|
Venezuela – No, The “Responsibility To Protect” Does Not Apply
Richard Haass is the president of the Council of Foreign Relations. On Friday, before the failed delivery of fake "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela, he opined that the rejection of the "aid" would justify an intervention based on the dubious doctrine of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P):
Richard N. Haass @RichardHaass – 19:26 utc – 22 Feb 2019
What the Maduro regime is doing to the people of Venezuela is inconsistent with the obligations that come with being a sovereign state. The time has come for the UN or OAS or Lima Group to consider how to apply the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. bit.ly/2TZaoZv
bigger
Haass attached a link to a report by the Crisis Group which summarized the situation at that time:
High Noon over Humanitarian Aid at Venezuela’s Border
Attaching the Crisis Group piece is an apt display of the utter stupidity of Richard Haass. That's because the report completely contradicts his argument. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect ..
.. is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.
The Crisis Group report argues, quite correctly, that the Venezuelan government is legally justified to reject the "aid". Thus R2P, which presuppose that a state does not fulfill is legal obligations, can not apply to the case:
Under international law, governments must give consent to the distribution of food and medical supplies when a population’s survival is threatened, but only if the aid is of an exclusively humanitarian and impartial nature. This aid operation, however, is primarily political, in that it is intended to undermine Maduro and bring about a change of government.
The acts of the Venezuelan government were fully consistent with "the obligations that come with being a sovereign state".
To recommend a legal procedure and policy by linking to a report that contradicts that reasoning is quite daft.
Furthermore Haass wants "the UN or OAS or Lima Group to consider how to apply the Responsibility to Protect".
But neither the Organisation of American States nor the Lima Group, a Canadian plot together with some Central and South American states to attack Venezuela, can apply R2P beyond the already taken sanction measures:
The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.
The UNSC will of course reject any U.S. attempt to apply R2P with regards to Venezuela.
The only and last time that the Security Council passed a chapter VII resolution based on R2P was with regards to Libya. The resolution allowed other states to protect the civilian population of Libya by force. The U.S. and others abused the resolution to overthrow the Libyan government and to completely destroyed the country. China and Russia certainly noted that. They will never again let such a resolution pass.
That Senator Marco Rubio, a driving power behind the campaign against Venezuela, explicitly posted these pictures of Muhammad Ghaddafi before and after R2P was applied, only strengthens the case against it.
bigger
>>>>> Schmoe | Feb 26, 2019 6:28:47 PM | 127
a) The missile strikes did little damage because Mattis ignored Trump’s directive for a massive strike.
Haven’t you seen any movies where the “crime boss” has to be held back by a loyal lieutenant? Pure theatre.
b) Trump supposedly wanted a decapitation strike on Assad.
See above
c) You can plausibly argue that sanctions are an act of war, so he has either started, or tried to start, wars against Iran and Venezeula.
Sanctions on Iran started under Reagan but were increased under GWB and Obama couldn’t/didn’t remove them. As for Venezuela, the sanctions were started by Obama in 2015 because Venezuela was a treat to the national security of the United States. So Trump inherited both situations
d) He would have started a war that it does not take much imagination leading to WW III to protect jihadis in Idlib, but Russia and Syria postponed an offensive.
Where is your evidence for this? Putin had no problem with telling Assad to cool it. As I’ve said before, Putin’s biggest problem in achieving his objective, a unified sovereign Syria, was the Americans and how to get them out. Trump is now giving him that on a plate. Yeah, I know 400 U.S. soldiers will be left behind but how long will they remain their. I reckon they’ll be gone within a few months of the rest. Trump made a deal with Putin.
e) Assisted Israel’s annexation activities by moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
So what – yet more theatre
f) Continues to support genocide in Yemen, which is notably worse than when he took office.
He didn’t start it.
He has been far more reckless than Obama (I think the Saudis and UAE would have funded the jihadis in Syria regardless of what Obama said).
If Obama had wanted to stop Saudi and UAE support to the jihadist he only had to threaten that they couldn’t rely on continued U.S. protection. They’d have folded in seconds. As it is, Obama started reckless wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Feb 27 2019 1:19 utc | 131
>>>> Schmoe | Feb 26, 2019 10:16:49 PM | 135
The Libya situation was closer to an offshoot of Tunisia which was indigenous
Nah, it was funded and enabled by the usual Islamist suspects, KSA, UAE and Qatar and encouraged by the UK and France. I’ll accept that Obama was not that keen but when he involved the United States, he changed the outcome which would most likely have seen Qaadafi re-establish control and no long civil war.
Gaadafi is alleged to have blown up aircraft but nobody has ever proved it AFAIK. That he paid out compensation for the French DC-10 aircraft is simple economics. Paying $170 million to the families of the dead was cheaper than going to court or having to persuade France to support the lifting of sanctions. Same with his “nuclear weapons program”; he spends less than a billion to buy some kit that’s essentially useless, then surrenders it to the UN and sanctions get lifted. Economics again!
As for Trump and Idlib, do you really trust what Trump, a professed liar, says:
Mr Trump said Wednesday he convinced Syria and its main allies, Russia and Iran, to hold off an anticipated attack on the northwestern province, home to 3 million people and one of the last rebel strongholds in the country.
Speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Mr Trump explained that a message to his top team to “not let it happen” and a 4 September tweet, declaring Syria would be making a “grave humanitarian mistake”, saved the day.
However, he also admitted he had only recently heard about the province because a woman brought it up at a rally last month.
The US president said the woman had told him that Iranians, Russians and Syrians had surrounded Idlib and were going to “kill millions of people in order to get rid of 25,000 or 30,000 terrorists.”.
“I said that’s not going to happen. I didn’t hear of Idlib province. I came back and picked up the Failing New York Times and opened it up,” he continued.
“I said, ‘Wow that’s the same story the woman told me,’ and I found hard to believe and I said how, why would anyone do that?
Pat Lang has a post about that woman, she’s a high-ranking official in the pro-jihadist SAMS.
Mr Trump said the story had indicated the offensive could start in the coming days and so he wrote his Twitter post. He gave orders to top officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House national security adviser John Bolton, to “not let it happen.”
“Nobody is going to give me credit but that’s OK because the people know,” Mr Trump added.
“I’ve had more Syrians thank me for that.”
Russia and Turkey, who back opposing sides of the seven-year civil war, agreed last week during a meeting in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi to set up a buffer zone in Idlib aimed at preventing a military assault.
The deal has so far staved off the anticipated offensive which the UN had warned could displace nearly a million people.
Mr Trump on Wednesday admitted that Iran, Russia and Syria deserved acknowledgement for not going through with the planned attack. He conceded that Turkey had also been “a big help.”
Like a scorpion, al Qaeda, which now controls almost all of the Idlib pocket, will bring about their own extinction in Idlib because they believe they’re doing Gods work rather than the work of the KSA and QAE and conduct one terrorist venture too many. At which point with the United States gone from Syria, Syria, Russia and its other allies will crush them. There will be some civilian deaths but the Syrians assisted by the Russians have worked out tactics to minimize them just as the SDF/US did in the eastern ISIS pocket in Deir Ez-zor.
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Feb 27 2019 11:17 utc | 141
|
