R2P (Responsibility to Protect)

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    R2P as defined in Wikipedia:

    The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[1][2]

    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.[3][4][5] 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.[6][7]

    I would argue the United States has bypassed the spirit of the concept R2P and used it for geopolitical purposes at the expense of the regions in question.

    1. The first example would be the break up of Yugoslavia where ethnic cleansing was cited as the reason for intervention. In this case, there were serious crimes being committed, however the US and NATO introduced depleted uranium into the conflict which will contaminate areas for eternity, bombed hundreds of communities, destroyed infrastructure, and augmented (knowingly or unknowingly) the training of radical Muslims which would later use this training to fight wars in Chechnya and later in the Middle East.

    2. The destruction of Libya was justified using R2P as a pretext to bomb the country into the stone age and implement regime change. The reason given for the intervention was that Ghaddafi was killing his own people and committing genocide. The truth of the matter is that outside forces (the Saudis, Quatar, and the CIA) were funding dissension within Libya, importing armaments, and also supplying foreign fighters. When Ghadaffi moved to put down the rebellion he was accused of genocide and mass slaughter of his own people. NATO, under the leadership of France and cheer-leading of Hillary Clinton proceeded to destroy the infrastructure of the country which unleashed a wave of refugees fleeing the country and created a haven for ISIS which fueled ongoing crises in sub-Saharan Africa. In light of the objective of R2P, to protect the civilian population, the intervention accomplished precisely the opposite. Law and order broke down, the country became a failed state, hundreds of thousands fled to Europe, and terrorism gained a stronger foothold.

    3. The pattern was repeated in Syria. Over several years, NGOs and foreign funded dissenters worked to create a movement to remove Assad and overturn the government. The protests grew violent and the press put the blame on the government. Just as with Libya, the US and its Gulf Allies supplied armament, training, and funding to Muslim groups in order to overthrow the government under the pretext of R2P. Just as in Libya, much of the infrastructure was destroyed, tens of thousands of civilians were killed, and tens of thousands more fled the country. Only the intervention of Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran saved the government from being overthrown and allowed Syria to remain a sovereign state. R2P was once again shown to be a disaster for the people intended to be helped, and the narrative justifying the intervention was disingenuous and based on deception of the global public.

    In another thread (Putin Interviews) my man Joe Fan posted the following image.

    [​IMG]

    I find it ironic that the intent is to satirize the Russians for not respecting territorial integrity in light of the three instances of the US doing just that, as summarized above. Obviously the graphic is alluding to the annexation of Crimea when it satirizes Russia's respect for neighbors territorial integrity. This is actually Orwellian when you think about it.

    Following the coup at Maidan, immediately the new power structure attempted to promote laws such as prohibiting the Russian language, and similar restrictions which threatened the Russian population living in Crimea and the Eastern part of Ukraine. Fearing reprisal, Crimea collaborated with the Russians to protect the population and to evict elements of the new pro-Ukrainian regime from the peninsula. The Russians intervened successfully without bloodshed and without destruction of infrastructure, or a massive flow of refugees out of Crimea. In other words, what the US press and government has wrongly identified as a Russian invasion was simply the appropriate execution of R2P.

    However the pot continues to call the kettle black, the support for the Saudi war crimes against Yemen continues, and the American population, to the extent they pay any attention at all, continue to blame Russia for the crimes actually committed by the US government.​
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And the common theme shows up again. The US sucks, and Putin is great.
     
  3. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Let's state it like this.

    The US is a great country currently in decline as a result of internal rot and corruption that increasingly does not respect the rule of law.

    Russia is a not so great country currently on the rise as a result of a leaders efforts to reform the corruption and establish rule of law.
     
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    By what objective standards (meaning numbers) are the US on the decline and Russia on the rise?
     
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Debt/GDP would be one objective standard.
    Increasing wealth disparity would be another objective standard.

    A subjective standard would be the polarity and division within the country. And while this is subjective and can be defined in many ways, a lot of people (me included) believe the division is becoming nastier and will eventually cause major problems.

    Another subjective standard (that could be objective if you want to bring out the spiraling rates of medical inflation and increasing obesity, diabetes, etc.) would be the health care system and general health of the nation. Russia has been at the bottom of the curve in terms of life expectancy, child mortality rate, etc., but has now turned the corner. The US appear to have peaked. Have you been to a Walmart lately and taken in the population?
     
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Debt/GDP is a significant statistic, but it's not a perfect picture of a nation's financial condition. For example, Switzerland has a higher debt/GDP ratio than Liberia does, but few would argue that Liberia has a more promising future. There's more to it. Furthermore, as high as our debt/GDP ratio is, it has been higher in the past. Specifically, it was higher in 1946, and few would say we were on the decline at that time.

    The point is that though a high debt/GDP figure is never a good thing, it can be greatly mitigated by having a strong economic outlook and an economy that's conducive to growth, as ours is. For example, Russia has a significantly lower debt/GDP than the US has, but if that was such a critical factor, then creditors would be flocking to loan Russia money, which would make their credit rating higher. It's not. It's lower by quite a bit. People don't trust their economy to grow like they trust the US economy to grow, and as sleazy as our grovernment is, most think theirs is sleazier.

    I think that matters a lot more when the poor are destitute. Ours are not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    You've made some good points, but the differing contexts lead to multiple interpretations.

    Regarding the US high debt/GDP following WWII, the US emerged as the lone industrial power. As a result, we dominated exports and quickly amassed the majority of the world's gold supply. The economy experienced a growth rate in double figures. Today, we are the worlds greatest importer, face competitors with low costs, and are growing somewhere around 1%, and that's only if you believe he stated rate of inflation.

    The other point about our poor having much higher living standards than the more destitute poor in countries like Russia. The truth is our poor do enjoy a higher standard of living, but in fact they are less self sufficient, Russian poor may have meager shelter (apartments, houses) and less amenities, but they also tend to grow a portion of their own food and do not have to rent. They often own their shanty. In the US, the better living standards of the poor are completely due to state subsidies. Should the subsidies end, there is absolutely nothing to fall back on. These people instantly become homeless and without the means to feed themselves.

    As long as the system can continue to pile up the debt to keep everything running, none of this matters. But if debt has limits, there is a lot of downward space to fall.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I didn't bring up 1946 to suggest we're in a similar position. We clearly aren't. However, the point is that debt/GDP doesn't trump everything. There are other factors that are far more important.

    If your poor live in bad conditions, they're more likely to cause civil unrest, even if they can grow a few potatoes and own the cardboard box they live in. More importantly, the American poor live in a relatively free and diverse economy. That means they have upward mobility, and though it doesn't happen enough, many American poor can and do leave poverty. That's big.

    Debt always has its limits, but a country that has strong economic fundamentals can fix its debt problem much easier than one that doesn't. That's why the US has a higher credit rating and can borrow at lower costs than Russia can. You ignored that point, but it's pretty important. If Russia was "on the rise," then the financial experts who set the demand for government bonds would be lining up to buy Russian bonds and walking away from US bonds. That's not happening.
     
  9. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Point one, Debt/GDP is a factor. When it gets too high, governments choose to resort to extreme intervention as we've seen in Japan, the ECB, and the Fed in their insane monetary policy. It's an experiment in progress and appears there is no ending of expansion of central bank balance sheets. We'll have to wait to see how it turns out.

    Point two, I can't cite where I saw it, but recent studies show upward mobility in the US isn't what it used to be. In fact, it's quite low now compared with other developed countries. Whether this is due to escalating costs of education or other factors I can't say. As far as the extreme poor being likely to cause civil unrest, that is a factor once the standard of living they are accustomed to deteriorates. In the case of Russia, it can be blamed on Western sanctions and thus, buy time. In the US, it's the middle class currently seeing the standard of living drop. If subsidies ever go away or get reduced (SS benefits, Medicare/Medicaid, for stamps, etc.) the US would be in trouble. I can see this happening at some point.

    One of the reasons the US can borrow more easily is because the dollar long ago became the reserve currency and the US largely controls global lending systems such as the IMF and World Bank. As the Russians, Chinese, and Asian nations attempt to create their own lending systems, the probability of conflict increases. That's happening now.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017

Share This Page