Responsibility To Protect

[eyeball]

The Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity is an international commitment by governments to prevent and react to grave crises, wherever they may occur. In 2005, world leaders agreed, for the first time, that states have a primary responsibility to protect their own populations and that the international community has a responsibility to act when these governments fail to protect the most vulnerable among us.

R2PCS

Canada initiated this and now;

Canada is pushing the United Nations Security Council to press Myanmar's military dictators to permit international aid to reach cyclone victims, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said Tuesday.

The move comes as the Conservative government faces mounting pressure to back the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine - one that Canada pushed the world body to adopt - which calls on the international community to essentially invade the sovereign territory of a country if its government is not protecting its people.

Story

The move also comes as the Conservative government is promoting a $30 billion military initiative as part of Canada's determination to be a serious leader on the world stage. So what if the UN Security Council refuses to uphold this Responsibility to Protect? I think the first thing Canada should do is link R2PCS to its new global military strategy and lead the world.

As many posters here know I usually espouse a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a foreign country but in the case of Myanmar in the event of a UN refusal to intervene and invoke its responsibility to protect I would be willing to spend $30 billion right now and start getting on with the job of correcting this planet's ills ourselves. I'm over 50 and no soldier but I'll gladly go if the army will have me. Actually I'm probably better suited for the navy.

If the UN turns its back on Myanmar then we should turn our back on the UN. Do this Canada and I'll follow you to the end of the world. Heck, I'd even change my signature.

Make me proud.

[M.Dancer]

Canada initiated this and now;

The move also comes as the Conservative government is promoting a $30 billion military initiative as part of Canada's determination to be a serious leader on the world stage. So what if the UN Security Council refuses to uphold this Responsibility to Protect? I think the first thing Canada should do is link R2PCS to its new global military strategy and lead the world.

As many posters here know I usually espouse a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a foreign country but in the case of Myanmar in the event of a UN refusal to intervene and invoke its responsibility to protect I would be willing to spend $30 billion right now and start getting on with the job of correcting this planet's ills ourselves. I'm over 50 and no soldier but I'll gladly go if the army will have me. Actually I'm probably better suited for the navy.

If the UN turns its back on Myanmar then we should turn our back on the UN. Do this Canada and I'll follow you to the end of the world. Heck, I'd even change my signature.

Make me proud.

Why is Burma more worthy than Afghanistan, Somalia or any one of dozens of nations that have failed?

[Drea]

Why is Burma more worthy than Afghanistan, Somalia or any one of dozens of nations that have failed?

Wow were there earthquakes or other natural disasters in Somalia and Afghanistan this week!?!?

No?

Then what on earth is your point?

Harper scores one point. *Tick!*

Edited May 14, 2008 by Drea

[August1991]

Why is Burma more worthy than Afghanistan, Somalia or any one of dozens of nations that have failed?

There is much injustice and sheer waste in this world. We could not even hope to correct it and we may well do more harm than accomplish any good. (Take a look at what all our efforts in places like Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Haiti have accomplished.)

We should only intervene if the interests of the Canadian people are directly threatened or concerned.

[Moonlight Graham]

Eyeball, i mostly agree with you. However, the 30b the Conservatives want to pump up the military isn't going to turn us into a bastion of humanitarian aid. Once Harper got into power he sent 1500 troops deep into a warzone in Afghanistan. He didn't send them to Darfur, or the many third world countries whose people suffer in poverty under despicable regimes & lack basic human needs and thus die by the thousands daily.

No, this 30b is earmarked mostly to make us a better war machine. Yes i'm sure we'll be involved in some humanitarian crisis', but the attitude and actions of this Conservative gov't lead me to believe we'll be killing more people than we'll be saving.

[Moonlight Graham]

There is much injustice and sheer waste in this world. We could not even hope to correct it and we may well do more harm than accomplish any good. (Take a look at what all our efforts in places like Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Haiti have accomplished.)

We should only intervene if the interests of the Canadian people are directly threatened or concerned.

Thats one of the most pessimistic things i've ever heard. There's so much suffering in this world so why bother? Gimme a break. Attitudes like this allow horrors like in Darfur, Rwanda, and the jewish holocaust to occur.

Isolationism is b.s. We are all human, & man-made invisible lines shouldn't deter us from wanting to help each other. We are bound to screw up fom time to time, and we should re-examine our methods, but i'm sure the lives saved would vastly outnumber the lives taken.

[Wild Bill]

Canada initiated this and now;

The move also comes as the Conservative government is promoting a $30 billion military initiative as part of Canada's determination to be a serious leader on the world stage. So what if the UN Security Council refuses to uphold this Responsibility to Protect? I think the first thing Canada should do is link R2PCS to its new global military strategy and lead the world.

As many posters here know I usually espouse a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a foreign country but in the case of Myanmar in the event of a UN refusal to intervene and invoke its responsibility to protect I would be willing to spend $30 billion right now and start getting on with the job of correcting this planet's ills ourselves. I'm over 50 and no soldier but I'll gladly go if the army will have me. Actually I'm probably better suited for the navy.

If the UN turns its back on Myanmar then we should turn our back on the UN. Do this Canada and I'll follow you to the end of the world. Heck, I'd even change my signature.

Make me proud.

What makes you think we'll have enough military resources to interfere in such situations? $30 billion still won't get us anywhere near as powerful as many of the countries to which you're referring. We're just too small time!

Or do you think the warlords that run Burma will be cowed by our "quiet diplomacy"?

No, Canada hasn't had the power to lead the way for decades. When people talk about having a UN action they really are talking about an American one. Why? Because they want the Americans to spend the money and blood! Look what happened when they couldn't get the US to take on yet another action and go into Darfur? Nothing happened! No one else stepped up to the plate.

Rulers like those in Burma only listen if you've got a big enough stick. Canada can spend it's $30 billion and we'll be lucky if that replaces everything that's presently rusted out. It will help and Lord knows it's necessary but we've slipped so far that it will hardly make us a power house.

Talk is cheap.

[White Doors]

Once Harper got into power he sent 1500 troops deep into a warzone in Afghanistan. He didn't send them to Darfur, or the many third world countries whose people suffer in poverty under despicable regimes & lack basic human needs and thus die by the thousands daily.

ahem, the liberal PM Martin sent them to Kandahar, which is what I presume you mean by a 'war zone'.

Also, Afghanistan is a third world country.

We are doing what you espouse in Afghanistan.

What do you have against Afghanistan?

[M.Dancer]

. Attitudes like this allow horrors like in Darfur, Rwanda, and the jewish holocaust to occur.

So you would prefer we kill africans over the Taliban?

[myata]

As good as it sounds, invading other countries to "protect populations" would very likely end them in a greater mess than what they'd achieve by their own efforts. This is because we only know how to build our society, civilization. Little clue of theirs.

This is not to say that obvious and extreme atrocities should be ignored. The key is to make those directly responsible, and involved in perpetration of such crimes, hurt, and hurt a lot. Quickly and efficiently. Relentlessly, until the crime stops. And all without taking over the control over territories thousands miles (and cultural generations) away.

Of course one of the greatest challenges to this otherwise wonderful project is to make sure some fair and clear standard is applied in all case, and with some sort of legitimate justice procedure. Otherwise, it'll very soon turn into very familiar "what's good for mine is evil for yours" approach which wouldn't have much to do with the proclaimed purpose of the project.

Making some sort of a statement in the Security Council is a good first step. However, as was already pointed out, the key is a quick, strong, and relentless action. This can only be possible if the purpose of the project is shared and supported by a wide global consensus. Such consesus is only possible when there's basic understanding and trust between most players; which can be greatly damaged, or even ruined, by unilateral actions as those in Iraq.

[eyeball]

There are three options; lead, follow or get out of the way

The purpose of this excersize would be to provide leadership, to inspire others to follow where we lead. If we turn around and find everyone standing on the sidelines we can always exersize option three. Getting out of the way is pretty much the same as neutrality. If the community of countries we're in is that venal, that callous and unmotivated then I see little reason to not dissassociate ourselves from it and...get out of its way. Its going nowhere fast and we've got better things to do.

Spend our $30 billion on our own defenses and disaster relief needs and just let everyone go to hell in their own handbaskets.

Its not as proudly glorious as exploring option one but at least we could say we tried.

[myata]

Here's what I mean: situation in Burma compared e.g with Israel's blockade of Gaza. I can see how we want to lead, yada, in the first instance (till China vetoes it in the SC), but I see no chance of anything happening, from us, ever, on the second. Ie. our moral authority, positive impacts, etc stops right where it was supposed to begin in glory. We won't be able to apply the same fair and consistent standard to all cases, without regard for political realities, in any foreseable future.

And it's no secret to anybody.

Edited May 14, 2008 by myata

[Borg]

Canada initiated this and now;

The move also comes as the Conservative government is promoting a $30 billion military initiative as part of Canada's determination to be a serious leader on the world stage. So what if the UN Security Council refuses to uphold this Responsibility to Protect? I think the first thing Canada should do is link R2PCS to its new global military strategy and lead the world.

As many posters here know I usually espouse a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a foreign country but in the case of Myanmar in the event of a UN refusal to intervene and invoke its responsibility to protect I would be willing to spend $30 billion right now and start getting on with the job of correcting this planet's ills ourselves. I'm over 50 and no soldier but I'll gladly go if the army will have me. Actually I'm probably better suited for the navy.

If the UN turns its back on Myanmar then we should turn our back on the UN. Do this Canada and I'll follow you to the end of the world. Heck, I'd even change my signature.

Make me proud.

Canada can squawk as loud as it wants - the other countries simply look fondly at us and think we are the addle headed country cousin.

I am over 50 and I am - amoungst other things - a soldier. If you mean it, I can arrange to send you to basic within a couple of months. Start running and exercising tomorrow. Might do you some good. If you pass basic you can accompany me on yet another full year of fun in the sun starting this summer.

Canadian people have all the steam and none of the push required to get into Burma. Thank the decades of darkness provided by those bastard libs and their weak kneed, socially re-engineered supporters. The same ones who today howl about lack of progress getting aid to Burma - yet they themselves are part of the reason we will not / could not go.

Forcing our way in would be a serious disaster - very expensive in lives. Canadian citizens as a rule do not have the stones to maintain the support required for this type of operation. They certainly would not support a Chapter 7 style involvement through the United Nations. (Never happen anyway - China will veto)

Taliban Jack would be crying and the Libs would be howling and finally the media would lose all support for this as the bags come home by the hundreds. A determined enemy in this part of the world need only be armed with a decent, modern bow and arrow with good broad heads to wreak havoc on an invading force. Jungle warfare is very different from the open plains of the desert.

But complaining loudly about nothing being done - hmmmmmm ....... it does make a nice sound bite.

Right, wrong or indifferent, a heck of a lot of people are going to die over the next year or two because of the ruling power in Burma. For all we know they - Burma ruling party - are quite content to let Mother Nature cull the population.

However, that same ruling power will eat well. Compliments of seized aid brought in by those who try to help the weak and injured.

Help the rulers by supplying aid. The good stuff will not likely get to the survivors.

Turn our back on the UN? That limp wristed Trudeau and his dead leftie friends would roll over in their graves. The Toronto Star and nearly 100% of ontario and east media would pummel the government, the cbc would scream to the world that canada is losing direction and needs a government change.

Taliban Jack would foam at the mouth for the remainder of his life and the Conservatives would not be elected again within the next 25 years.

I have been pimped out to the UN by the feds more than once - I agree - turn our backs - but it will never happen.

Crooked org with no morals.

Overall, not a pretty scene and damned little anyone can do about it without going to battle.

Who wants to be first?

Borg

[Oleg Bach]

Canada can squawk as loud as it wants - the other countries simply look fondly at us and think we are the addle headed country cousin.

I am over 50 and I am - amoungst other things - a soldier. If you mean it, I can arrange to send you to basic within a couple of months. Start running and exercising tomorrow. Might do you some good. If you pass basic you can accompany me on yet another full year of fun in the sun starting this summer.

Canadian people have all the steam and none of the push required to get into Burma. Thank the decades of darkness provided by those bastard libs and their weak kneed, socially re-engineered supporters. The same ones who today howl about lack of progress getting aid to Burma - yet they themselves are part of the reason we will not / could not go.

Forcing our way in would be a serious disaster - very expensive in lives. Canadian citizens as a rule do not have the stones to maintain the support required for this type of operation. They certainly would not support a Chapter 7 style involvement through the United Nations. (Never happen anyway - China will veto)

Taliban Jack would be crying and the Libs would be howling and finally the media would lose all support for this as the bags come home by the hundreds. A determined enemy in this part of the world need only be armed with a decent, modern bow and arrow with good broad heads to wreak havoc on an invading force. Jungle warfare is very different from the open plains of the desert.

But complaining loudly about nothing being done - hmmmmmm ....... it does make a nice sound bite.

Right, wrong or indifferent, a heck of a lot of people are going to die over the next year or two because of the ruling power in Burma. For all we know they - Burma ruling party - are quite content to let Mother Nature cull the population.

However, that same ruling power will eat well. Compliments of seized aid brought in by those who try to help the weak and injured.

Help the rulers by supplying aid. The good stuff will not likely get to the survivors.

Turn our back on the UN? That limp wristed Trudeau and his dead leftie friends would roll over in their graves. The Toronto Star and nearly 100% of ontario and east media would pummel the government, the cbc would scream to the world that canada is losing direction and needs a government change.

Taliban Jack would foam at the mouth for the remainder of his life and the Conservatives would not be elected again within the next 25 years.

I have been pimped out to the UN by the feds more than once - I agree - turn our backs - but it will never happen.

Crooked org with no morals.

Overall, not a pretty scene and damned little anyone can do about it without going to battle.

Who wants to be first?

Borg

Borg if you are pimped out to the UN by the feds...then how do you know when the feds are not pimping you out? See that's the problem being a career soldier and attempting to hold your honour and nobility..you are only as honourable as they men that command you to serve - but having said that _ I will say something positive on your behalf " It is the righteous slave in the household that controls and truely command the sinister master" You are a representative of the people - not the politicians - for that I salute you..you serve us - the sincere and the good...and when a commader in chief has no honour - he is ignored by the military..they must love their king if you know what I mean..primary code that a good commander and chief must have is love for his troops...What I see in the states is contempt and betrayal of the military...so I am not going to knock you my friend - my father served two masters - but in the end God and himself..It all comes out in the wash.

[Borg]

Borg if you are pimped out to the UN by the feds...then how do you know when the feds are not pimping you out? See that's the problem being a career soldier and attempting to hold your honour and nobility..you are only as honourable as they men that command you to serve - but having said that _ I will say something positive on your behalf " It is the righteous slave in the household that controls and truely command the sinister master" You are a representative of the people - not the politicians - for that I salute you..you serve us - the sincere and the good...and when a commader in chief has no honour - he is ignored by the military..they must love their king if you know what I mean..primary code that a good commander and chief must have is love for his troops...What I see in the states is contempt and betrayal of the military...so I am not going to knock you my friend - my father served two masters - but in the end God and himself..It all comes out in the wash.

Salute all you want - I am not a career soldier - I have been in the military in the past and am now serving again - for very personal reasons.

As for pimping - I look at it this way. I knew when I was pimped out before and I willing let them do it to me again - at least this time - I need the rush of action.

As for the remainder I am an independent and work in a rather unusual circumstance - I am the only canadian on the UN team - it is a bit risky - but that is where the fun is.

I serve the team and not the ruler as I can leave any time I want. I do admit the ruler tells me what to do - if the team wants to do it - I go - if not I do not go.

Sorry - all you need to know.

Risk + rush = adrenalin !

A very addictive drug.

After all God, Mother Nature or the deity of your choice takes us all sooner or later - I just wanted another kick at the cat before s/he comes to get me.

Mid life crisis solved.

Borg

[M.Dancer]

After all God, Mother Nature or the deity of your choice takes us all sooner or later - I just wanted another kick at the cat before s/he comes to get me.

Mid life crisis solved.

Borg

I know what you mean, In my case I married for the first time a woman 10 years younger than me....

[Borg]

I know what you mean, In my case I married for the first time a woman 10 years younger than me....

If I did that, the one I am with now would beat all those Gods to me - and she would put me in the ground herself.

Hmm... 10 years you say. Well be sure to eat lots of oysters and keep that protein level up. Heh, heh!

Borg

[M.Dancer]

If I did that, the one I am with now would beat all those Gods to me - and she would put me in the ground herself.

Hmm... 10 years you say. Well be sure to eat lots of oysters and keep that protein level up. Heh, heh!

Borg

I turn 50 this year...been married 11 years, 14 years with the same women. ....2 kids 9 and 4..

Don't get to eat oysters so much but I like eggs and toast with marmite.

[August1991]

Thats one of the most pessimistic things i've ever heard. There's so much suffering in this world so why bother? Gimme a break. Attitudes like this allow horrors like in Darfur, Rwanda, and the jewish holocaust to occur.

Isolationism is b.s. We are all human, & man-made invisible lines shouldn't deter us from wanting to help each other. We are bound to screw up fom time to time, and we should re-examine our methods, but i'm sure the lives saved would vastly outnumber the lives taken.

There are six billion people in the world. Horribly unjust things happen every day. (Some wonderful things happen too so please don't take for me a cynical pessimist.)

Canada is not the world's policeman. Even the US cannot be that. Even in the case of the Holocaust, we in the West intervened because dictators threatened our livelihood.

Burma and China are now in the news. In a few weeks, journalists will find another disaster/event to report. I don't see why the resources of Canadians should be sent around the world merely on a whim provoked by an event that happens to attract newspaper reports? How many other smaller events go unreported but are just as unjust?

[the janitor]

Burma and China are now in the news. In a few weeks, journalists will find another disaster/event to report. I don't see why the resources of Canadians should be sent around the world merely on a whim provoked by an event that happens to attract newspaper reports? How many other smaller events go unreported but are just as unjust?

You have an EXCELLENT point here. Close to 30,000 children die of poverty around the world every day. Let's start looking at the overall picture.

[eyeball]

Canada can squawk as loud as it wants - the other countries simply look fondly at us and think we are the addle headed country cousin....

...Thank the decades of darkness provided by those bastard libs and their weak kneed, socially re-engineered supporters. The same ones who today howl about lack of progress getting aid to Burma - yet they themselves are part of the reason we will not / could not go.

Why is it always the left's fault that Canada is a military weakling? Where were Canada's right-wingers when the 4th largest army in the world at the conclusion of the 2nd World War was dismantled and allowed to fall into ruin and despair?

Am I to believe that Canada's strong-kneed right-wingers just turned their backs on their responsibility to ensure Canada remained armed to the teeth so it could join the good fight against the evil communist hordes?

Or could it be that our right-wingers acquiesed, caved-in and submitted to our allies orders that we stand down? Is there any record of gnashing of teeth or wringing of hands amongst our allies when we turned our backs on them?

I am over 50 and I am - amoungst other things - a soldier. If you mean it, I can arrange to send you to basic within a couple of months. Start running and exercising tomorrow. Might do you some good. If you pass basic you can accompany me on yet another full year of fun in the sun starting this summer.

I cut about 100 cords of firewood a year so I'm probably not in too bad a shape. Unfortunately my knees are shot.

Edited May 15, 2008 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Why is it always the left's fault that Canada is a military weakling? Where were Canada's right-wingers when the 4th largest army in the world at the conclusion of the 2nd World War was dismantled and allowed to fall into ruin and despair?

Am I to believe that Canada's strong-kneed right-wingers just turned their backs on their responsibility to ensure Canada remained armed to the teeth so it could join the good fight against the evil communist hordes?

Or could it be that our right-wingers acquiesed, caved-in and submitted to our allies orders that we stand down? Is there any record of gnashing of teeth or wringing of hands amongst our allies when we turned our backs on them?

I cut about 100 cords of firewood a year so I'm probably not in too bad a shape. Unfortunately my knees are shot.

Well, if you consider that since WWII the Liberals were in power for all but a few years with Dief and then Mulroney, who ELSE could you blame???

It was Paul Hellyer under Pearson who unified and then downsized the forces, decimating morale and pride. What Trudeau did is common knowledge. Chretien will never be high on the Armed Forces Hit Parade. Or Martin either, for that matter.

Except for Dief's idiot move to cancel and scrap the Avro Arrow, pretty well ALL the military cuts were from Liberal governments!

The right-wingers never really got much opportunity to 'cave'. Why should they have to share the blame?

[myata]

Right. Build a 4th largest military in the world and send it into overseas adventures. Just the one really necessary project we can't do without.