resolve all the issues?
People are dying in Columbia, too. People are starving in the United States. How about we deal with those issues first?
It’s so amazing to think that America has the solution to every one of the world’s problems and all it involves is killing people we don’t like.
And one more thing — if the U.N. thinks this is a big issue, why don’t they do something about it instead of waiting for the U.S. to foot the bill and lead the charge? There’s plenty of member nations with sufficient military might to handle Myanmar. Let’s sit this one out and see how the other guys will handle it.
The thugs ruling Burma deserve the hell they’re foisting on their citizens. Since no government seems able to help them or the folks in Darfur, I’m willing to chip in a couple of bucks for Blackwater to do the dirty work with a little support from the US Navy. But that’s not going to happen.
Over at NRO Rich Lowry “asked a friend who has experience at all levels of this kind of thing, from humanitarian delivery to high-level government deliberations, whether it makes sense to go into Burma without permission. His response:”
In other words, a million folks who could be helped will die agonizing deaths.
Exactly, the USA are not the policeman of the world and should stop using aid as a political tool.
So the dying continues in Darfur. And Myanmar, a.k.a. Burma.
-Brad
And IRAQ. More than 600 civilians killed last month.
we’re arguing about whether to make use of the military we have.
-Brad
Thank God for that. It’s better we argue about using the military than actually using it. Generally when we use our military the results end disasterously. From Vietnam to Lebanon to Iraq all our military intervention has accomplished is getting more people killed. It’s time to put a stop to all this waste of human lives. We can help the people of Mynmar but only through peaceful means. An invasion will only get more people killed.
And another thing – Rubin’s got a lot of nerve citing Kofi Annan, hero of Rwanda. The UN is not much more than a club where despots can reward their favorites with a meaningless post in a great city or offer a sinecure to those homegrown bureaucrats yearning to jump to the top.
That said, this Brit Conservative Party human rights activist thinks that there’s more that specific countries and even the UN, to pretend that its R2P deal is real, can do, the immediate one being to project enough force to get the aid in. Alas, there’s only a few countries with the capability to pull that off, and to guarantee success you’d have to use a Marine Expeditionary Unit; even then, they’d control just a small area.
Hmmm. It’s time for India to prove that it’s a regional power and member of the Anglosphere.
… and so we decline into irrelevance, and let the juntas and the commissars run the world.
Hey, Doug: Should we have freed Europe from Hitler?
Wrong link for the MEU. Here’s the correct one. Here’s why:
They’re good for about fifteen days on their own. And they get in fast.
Hey, Doug: Should we have freed Europe from Hitler?
-Brad
I can’t speak for Doug but as for me, I find it highly offensive for anyone to compare the current state of the world with the situation in Europe in the 1940s. The 2 are not the same. Enough said about that utterly irrelevant, misplaced, worthless and predictable comment.
Brad just tell Bud that children are smoking in Burma or animals are being harmed, then he will be over there with all guns blazing.
Brad,
Germany, yes.
Korea, no.
Vietnam, no.
Iraq, no.
I won’t try to explain the difference.
Dammit, Doug, you’re just not trying…
You’re supposed to say, “Because the Congress declared war against Germany, in keeping with the Constitution,” and then I’m supposed to say, “Only because Hitler declared war first,” and then you say, “We would have declared it anyway under the circumstances,” and I’d say, “That was then; our Congress today wouldn’t have the cojones (there’s the testosterone again) to declare war against anybody anywhere under any circumstances,” etc.
Don’t come to the blog if you’re not willing to give it your best, doggone it. I can’t be doing your part, too…
And if we’re going to do something, why don’t we just DO IT! Not get the U.N.’s approval.
Start airdrops of food and water… they can’t stop them all.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we use our military planes to drop chemicals on the opium crop on Afghanistan? We’re already there, right? From Andrew Sullivan:
The facts are stunning: in 2001, after a Taliban ban on poppy cultivation, Afghanistan only produced 11 percent of the world’s opium. Today it produces 93 percent of the global crop; the drug trade accounts for half of its GDP; and nearly one in seven Afghans is involved in the opium trade. In Afghanistan, more land is being used for poppy cultivation than for coca cultivation in all of Latin America. The trade strengthens the government’s enemies and – unless its large place in the Afghan economy is permanently curtailed by crop replacements and anti-poverty efforts – poses a potentially fatal obstacle to keeping the country stable and peaceful.
I give up and just ask: Didn’t anybody at least like the "I’m Down with R2P" part?
Bill? Anyone?
Burma offers a good example of why the American Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms sufficient to remove dictators alone, or entire despotic regimes by force of the civilian militia.
Moi? I ain’t dat naughty,but you be cool.I’m still trying to get over Jimmy Giuffre’s death.
You know things are bad when when we invoke Godwin’s law only a handful of posts in (the longer an internet thread goes on, the greater chance someone will make a comparison to Hitler). The problem with Brad raising the WWII excuse is that he’s asserting, essentially, that we went into WWII in a noble desire to save Jews. As anyone whose been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. can tell you, the extensive exhibits there indicating the indifference and outright hostility of many of the Allied powers to Jewish plight indicates how little they cared. That was, however, until after the war was over, and the image of the great liberators was promoted to ease the conscience of societies that had too promoted virulent antisemitism and themselves had engaged in genocidal actions (Britain and France need no mention for their colonial empires, but no one ever remembers America’s systematic removal, transfer, and eerily prescient reservation system of numerous American Indian tribes).
Brad also forgets that Britain and France also didn’t care, and in fact viewed favorably, the imperial ambitions of Japan, especially since it kept nationalist sentiments in China in check, until such a time that it threatened their colonial stability (notably Burma is one of those former colonies).
The point of mentioning all this is that the image of World War II as a “good war” is fabrication; it was, like almost all wars between nations, a butchering of the people below by the people in charge of BOTH sides. The fact that a side benefit, of which they took no special effort to do, resulted from it is akin to the police officer who stops a motorist for a broken taillight and finds out he is a wanted serial killer.
Geez, you people need to get a life. Doug said we shouldn’t act in Burma because it’s not in the Constitution. My point is that not much we’ve done internationally in the past century would have been anticipated by the Framers. There is NO WAY they would have seen us as having a dog in that European fight. But then, they couldn’t imagine the U.S. becoming a bigger power in the world than their recent Mother Country was.
I forgot that if you make even a passing reference to WWII, no matter what the context, bud gets all upset. At least I didn’t say anything about racehorse. I mean, I’m trying to be sensitive to the things that get y’all all worked up.
And who is this Sean person? Who the hell posited WWII as an “excuse?” Who the hell said we went in to save the Jews? I’ll have you know I majored in history (not THAT period, but who’s keeping score?). I didn’t get my sense of what happened back in the 40s from reading some schmaltzy book by Tom Brokaw.
So back off, sport, and stop trying to imagine I’m saying something that you have a great, condescending argument against. That’s not what’s going on here.
Of course, you’re also full of horse manure if you think that war wasn’t worth fighting. But you didn’t exactly say that, so I’m not going to ASSUME you did just so I can tee off on it…
I can’t imagine any kind of good outcome for us, or with the UN and some kind of ‘coalition of the willing’ of going in there. It might feel good and heck, might even be morally the right thing to do. but once you do it, what next? The Iraq war was ‘planned’ and look how swimmingly that’s gone. And while there might be all sorts of places around the world that deserve intervention, how is that kind of policy sustainable? Once you start going in here and there to save people, next thing you know we are seriously overstretched.
Brad, you obviously never read the volumes of debate by the authors of our Constitution about “avoiding foreign entanglements”, precisely because the Founders did anticipate world-wide wars between the European empires.
President Washington’s Farewell Address is a warning on this very subject. As the leader of the Freemasons, his speech warns them specifally to refrain from association with the French and German lodges which are plotting a revolt in France that is diametrically opposed to the Enlightenment which was the source of our Revolution.
Brad – Ditto on what you wrote about Sean S. I found your thoughts on the Big One, WW II, to pretty Kosher-free, but I guess Sean S. finds Jews everywhere, so maybe he knows a decent deli because I sure can’t find one around here.
I guess I was flabbergasted over the cop being a serial killer and not realizing it until he’s in the middle of a traffic stop. I mean, how weird is that?
Almost as weird as Washington and getting entangled at the French and German lodges Lee warns us about. Must’ve been a bad rope-tow experience on a skiing trip is all I can figure. It happens if you don’t grab tight and set a good squat…
Randy’s writing, and there’s my comma:
Unfortunately, instead of using our military proactively to shove thugs and tyrants out of the way so we can help our people, we’re still arguing over whether we should have gone into Iraq. – BW
Does anyone else see the contradiction here? Brad shakes his pom poms for the “war” of choice to remove the thug “Sadamn” then wonders why there’s reluctance to more shock and awe.
I believe we have a moral obligation to take a role in addressing the injustices in the world. It was just a few months ago that W was paying lip service to injustices of the junta in Burma, as he has with the atrocities in Africa. Compassionate conservatism applies not to moral imperatives but oil imperatives. If the Cheney administration had avoided Iraq and preserved our moral leadership we could address the junta more emphatically.
Brad, one possibility you overlook. Two members of McCain’s lobbyist posse played an active role in the marketing of this very junta. Perhaps they did such a good job, W isn’t convinced there’s a problem.
How do you like those 50 K Street lobbyists who are running Obama’s campaign?
That’s a lot of strings on that little pupet.
Here’s what a fellow member of the Anglosphere thinks of the stinking US and its imperialist, neoconservative, judgmental actions:
There’s more.
I blame Bush!
Lee, I thought Muslims were running his campaign.
Oh please Brad, You brought up WW II in order to counter people who were trying to point out that military interventions are never for “humanitarian” reasons and almost always involve some sort of ulterior motive and that applies to EVERYONE (not just America). You were using it as a moral cudgel to refute everyone without having to think.
And as to your question as to whether the war was “worth” fighting? Well, no war ever is. We should be in the business of avoiding war. Oddly enough the people who believed that in Germany and Japan were slaughtered in the 20’s and 30’s in the run up to those countries respective imperial ambitions; interestingly the same kind of people were being deported out of the country and being tarred with red baiting in America at the same time. The tipping point to both world wars was the purging of sane, rational voices in the countries that eventually went to war. Maybe if more countries had more of these kinds of people, you know the kind that think blowing other people up is a bad idea, we wouldn’t be in this mess we are now in.
Go into ..”Burma” with guns blazing?? Burma does not have that much oil these days. The US only attacks nations that have something we can use. If a nation has oil, fruit, rubber, minerals or something we can use we will attack. The USA has been involved in around 215 wars, battles, conflicts, civil wars and CIA involvements etc. The ONLY war where we had to defend the USA was WW II. All the other wars have been what we called..”money wars.” We fight to make money for the super rich in the USA.
The longer the war..the more money is made by the military industrail complex, and the pro war politicans. McCain? Why he loves war so much is a myster to me.
Brad’s comment….”At least I didn’t say anything about racehorse. I mean, I’m trying to be sensitive to the things that get y’all all worked up.” —etc.etc.etc. Same string further down…”Of course, you’re also full of horse manure” etc.etc…..There’s that horse again!! I’m surprised no one jumped back on the saddle. Oh, I forgot, Hilliary is still in it……
Obama has 50 K Street lobbyists running his fundraising, lead by:
* Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities
* former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird
* Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC
* Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon
* Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America
* Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting;
* Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young
Obama’s advisors include terrorists and those with sympathies for, and relationships with, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Syria, and Lybia:
* Bill Ayers, bomber
* Bernadine Dorn, bomber
* Angela Davis, accompice
* Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party USA
* Robert Malley, his advisor on Mideast policy, wrote 16 articles favorable to the Muslims, and met with leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah
* Hamas spokesmen have endorsed Obama
Speaking of going into France with guns blazing, there’s a remarkable reprint now available. While it wasn’t a bestseller, I’m sure Instructions for American Servicemen in France during World War II was widely read.
Too bad it has no bearing on what’s happening in the world today.
Don’t forget about his other advisors; Farahkan, Ghengis Kahn, Shacka Kahn. And, he raised money by selling arms to AQ in Africa. Lee also believes He’s a successful suicide bomber.
The only comeback of the Obama crowd to the lobbyists and terrorists surrounding him is silliness. They can’t defend Obama. They can’t defend his platform, because he hasn’t articulated one.
Obama talks in vague terms to generate feelings of rappport. The goal is to have each supporter hear something that they can interpret to match their feelings on an issue. It’s devoid of intellectual content on both ends.
Brad, “we” alone did not save Europe from Hitler. For example, millions of Russians gave their lives on the eastern front which was a massive drain on the Nazi war effort. Not to mention the contributions of British troops.
And I too am mystified by what that has to do with the Myanmar humanitarian situation.
The fact that the US picks and chooses where and when to intervene militarily, begs the simple question: why X and not Y? Hubert’s comment above points to the answer.
Brad, that’s also very un-Friedmanian of you to imply that America’s “decline into irrelevance,” as you put it, would be because of our being cautious about swinging our military weight around. Again, you know in your heart the causes lie elsewhere.
I forgot that if you make even a passing reference to WWII, no matter what the context, bud gets all upset.
–
Brad
Brad plays the Hitler card. Folks correctly point out how irrelevant that comparison is. Brad can’t understand why people don’t see how the comparison is valid. Geez Brad, this is not that difficult to understand. Think man, think. When you make a stupid comment and people call you on it, it’s probably just best to cut your losses and move on. This (along with the Eight Bells atrocity) are two of those instances.
I think you all know that Brad was comparing our rescue of Burmese, if we do it, to our rescue of Europe from Hitler.
Britain, France and the USSR would not have beaten Germany without the USA.
OTOH….
I don’t know where Brad gets some of his notions, such as “Britain and France also didn’t care, and in fact viewed favorably, the imperial ambitions of Japan..”.
That is nonsense. Japanese military leaders openly declared their intent to evict the Europeans from Asia and take all their colonies, along with Australia and New Zealand. I own several of those books, including, “Japan Must Fight Britain”. Every intelligent Brit knew that Britain must fight Japan.
Umm, Lee… somebody else said that about France and Britain. And I didn’t say Burma was Europe in the 1940s, or even that it was BURMA in the 1940s. I simply asked Doug whether it was OK to have freed Europe even though such things were not spelled out or anticipated by our Constitution. I acknowledged that I wasn’t clear enough about that the first time (I knew what I was responding to; many of y’all obviously didn’t), by spelling it out clearly in a later comment.
Not that I expect any of these actual facts to slow you down…
Burma was “Burma” in 1940.
Just look at a map of that era, like my father’s CBI silk pilot’s escape maps.
You’re the one who’s short on knowledge of history, especially the U.S. Constitution.
Brad,
We must fight at times, but we must fight smart. Which means: 1) We pick and choose our battles. We don’t remove a dictator llike Saddam who, though admittedly evil, holds many powers in check, including radical religious elements. 2) We start reluctantly, but without necessarily announcing our intentions a year in advance. 3) The leaders communicate clearly and honestly with the people, and do not go beyond the sacrifices that the people are prepared to make. 4) We educate ourselves in the culture and thinking of the region. Our very presence in certain countries provokes radical elements, especially given our short historical attention span. We can do better than that.
The willingness of many young people to sacrifice for their country and serve in the armed forces is exemplary, but I fear sometimes misused by those in leadership. Trust is hard to come by these days, and whose fault is that?
I fear that, because our strategy has been too often short-sighted, we fight in the wrong places the wrong way.
Saddam Hussein was financing terrorists.
He ran 2 hijacker training camps where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, which we captured intact in 2002.
He was harboring Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. We captured or killed all of them except Bin Laden, in Iraq, since 2002.
We captured his financial logs of payments to the 9/11 hijackers, other terrorist bombers, and to over 250 UN and European officials as bribes.
Saddam had 650,000 tons of nerve gas, poison gas, and biological weapons, and nuclear bomb components and machinery, which we captured in 2002, and are now being decommissioned in the US, some of it here in SC.