The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

[shakur420]

The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy



“Responsibility to Protect” as Imperial Tool

The events in Syria, after those in Libya last year, are accompanied by calls for a military intervention, in order to “protect civilians”, claiming that it is our right or our duty to do so. And, just as last year, some of the loudest voices in favor of intervention are heard on the left or among the Greens, who have totally swallowed the concept of “humanitarian intervention”. In fact, the rare voices staunchly opposed to such interventions are often associated with the right, either Ron Paul in the US or the National Front in France. The policy the left should support is non-intervention.

The main target of the humanitarian interventionists is the concept of national sovereignty, on which the current international law is based, and which they stigmatize as allowing dictators to kill their own people at will. The impression is sometimes given that national sovereignty is nothing but a protection for dictators whose only desire is to kill their own people.

But in fact, the primary justification of national sovereignty is precisely to provide at least a partial protection of weak states against strong ones. A state that is strong enough can do whatever it chooses without worrying about intervention from outside. Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States. Nobody is going to bomb the United States to force it to modify its immigration or monetary policies because of the human consequences of such policies on other countries. Humanitarian intervention goes only one way, from the powerful to the weak.

The very starting point of the United Nations was to save humankind from “the scourge of war”, with reference to the two World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great Powers from intervening militarily against weaker ones, regardless of the pretext. The protection of national sovereignty in international law was based on recognition of the fact that internal conflicts in weak countries can be exploited by strong ones, as was shown by Germany’s interventions in Czechoslovakia and Poland, ostensibly “in defense of oppressed minorities”. That led to World War II.

Then came decolonization. Following World War II, dozens of newly independent countries freed themselves from the colonial yoke. The last thing they wanted was to see former colonial powers openly interfering in their internal affairs (even though such interference has often persisted in more or less veiled forms, notably in African countries). This aversion to foreign interference explains why the “right” of humanitarian intervention has been universally rejected by the countries of the South, for example at the South Summit in Havana in April 2000. Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, shortly before the US attack on Iraq, “The Heads of State or Government reiterated the rejection by the Non-Aligned Movement of the so-called ‘right’ of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis either in United Nations Charter or in international law” and “also observed similarities between the new expression ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ and requested the Co-ordinating Bureau to carefully study and consider the expression ‘the responsibility to protect’ and its implications on the basis of the principles of non-interference and non-intervention as well as the respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty of States.”

The main failure of the United Nations has not been that it did not stop dictators from murdering their own people, but that it failed to prevent powerful countries from violating the principles of international law: the United States in Indochina and Iraq, South Africa in Angola and Mozambique, Israel in its neighboring countries, Indonesia in East Timor, not to speak of all the coups, threats, embargoes, unilateral sanctions, bought elections, etc. Many millions of people lost their lives because of such repeated violation of international law and of the principle of national sovereignty.

In a post-World War II history that includes the Indochina wars, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Panama, even of tiny Grenada, as well as the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and various other countries, it is scarcely credible to maintain that it is international law and respect for national sovereignty that prevent the United States from stopping genocide. If the US had had the means and the desire to intervene in Rwanda, it would have done so and no international law would have prevented that. And if a “new norm” is introduced, such as the right of humanitarian intervention or the responsibility to protect, within the context of the current relationship of political and military forces, it will not save anyone anywhere, unless the United States sees fit to intervene, from its own perspective.

US interference in the internal affairs of other states is multi-faceted but constant and repeatedly violates the spirit and often the letter of the UN Charter. Despite claims to act on behalf of principles such as freedom and democracy, US intervention has repeatedly had disastrous consequences: not only the millions of deaths caused by direct and indirect wars, but also the lost opportunities, the “killing of hope” for hundreds of millions of people who might have benefited from progressive social policies initiated by leaders such as Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in the Congo, Mossadegh in Iran, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or President Chavez in Venezuela, who have been systematically subverted, overthrown or killed with full Western support.

But that is not all. Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not less. Bombing civilians – whether deliberately or by so-called “collateral damage” – produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less, and the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons. If the West hesitates to attack Syria or Iran, it is because these countries are stronger and have more reliable allies than Yugoslavia or Libya. If the West complains about the recent Russian and Chinese vetoes about Syria, it has only to blame itself: indeed, this is the result of the blatant abuse by Nato of Resolution 1973, in order to effect regime change in Libya, which the resolution did not authorize. So, the message sent by our interventionist policy to “dictators” is: be better armed, make less concessions and build better alliances.

Moreover, the humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, which are probably the largest in recent decades, are mainly due to foreign interventions (mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the humanitarian interventions, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive “secret” US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized.

Another problem with the “right of humanitarian intervention” is that it fails to suggest any principle to replace national sovereignty. When NATO exercised its own self-proclaimed right to intervene in Kosovo, where diplomatic efforts were far from having been exhausted, it was praised by the Western media. When Russia exercised what it regarded as its own responsibility to protect in South Ossetia, it was uniformly condemned in the same Western media. When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, to put an end to the Khmer Rouge, or India intervened to free Bangladesh from Pakistan, their actions were also harshly condemned in the United States. So, either every country with the means to do so acquires the right to intervene whenever a humanitarian reason can be invoked as a justification, and we are back to the war of all against all, or only an all-powerful state, namely the United States (and its allies) are allowed to do so, and we are back to a form of dictatorship in international affairs.

It is often replied that the interventions are not to be carried out by one state, but by the “international community”. But the concept of “international community” is used primarily by the United States and its allies to designate themselves and whoever agrees with them at the time. It has grown into a concept that both rivals the United Nations (the “international community” claims to be more “democratic” than many UN member states) and tends to take it over in many ways.

In reality, there is no such thing as a genuine international community. NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was not approved by Russia and Russian intervention in South Ossetia was condemned by the West. There would have been no Security Council approval for either intervention. The African Union has rejected the indictment by the International Criminal Court of the President of Sudan. Any system of international justice or police, whether it is the responsibility to protect or the International Criminal Court, would need to be based on a relationship of equality and a climate of trust. Today, there is no equality and no trust, between West and East, between North and South, largely as a result of the record of US policies. For some version of the responsibility to protect to be consensually functional in the future, we need first to build a relationship of equality and trust.

The Libyan adventure has illustrated another reality conveniently overlooked by the supporters of humanitarian intervention, namely that without the huge US military machine, the sort of safe no-casualty (on our side) intervention which can hope to gain public support is not possible. The Western countries are not willing to risk sacrificing too many lives of their troops, and waging a purely aerial war requires an enormous amount of high technology equipment. Those who support such interventions are supporting, whether they realize it or not, the continued existence of the US military machine, with its bloated budgets and its weight on the national debt. The European Greens and Social Democrats who support the war in Libya should have the honesty to tell their constituents that they need to accept massive cuts in public spending on pensions, unemployment, health care and education, in order to bring such social expenses down to an American level and use the hundreds of billions of euros thus saved to build a military machine that will be able to intervene whenever and wherever there is a humanitarian crisis.

If it is true that the 21st century needs a new United Nations, it does not need one that legitimizes such interventions by novel arguments, such as responsibility to protect, but one that gives at least moral support to those who try to construct a world less dominated by a single military superpower. The United Nations needs to pursue its efforts to achieve its founding purpose before setting a new, supposedly humanitarian priority, which may in reality be used by the Great Powers to justify their own future wars by undermining the principle of national sovereignty.

The left should support an active peace policy through international cooperation, disarmament, and non-intervention of states in the internal affairs of others. We could use our overblown military budgets to implement a form of global Keynesianism: instead of demanding “balanced budgets” in the developing world, we should use the resources wasted on our military to finance massive investments in education, health care and development. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than the belief that a stable world will emerge from the way our current “war on terror” is being carried out.

Moreover, the left should strive towards strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of “democracy promotion”, “color” revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities. This necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state, whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders.

It will be objected that such a policy would allow dictators to “murder their own people”, the current slogan justifying intervention. But if non-intervention may allow such terrible things to happen, history shows that military intervention frequently has the same result, when cornered leaders and their followers turn their wrath on the “traitors” supporting foreign intervention. On the other hand, non- intervention spares domestic oppositions from being regarded as fifth columns of the Western powers – an inevitable result of our interventionist policies. Actively seeking peaceful solutions would allow a reduction of military expenditures, arms sales (including to dictators who may use them to “murder their own people”) and use of resources to improve social standards.

Coming to the present situation, one must acknowledge that the West has been supporting Arab dictators for a variety of reasons, ranging from oil to Israel, in order to control that region, and that this policy is slowly collapsing. But the lesson to draw is not to rush into yet another war, in Syria, as we did in Libya, claiming this time to be on the right side, defending the people against dictators, but to recognize that it is high time for us to stop assuming that we must control the Arab world. At the dawn of the 20th century, most of the world was under European control. Eventually, the West will lose control over that part of the world, as it lost it in East Asia and is losing it in Latin America. How the West will adapt itself to its decline is the crucial political question of our time; answering it is unlikely to be either easy or pleasant.



February 20, 2012
Jean Bricmont
CounterPunch

[1871]

The above article is based on the presumption that the responsibility to protect is automatically an imperialist idea. Theres also an assumption that dictatorships are, again. automatically going to respond to calls for peace - which is naive. How would you account for foreign intervention in Spain in 1936? The 'International Brigades' could also be regarded as 'foreign intervention' - especially as the International Brigades came from other countries and intervened in Spain (not their country). In a war situation countries intervene. The UN regards this issue in the following way (and I largely agree with them);

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Who is responsible for protecting vulnerable peoples?

Starting on 6 April 1994 following the deaths of the Presidents of Burundi and Rwanda in a plane crash caused by a rocket attack, intense and systematic massacres of minority ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutus took place in Rwanda over several weeks. The killings, which resulted in the deaths of many as one million people, shocked the international community and were clearly acts of genocide. An estimated 150,000 to 250,000 women were also raped.

On 7 April, the Prime Minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, a moderate Hutu leader, was brutally murdered together with ten Belgian peacekeepers assigned to protect her. Other moderate Hutu leaders were similarly assassinated. After the massacre of its troops, Belgium withdrew the rest of its force. On 21 April, after other countries asked to withdraw troops, the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR),mandated to oversee the peace accords that ended the civil war the previous year, was reduced from an initial 2,165 to 270.

The Rwandan tragedy was compounded by the faltering response of the international community. The capacity of the United Nations to reduce human suffering in Rwanda was severely constrained by the unwillingness of Member States to respond to the changed circumstances in Rwanda by strengthening UNAMIR’s mandate and contributing additional troops.


Background: The emergence of the concept of “humanitarian intervention”

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Kosovo in 1995 and 1999, the international community began to seriously debate how to react effectively when citizens’ human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The issue at the heart of the matter was whether States have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene militarily in a country for humanitarian purposes.

It was during this period in the 1990s, with incidents in Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Kosovo, that the discussion of a “right to humanitarian intervention” evolved into the concept of a “responsibility to protect”.

In his Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recalling the failures of the Security Council to act in a decisive manner in Rwanda and Kosovo, put forward the challenge to Member States:



“If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”


From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect – the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.

The Commission’s report stated that the responsibility to protect (R2P) embraces THREE specific responsibilities:
responsibility to prevent by addressing both the root and immediate causes of conflicts within countries, as well as other man-made crises;


responsibility to react by responding appropriately to situations of massive human rights violations by, for example, imposing sanctions, bringing international prosecution; and, in extreme cases, intervening with military force;


responsibility to rebuild by providing full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation particular after any military intervention



Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report (2004)

In 2004, the High-level on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, endorsed the emerging norm of a responsibility to protect, stating that use of force by the international community was a possible step, if necessary and as a last resort.

The panel proposed some basic criteria that would legitimize the authorisation of the use of force by the Security Council “in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing and serious violations of humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent”, which include the seriousness of the threat, the fact that it must be a “last resort” and the proportionality of the response.


In Larger Freedom (2005)

In his report “In larger freedom”, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan “strongly agreed” with the approach outlined by the High-level Panel and suggested that the proposed criteria be applied for the authorization of the use of force in general.


World Summit Outcome (2005)

In September 2005, at the United Nations World Summit, all Member States formally accepted the responsibility of each State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At the Summit, world leaders also agreed that when any State fails to meet that responsibility, all States (the “international community”) are responsible for helping to protect peoples threatened with such crimes and that they should first use diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful methods. Then, if such methods are inadequate and if national authorities are “manifestly failing” to protect their populations, they should act collectively in a “timely and decisive manner” -- through the UN Security Council and in accordance with the Charter of the UN -- by using force.

The World Summit Outcome Document further stresses the “need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect”.


What is the UN doing?

The international community, through the UN, must now work to bring clarity to the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect in international law, to define its exact nature and content and who has the ultimate authority to determine when it should be enforced.

At the same time, the United Nations is looking at ways to protect targeted and vulnerable peoples by strengthening the international community’s ability to quickly identify and resolve problems before they escalate. These measures include behind the scenes diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict; humanitarian activities designed to save targeted people, improve their living conditions and ensure the observation of their rights; and “other peaceful measures” including building up people’s ability to protect themselves or the society’s ability to ensure their protection or making public statements or agreed-upon military interventions. In this way, it is hoped, the need for military intervention can be avoided.


What can You do?

Ask your government to pass national laws against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without these, international laws often cannot be used by national courts to punish people responsible for genocide and other crimes in your country;


Learn to recognise the stages to genocide

– Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide


Call on governments to promote human rights for all, to practice good governance and to ensure that laws are obeyed by everyone;


Lobby for better early warning systems so that action can be taken early to prevent violence before it begins;


Lobby for governments and government leaders to advocate for inclusion of all groups in the political arena and fight discrimination of ethnic, racial, national or religious minorities;


Ask governments to address problems of unfair access to resources or extreme poverty among specific groups, as these are often causes of discontentment and war.

http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda...lity.shtml

If there is non-intervention as a policy then people should be consistent right across the board which, in my view, should mean no more asylum seekersfrom countries with dictatorships - that seems the logical conclusion. No trade - countries can boycott other countries they dont like. Dont trade with them, dont support them economically, dont fund them. You have to have a completely consistent isolationist policy. Theres no reason why other countries should bear the brunt of refugees fleeing from one country into their country if they have nothing to do with that country and if they are not responsible for the internal policies of that country.

The thing is however, that we live in the world, not just our own countries.

[shakur420]

Problem is, those nationals who went to Spain were largely unsupported by their governments and media. There was massive propaganda efforts directed at demonizing the non-communist elements of the anti-fascist resistance. I don't think it's a good example, those countries were mad scared of Socialism and union solidarity proving successful. Check out "Homage to Catalonia".

As far as R2P, there's no assumption, the history of it's adoption and shit is there for everyone to read. There's a reason they had to drop "humanitarian intervention" and come up with something else, they'd been baited too many times. Then, in front of your eyes, not a few months ago, you've got the realistic way R2P is used, Libya. There's a reason people are not buying this bullshit. I don't see why "coalitions of the willing" need to be taken seriously. Why not UN peacekeepers, like in Lebanon? If any of the "non-military" intervention was serious, if R2P in it's current form was not a device to be used by imperial powers - and that includes Russia and China - they would be getting a UN force together. Not to mention, if a non-UN coalition is the only viable option because of the state of international political will, which is the same bullshit argument we've heard every time, it would be neutral countries involved - maybe Ireland, Brazil, Vietnam - not openly hostile neighbors or states with obvious interests to protect and profits to gain.

How about a Venezuelan-Cuban-Iranian force? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It does to me, but it's a little less hypocritical than Turkey admonishing "crimes against humanity" because Syrian forces are killing their own people while Kurds have been slaughtered by the tens of thousands by the Turkish government for the last couple of decades. If you don't see that hypocrisy, or think it's unimportant, that's good for you. But don't pretend like you give a fuck about UN law, mandates or resolutions. The charter is pretty clear, and so was that last resolution, no violation of sovereignty. R2P might satisfy your current tastes, but if you're gonna talk about the UN, talk about how it's used in real life.

[1871]

Yeah be fair tho - you could also talk about how the UN has helped around the world - any peacekeeping force is going to be condemned by opposing forces in the country they assist - or UNICEF, or its world food programme. You could talk about East Timor. You could talk about how it didnt intervene in Sri Lanka and a massive massacre took place of the Tamils stranded on the beaches there. You could talk about how its intervention in Rwanda came too late and how it has consistently been scuppered by having its resolutions and proposals to intervene blocked by member nations throughout the world. Killers complain about 'roadblocks' making them feel like prisoners often because they want the absolute freedom to kill, rape and murder their political opponents (or just ciivilians) and this is picked up by isolationists in the west (a big favourite with conspiracy theorists also) . People who dont want to follow the rule of law will use any propaganda they can.
The UN is inefficient precisely because it needs reform - so it is not dominated by coalitions and certain parties - it also needs tro strengthen and improve its own security keeping forces (but NATO and opponents of NATO prevail) - this requires to some extent a wider concept of the idea of sovereignity ie; to keep sovreignity but also to share the protection of sovreignity for protection of all nations.

Something like this to some extent;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

but again there has to be a wider unanimity - and the human race is, sadly, not ready for this yet.

The case of the International Brigades is a good example. They were still foreign interventionists - supported by their Government or not . It was the Labour Party who opposed the Conservative non intervention in Spain in order to aid the Republic -They were foreign interventionists who were taking one Spanish side to fight against another Spanish side - its no use sweeping that fact aside. The attempts at demonising the Internatioonal Brigades were precisely by those who didnt want them to intervene, who didnt want them to go and assist the beleagured Republic but who backed Franco, thereby intervening themselves..The only thing is theat the right wing hid their intervention through 'non intervention[/i] and intervened via proxy countries like Portugal and by working in secret. Meanwhile often publicly they said they 'didnt intervene'.

Baldwin specifically called for non intervention. There was a Non Intervention pact meanwhile they assisted either through blockades (to the Republic) or arms (to Franco)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interve..._Civil_War

I bet you would have got a lot of Spanish saying 'how dare these fucking foreigners come to our country and intervene in our affairs' etc,etc

There isnt really an alternative to the UN - nations would be just as likely to not accept any intervention - even from neutral countries. Neutral countries like Ireland are neutral because they dont really want to intervene and couldnt afford it anyway - though at various times in their history (with Ireland supporting Franco and also supporting the Republic - depending on their political affiliations) . I doubt whether they would want to step into that role having seen our own & other countries fucked up by it. It isnt an easy job to do, to be a world 'cop' , so if there has to be a 'world policeman' it should be the world and agreed on by all nations - and then its back to the problem of individual nations being able to intervene or tag on conditions because of their own geopolitical influence.

Annan has frequently talked about how he has failed - not done enough - and there are plently of examples of them f^&&*( up. But remember also what they have achieved. I dont see a credible alternative. Despotic regimes dont want to accept ANY intervention if they are killing their own people - that isnt the way it works

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne...Cr1=rights


You use the expression 'baited' (whatever that means). Are we into Alex Jones territory of the UN being an instrument of the NWO?

Quote:60 Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference

Human Rights

23. Promoting Human Rights

Since the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped to enact dozens of legally binding agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints, the UN human rights bodies have focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, arbitrary detention and other violations, and have generated international pressure on Governments to improve their human rights records.

24. Fostering Democracy

The United Nations promotes and strengthens democratic institutions and practices around the world, including by helping people in many countries to participate in free and fair elections. The UN has provided electoral advice and assistance, and in some cases election monitors, to more than 100 countries, often at decisive moments in their history, such as Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, South Africa, Timor-Leste, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nepal.

25. Promoting Self-determination and Independence

When the United Nations was established in 1945, 750 million people— almost a third of the world population—lived in non-self-governing territories dependent on colonial powers. The UN played a role in bringing about the independence of more than 80 countries that are now sovereign nations.

26. Ending Apartheid in South Africa

By imposing measures ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system. In 1994, elections in which all South Africans were allowed to participate on an equal basis led to the establishment of a multiracial Government.

27. Promoting Women's Rights

A long-term objective of the United Nations has been to improve the lives of women and empower them to have greater control over their lives. The UN organized the first-ever World Conference on Women (Mexico City, 1975), which, together with two World Conferences during the UN Decade for Women (1976-1985) and the World Conference in Beijing (1995), set the agenda for advancing women's rights and promoting gender equality. The 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, ratified by 186 countries, has helped to promote the rights of women worldwide.

28. Promoting Decent Work

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has established standards and fundamental principles and rights for work, including freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the abolition of forced labour, child labour and workplace discrimination. Employment promotion, social protection for all and strong social dialogue between employers’ and workers’ organizations and Governments are at the core of ILO activities.

29. Promoting Press Freedom and Freedom of Expression

To allow all people to obtain information that is free of censorship and culturally diverse, UNESCO has helped to develop and strengthen the media and supported independent newspapers and broadcasters. UNESCO also serves as a watchdog for press freedom, and publicly denounces serious violations like the assassination and detention of journalists.

30. Promoting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United Nations has been at the forefront of the fight for full equality for persons with disabilities, promoting their participation in social, economic and political life. The UN has shown that persons with disabilities are a resource for society, and has negotiated the first-ever treaty to advance their rights and dignity worldwide: the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has been ratified by 97 countries.

31. Improving the Plight of Indigenous People

The United Nations has brought to the fore injustices against the 370 million to 500 million indigenous people who live in some 90 countries and who are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the world. The 16-member Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, established in 2000, works to improve the situation of indigenous peoples all over the world in development, culture, human rights, the environment, education and health.

I dont know that there would be that many wishing to accept the coalition of the countries you mentioned or if those countries would be willing to accept that role - especially given the history.

[shakur420]

Baited means getting caught. Pretty sure it's a British term. Used to listen to a lot of Jungle when I was a kid and all the MCs have this Jamaican-British slang, lol, even the Canadian ones.

Anyways, from what I read about those nationals who went to Spain (I read some more stuff after the book), it was their governments - like the British - who were hoping that Franco would take the country. It was individual people who really supported the anti-fascists.

As far as intervention, if we're talking about "despotic" regimes, the U.S. kills far more people, is the worst violator of human rights, is the biggest arms dealer and proliferator of WMDs, at least far in the lead when compared to official "despotic" regimes. Who's calling for R2P in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Turkey, Palestine, India, Haiti, Libya, Diego Garcia, Egypt, etc. - the places where the U.S. funds, supporrts and sometimes directs the attrocities? Who's talking about R2P for the millions of Americans that are left homeless so the rich can maintain business as usual in the U.S.? If R2P were for real, the U.S. would be the number 1 target of it's mandate, uncontroversially.

No one's saying - I'm not at least - don't deal with Assad, but if you want me to take you seriously - you being whatever politician or mouthpiece for the state who calls themself a journalist - then deal with Assad's more powerful allies and financiers first, namely the U.S., Russia, China, France and England. Coincidence that they are the "big 5", the veto members, permanent members of the Security Council? Who questioned the many things that the UN does that are positive? I didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an instrument of the powerful, that's not even a debate today. Or even back in the day, it's pretty well understood. They talk about getting rid of the veto for a reason, they have that peace resolution or whatever to override the SC for a reason. And they came up with that back in the 50s or something. It's not an Alex Jones conspiracy. Wait, weren't you all scared about the black helicopters and shit a few months ago? I'm confused, but anyways, the point is, if R2P was serious, it would be looking at the U.S., not goons-turned-official-enemies only.

Easy test, in case there's any doubt. Assad, his goons, his dad and their cronies are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the last couple decades (don't forget Lebanon and all the non-peoples in Syria we don't hear about). The U.S. is responsible for more than a million just in Iraq during that time frame. A number that is undoubtedly outdated and under reported - and does not include deaths from the rest of their domains and various other crimes. But Assad is the one who needs to be dealt with. lol, it's not rocket science.

[1871]

Yes, I agree. Assad is the one who needs to be dealt with. Black helicopters?

lol

However, youre confusing the US with the UN. The UN represents - or rather is supposed to represent the United Nationws - it was clearly hijacked iver raq. And remember who is to say that with a stronger UN that the US wouldntr be subject to it also. If youre calling for non intervention youre calling for non intervention in US policy. Iraq was an illegal war in violation of the UN Charter. Again, there are interventionists on both sides in the US/Iraqu conflict.

Quote: you being whatever politician or mouthpiece for the state who calls themself a journalist

hahahahaha man you aint drinking again?

[shakur420]

HAHAHA, UN was hijacked over Iraq?? And what about the rest of it's 60+ year history? Working as an international consensus? HAHAHA

You notice how I directed the comment at politicians and people who call themselves journalists, didn't realize you put yourself in that category, but it's good to know you're reading things accurately, as always, lol.

So even though Assad is small time he needs to be dealt with while those responsible for funding his crimes and committing far worse are left to "police the world"? That's why people like you can't be taken seriously.

[1871]

Funny then how you keep replying to these posts aint it.

Assad isnt 'small time' for the people he is murdering;

Quote:You notice how I directed the comment at politicians and people who call themselves journalists, didn't realize you put yourself in that category, but it's good to know you're reading things accurately, as always, lol.

Did I say I did? It was you who said;

Quote:No one's saying - I'm not at least - don't deal with Assad, but if you want me to take you seriously - you being whatever politician or mouthpiece for the state who calls themself a journalist -

lol

Quote: Shakur 420

So even though Assad is small time he needs to be dealt with while those responsible for funding his crimes and committing far worse are left to "police the world"? That's why people like you can't be taken seriously.

Once again - the UN represents all the nations, or is supposed to. Sure you can debate whether they do a good or lousy kob at that but dont believe that if you dont have a strong international consensus that nations wont act unilaterally. They do any way. A stronger UN could lessen this and move away from unilateral action - the kind you saw in Iraq. You can scrap the UN entirely - say its crap (basically thats what Bush did when he cynically mis-used the UN charters) if you think that its a puppet of the US and the imperialiost nations but that wont stop imperialist nations or change the way imperialist nations act.

You can improve the UN or get rid of it altogether. Agressive actions will continue without it regardless.

Quote:So even though Assad is small time he needs to be dealt with while those responsible for funding his crimes and committing far worse are left to "police the world"? That's why people like you can't be taken seriously.

People like me. Right. I'll ignore the ad hominem insult - thats a reflection on you, not me.

If you have no one to 'police the world' - as above - atrocities still occur. Russia and China who fund Assad, the US who funds Bahrain - all this still continues regardless.

---

Funny then how you keep replying to these posts aint it.

Assad isnt 'small time' for the people he is murdering;

Quote:You notice how I directed the comment at politicians and people who call themselves journalists, didn't realize you put yourself in that category, but it's good to know you're reading things accurately, as always, lol.

Did I say I did? It was you who said;

Quote:No one's saying - I'm not at least - don't deal with Assad, but if you want me to take you seriously - you being whatever politician or mouthpiece for the state who calls themself a journalist -

lol

Quote: Shakur 420

So even though Assad is small time he needs to be dealt with while those responsible for funding his crimes and committing far worse are left to "police the world"? That's why people like you can't be taken seriously.

Once again - the UN represents all the nations, or is supposed to. Sure you can debate whether they do a good or lousy kob at that but dont believe that if you dont have a strong international consensus that nations wont act unilaterally. They do any way. A stronger UN could lessen this and move away from unilateral action - the kind you saw in Iraq. You can scrap the UN entirely - say its crap (basically thats what Bush did when he cynically mis-used the UN charters) if you think that its a puppet of the US and the imperialiost nations but that wont stop imperialist nations or change the way imperialist nations act.

You can improve the UN or get rid of it altogether. Agressive actions will continue without it regardless.

Quote:So even though Assad is small time he needs to be dealt with while those responsible for funding his crimes and committing far worse are left to "police the world"? That's why people like you can't be taken seriously.

People like me. Right. I'll ignore the ad hominem insult - thats a reflection on you, not me.

If you have no one to 'police the world' - as above - atrocities still occur. Russia and China who fund Assad, the US who funds Bahrain - all this still continues regardless. There will be no policing of their actions.

[shakur420]

^Isn't that why people complain that the UN doesn't realistically represent anyone except the veto powers? lol

[1871]

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

[1871]

Well exactly, it needs major reform. There isnt a UN as its founders originally conceived it;
an organisation that represents everyone -all nations - equally and can act as an impartial body that everyone can trust. Its a supranational body yet it is used and subverted by geopolitical national interests; often thinking of their own advantages and geopolitical interests. The power of veto which is completely ridiculous is a farce - and, worse than that, it subverts what a UN, an organisation which should essentially be supranational. It breaks its first rule set out in Chapter 1 of the UN Charterwhereby all nations should be equal. Either all nations should have veto or none at all. Ostensibly the idea of veto protects sovreignity - but that was sovereignity of the geopolitical interests of the major nations.
If there is going to be a world consensus for just law people have to let go - but thats not in the mind-set. Its why people think the UN is a body of the NWO - and how it could be if the unscrupulous attempt to gain control of it. If it depends on votes however - and by this I mean equal powers - no nation having more than any others - scrap the idea also of permanent and non permanent members or exclusive club councils - its bullshit.

The Syria debacle is a good case in point. There should have been no demand for Assad to go by the UN - that is to be decided at the ballot box in Syria. They could have facilitated democracy in other ways, but they didnt think. A number of other measures should have been suggested, but, as usual, there were other agendas at work and they crapped it up big time - leaders are generally useless.

Quote:The adopted purposes of the United Nations reflect a premise that the effective The Dumbarton Oaks proposals Article 2, clauses 3-4 essentially prohibit war (except in self-defense) by stating, "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (The right to self-defense is reaffirmed in Article 51, which states, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . ."

Article 2, clause 7 of this chapter reemphasizes the fact that only the UN Security Council has the power to force any country to do anything by stating that "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." (Only the Security Council can institute Chapter VII enforcement measures.)

The idea of Iran being free from major human rights abuses and therefore being in a different ie; morally superior position to Americais odd to say the least;

http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publicat...fAodVivh_w

[shakur420]

I don't remember saying that cocksuckers like Iran's rulers are "morally superior" to the U.S., but I don't see how you can deny - if you really care about human rights - that the U.S. is enemy #1 to the world's population, pretty much at all times. Large portions of the world population seem to think so, anyways. Anyone serious about stopping crimes in the world will not pretend that Iran (or Syria's) crimes are even in the realm of the superpowers'. I mean, lol, you got people from the U.S. government saying this, I don't see how it's controversial or debatable. It's not 200 AD, we have credible, documented records of things that have happened and things that are happening as we speak. Don't want to seem repetitive but, uh, don't recall the last time Syria's rulers were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children, you know, shit described as "infantcide" by UN officials. Correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I haven't done my homework. lol