Military Review

Libya and the Soros Doctrine (“FrontPageMagazine.com”, USA)

0
Libya and the Soros Doctrine (“FrontPageMagazine.com”, USA)The UN Security Council's 1973 resolution, which allows the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya and the protection of civilians with all necessary means, is the culmination of a decade-long struggle to radically enhance the UN’s ability to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state through the use of the Responsibility to Protect R2P). Not surprisingly, behind this initiative are some of the usual suspects: Adviser to the National Security Council Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Their call to prevent human rights violations through military intervention masks the program to drastically change the concept of state sovereignty and allow the United Nations to essentially absorb American forces.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the doctrine is clearly formulated in the 2008 memorandum of the year created by the Heritage Foundation on the “Duty to Protect” doctrine: “The R2P would effectively cede US state sovereignty and decision-making power over key components of national security and external politicians and subject them to the whims of the international community. ” What we see today is unfolding in Libya can be a very good precedent for this doctrine: the United Nations “borrowed” the American armed forces to implement the idea of ​​the “duty to protect” from Gaddafi. And then another question is a matter of deep concern: can the UN also “borrow” American and other Western armed forces in the future to impose its will on member states that it feels do not correspond to the vague idea of ​​the UN on state responsibilities?

Before we explore the components of this potentially catastrophic scenario, we need to remember a little bit. history. The Doctrine of Duty to Protect, which is deliberately vague and unclear, is not new. The fact that Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland was justified by “humanitarian reasons”. Hitler's propaganda machine created an atmosphere of mass hysteria in Germany, falsely accusing Czechoslovakia of atrocities against ethnic Germans. Hitler negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the grounds that he was going to intervene, only to save lives. Chamberlain may not have bought into Hitler’s lies, but, nevertheless, Munich took place.

For the next 50 years, the doctrine was applied sporadically, because military intervention of any kind during the Cold War risked causing a nuclear confrontation. Although, for example, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Moscow as a “humanitarian” action. There were several other cases.

As soon as the Soviet Union disappeared, there were a lot of situations in 1990 that stimulated debate in the UN on the possibility of using humanitarian interventions to prevent governments from killing their own people. The special nature of such interventions gave a chance to people who wanted to introduce, codify UN interventions in international law. Most of these same people also recognize humanitarian intervention as a means of generally strengthening the role of the UN and weakening the sovereignty of countries.

The story of “Responsibility to Protect” confirms this. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was formed by the UN at the Millennium Summit in September of 2000 with the mandate to "promote a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between intervention and sovereignty in order to achieve global political agreement on how to move from polemics to action within the international system. ”

In December, 2001 of ICISS issued a report entitled “Duty to Protect,” which included “representations by special commissioners on intervention and state sovereignty and their recommendations for practical action.” The document was sent to the UN for discussion and approval.

In the UN, hot, heated debates broke out on the very concept of R2P (now the official name of “humanitarian intervention”), the dividing line was mainly between the industrialized West and the poor South. Former colonies saw in R2P only a legal excuse for the Western powers to invade them, while the West, including the United States, considered R2P as powerful weaponto prevent another rwanda.

The ICISS was chaired by Gareth Evans, the former Australian Foreign Minister, whose thoughts in the report, and in particular on sovereignty, are detailed. Mr. Evans sought to turn the debate on sovereignty “upside down”, describing it [sovereignty] not as a state’s “right” to anything, but rather as their “responsibility” to protect people from serious risks. ”

What is this "responsibility" should be defined by the United Nations. Mr. Evans suggests a world in which sovereign states are not sovereign in the sense in which we understand this term. Indeed, Evans proposed nothing more than a completely new definition of sovereignty, as he calls it - “a new way to speak directly about sovereignty”. The starting point, he said, is that sovereignty “must now be defined not as“ control ”, as in the age-old tradition of Westphal, but, again and again, as“ responsibility ””.

Not "right." Not "control". In a pinch, Mr. Evans is willing to allow countries to maintain their borders for now, although this may also be under the threat of R2P. One can imagine the UN taking away from the USA the right to prevent millions of illegal immigrants from crossing our border: we have no "right" to prevent the hungry, desperate people from encroaching on a better life. Can our border policy violate the R2P doctrine? Indeed, such an argument has already been cited.

In 2004, Secretary General Kofi Annan created an ad hoc committee to review the results of ICISS activities and issue a report to the UN. The Committee on Threats, Issues and Changes (Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change) swallowed the “new” definition of sovereignty and recommended R2P to be adopted as a policy and law. Their report “A Safer World: Our Common Responsibility” recommended that it be the responsibility of “each state when it comes to people suffering from preventable disaster, massacres and violence, ethnic cleansing, forced exile and terror, and deliberate famine and epidemics ".

In other words, “responsibility” has evolved from the concept of 1990's (that this is the business of the world community or voluntary coalitions to intervene where necessary to protect the innocent), into a series of rules that the sovereign states themselves must satisfy the UN, or the hammer will fall on of them.

In direct violation of its own Charter, the UN has gathered to act as an arbiter of where sovereignty begins and ends, discarding the point of the Head of 51 on the “inherent right to self-defense”. The office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide makes it clear. The idea of ​​the sovereignty of an individual state is relegated to the background by a UN decision: “Sovereignty is no longer solely the protection of the state from outside interference; he is the responsibility of the state to be responsible for the well-being of its citizens. ”

Can R2P be used by the enemies of Israel to fight the Jewish state during its war of national survival against the Palestinians? This has already become a reality. Michael Rubin, writing in Commentary Contentions, reports that the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, Bulan Arns, said last week: “We would like the UN to adopt the same resolutions, and countries to take action on the incidents in Gaza Strip, Palestine and other areas. ”

Could this explain the surprising decision of the League of Arab States to allow R2P to intervene in Libya? Recall that the League of Arab States, the African Union and many other regional organizations in developing countries initially opposed the concept of R2P. Could the prospect of UN intervention in the Gaza Strip encourage the Arab League to support the Libyan adventure?

Even if this is not the case, rest assured that the next time Israel will be forced to defend itself by sending troops into the Gaza Strip and seizing the terrorists who attack it, the League will scream and demand an international response to the "atrocities." She will argue that Israel does not fulfill its "duty" to protect the Palestinians. Such an argument will convince many, especially those who are predisposed primarily to hate Israel. The US will then find itself in an unenviable position due to the fact that they will be forced to impose a veto on such action in the Security Council, exposing themselves to charges of hypocrisy.

Would we veto such a resolution? Given the influence of Samantha Power’s National Security Adviser on Obama, this is very doubtful. Power is an energetic defender of R2P; her book 2002, A Problem from Hell, impressed Obama so much that he invited Power to his Senate team as a foreign policy consultant. She also worked for a short time during the [presidential] company in his “think tank” on foreign policy.

She is also credited with influencing the president to accept R2P as part of his foreign policy. But her ideas about Israel should concern us most. She has a long track record of antipathy towards the Jewish state. In the attracted wide attention and meticulously prepared interview with the Berkeley Institute for International Studies, Power said that “the gigantic power of protection” through “external intervention”, where “needed”, settles relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Her somewhat confused and convoluted statement about the conflict, however, clearly accused Israel of violating human rights, which guaranteed intervention (R2P) in the same way that the Rwanda genocide did.

Such an action “could mean distancing domestic recipients of tremendous political and financial support” and would entail redirecting the billions that the US spends on “serving” the Israeli armed forces, on “investments” into a Palestinian state. It is clear that Power is the man who would readily apply the R2P doctrine to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But her anti-Israeli stance is so obvious that any person would have shuddered just by imagining for a second how it would look in reality.

The advocates of the R2P doctrine include numerous NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that promote it for ideological reasons and also because of UN grants and funding. The International Coalition for the “Duty to Protect” brings together many of these nongovernmental organizations under one umbrella, where they can be more effective in lobbying their interests in the UN and shaking the international money tree. In the list of participants - "Who's Who of internationalists", "Who's Who of worlders" and the left "Utopians", including "Oxfam", "Citizens for Global Solutions", "International Crisis Group", "World Federalist Movement", "Human Rights Watch "and the Stanley Foundation.

What all these groups have in common is a common desire to destroy or significantly reduce the sovereignty of countries. And also - their chief financier and inspirer, George Soros, and his "Open Society Institute", towering over all of them.

There is very little doubt that Soros long ago realized the power that a broad international movement represents and which could bring his dream of a radical change in the boundaries of state sovereignty closer, thus allowing it to establish itself in the new economic and financial system. He calls himself a “stateless statesman”, which is an excellent description of the world in which he wants us to live.

In addition to being the main investor of the Global Center for the Duty to Protect, the Open Society Institute also provides significant support to other NGOs that are part of the R2P coalition, including the International Crisis Group (ICG) and Human Rights Watch ".

You do not need to connect too many points to detect the influence of Soros on the Obama administration. Samantha Power worked on the ICG (International Crisis Group) executive committee with Soros until she left for the UN in 2009. And several members of the Obama foreign policy team used to work at the Center for American Progress, a think tank sponsored by Soros.

The future of R2P is today. The situation in the small African country of Côte d'Ivoire is developing uncontrollably towards a civil war with great potential for atrocities and mass casualties among the civilian population. Several countries, including the African Union and non-governmental organizations involved in the R2P “movement”, have already called for military intervention, and the UN has expressed its “concern” about the deteriorating situation.

Meanwhile, Bashar Asad is killing demonstrators on the streets of Syria, and the world is doing nothing. Clearly, R2P needs to be fine tuned. ICISS and the UN group on R2P promote the concept of “thresholds” that must be crossed before any actions are considered, but the UN should already accept some clear rules on intervention.

Until this is done, the Security Council will roam in the dark, tangled and hesitating in its actions. But the real danger will appear if they ever get together to act all together and begin to seriously interfere in all the world's hot spots. This broad mandate of R2P, which includes [protection against] “hunger and disease” as a duty of member states, extremely expands the list of countries to which intervention can be conducted. And for supporters of R2P this is not an accident.
Author:
Originator:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/28/libya-a...tm_medium=email"rel =" nofollow ">http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/28/libya-a...tm_medium=email
Add a comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.