If RPT was established prior to 1989

If RTP, aka Responsibility to Protect, is officially established in 1987, do you guys think the international community will conduct RTP towards Beijing in 1989?

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

If RTP, aka Responsibility to Protect, is officially established in 1987, do you guys think the international community will conduct RTP towards Beijing in 1989?

Too political and too sensitive for this such HARMONIOUS forum.

On a side note, personally speaking, I don't think so. Even between 60s-80s, despite being relatively weak, China was still a major power. It's not easy to mess with a lion, even if it was ill. There's an old Chinese proverb, a camel died of anorexia is still bigger than a horse. China is not Iraq or Vietnam. It takes a lot of gut to physically attack a country like China, even for a country as mighty as the United States.

Russia during the Georgian conflict would be a great example. As crippled and as incompetent as Russia currently seems to be; even with rusted tanks and semi-flyable jets, it could still easily annihilate Georgia within days.

Just because the tiger is sick, doesn't mean you could treat it as hello kitty.

Originally Posted by CottageLV

Too political and too sensitive for this such HARMONIOUS forum.

On a side note, personally speaking, I don't think so. Even between 60s-80s, despite being relatively weak, China was still a major power. It's not easy to mess with a lion, even if it was ill. There's an old Chinese proverb, a camel died of anorexia is still bigger than a horse. China is not Iraq or Vietnam. It takes a lot of gut to physically attack a country like China, even for a country as mighty as the United States.

Russia during the Georgian conflict would be a great example. As crippled and as incompetent as Russia currently seems to be; even with rusted tanks and semi-flyable jets, it could still easily annihilate Georgia within days.

Just because the tiger is sick, doesn't mean you could treat it as hello kitty.

Thanks for the reminder. I asked because I'm minoring in IR and we're talking about RTP last week, so the entire intention of the topic is more on academic exploratory.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about RTP:

The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging norm, or set of principles, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.[1] RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of, Mass Atrocity Crimes.[2] The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars".

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

That sounds like a load of bull.

First of all, the 3 "pillars" have no historical evidence what so ever of being effective. Iraq is the prime example: is it better off before or after the American invasion? As for economic sanctions, when has it ever been able to change a nation's political system?

Secondly, who determines whether intervention is necessary? Do Palestinians count as Israel's responsibility? Why intervene in Libya and not Bharain? Why can Canada get away with letting First Nation communities live in 3rd-world conditions?

The two great questions of modern Geopolitical Strategy are:

1) Do we have the power and muscle to actually get away with doing this?
2) Do we have a good story to use to justify it?

Guess where RTP sits in this process?

Originally Posted by solarz

Here's what wikipedia has to say about RTP:



That sounds like a load of bull.

First of all, the 3 "pillars" have no historical evidence what so ever of being effective. Iraq is the prime example: is it better off before or after the American invasion? As for economic sanctions, when has it ever been able to change a nation's political system?

Secondly, who determines whether intervention is necessary? Do Palestinians count as Israel's responsibility? Why intervene in Libya and not Bharain? Why can Canada get away with letting First Nation communities live in 3rd-world conditions?

Actually if according to the criteria, RTP may not be applicable to Iraq because it's not considered/falls under RTP. This was a question I brought up to my TA, and I asked it on the premise of Wars of Aggression, which she said belongs to something else the UN has defined. Regardless, the UN wasn't particularly effective on that neither, but it does really make me wonder if RTP had been established, would any of the Western states actually act out.

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

Originally Posted by SampanViking

The two great questions of modern Geopolitical Strategy are:

1) Do we have the power and muscle to actually get away with doing this?
2) Do we have a good story to use to justify it?

Guess where RTP sits in this process?

RTP have to meet 6 criteria, which were:

Just Cause
As laid out in Part (1) of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis or paragraph 4.19 of R2P, two broad sets of circumstances satisfies the "Just Cause" or "Threshold Criteria":
a. Large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or
b. Large scale "ethnic cleansing," actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
Right Intention
Part (2)A of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis of R2P says:
The primary purpose of the intervention, whatever other motives intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. Right intention is better assured with multilateral operations, clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims concerned.
Last Resort
Part (2)B of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis of R2P says:
Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for the
prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored with reasonable
grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.
Proportional Means
Part (2)C of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis of R2P says:
The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective.
Reasonable Prospects
Part (2)D of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis of R2P says:
There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering
which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to
be worse than the consequences of inaction.
Right Authority
As discussed in Part (3) of the Principles for Military Intervention Synopsis or Chapter 6 of R2P, there is no better or more appropriate body than the United Nations Security Council to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes. R2P argues that the international community should make the Security Council work better than finding alternate sources of authority.

Responsibility to Protect | STAND
In here, it won't be hard for 1989 to meet all except the 5th criteria.

Why I also brought this up is because RTP in Libya last year, which was taken up by NATO, acted on the concerns of Gaddafi troops surrounding a city and they deemed mass killings as imminent. Also coupled with Gaddafi's overt verbal announcements of killing all rebels, all 6 criteria were thus defined as evident, met, and warranted a response. Once again, it is a very Constructivist definition, which we also argued as a weakness of RTP, as what can be considered as "signs" and meeting criteria of RTP are very subjective.

Nonetheless, what Libya was, almost stark a striking resemblance with 1989, and definitely the footage of tanks rolling into the Square would've massively led to emergency UNSC meeting warning Beijing, although whether UNSC that time will declare a humanitarian crisis, need for "humanitarian intervention", and then calling RTP is what I'm asking now.

@airsuperiority, Britain, China, France, the US, and Russia, can do anything they want, without incurring any sanction at all from the Security Council. The inequality inherent in this setup was denounced a couple of years ago by guess who: Ghaddafi!

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Why I also brought this up is because RTP in Libya last year, which was taken up by NATO, acted on the concerns of Gaddafi troops surrounding a city and they deemed mass killings as imminent. Also coupled with Gaddafi's overt verbal announcements of killing all rebels, all 6 criteria were thus defined as evident, met, and warranted a response. Once again, it is a very Constructivist definition, which we also argued as a weakness of RTP, as what can be considered as "signs" and meeting criteria of RTP are very subjective.

Not only subjective, but subject to manipulation and media distortions as well. Evidence of Rebel atrocities were covered up, while even rumors of Gaddafi atrocities were taken at face value. It's since been revealed that the claims of Gaddafi forces' "massacres and rapes" were massively exaggerated, if not outright fabricated. The so-called "African Mercenaries" that Gaddafi "unleashed on his own people" was nothing but a rumor.

Originally Posted by solarz

Why can Canada get away with letting First Nation communities live in 3rd-world conditions?

LOL, you clearly haven't been to the reserves, the houses are huge. They get paid to live simply because theyre native, living on other people's blood and sweat.

Originally Posted by CottageLV

LOL, you clearly haven't been to the reserves, the houses are huge. They get paid to live simply because theyre native, living on other people's blood and sweat.

I guess these things are made up then?

Locals disagree on who's to blame for Attawapiskat crisis - The Globe and Mail

Why First Nations struggle with some of the country's dirtiest water | This Magazine

First nations lament living conditions in ‘many Attawapiskats’ - The Globe and Mail

Third-world living conditions for First Nations should be election issue: Chief - Winnipeg Free Press

Social Challenges: The Well-being of Aboriginal People

TB another big threat to communities | Windspeaker - AMMSA: Aboriginal news, information and culture.

Originally Posted by Red Moon

@airsuperiority, Britain, China, France, the US, and Russia, can do anything they want, without incurring any sanction at all from the Security Council. The inequality inherent in this setup was denounced a couple of years ago by guess who: Ghaddafi!

Ghaddafi actually called out the powers that be a lot over the years, often making valid points that were just as often too ambitious for his abilities. It will probably be remembered as one of the dumbest moves of all time when he gave up his NBC weapons programs for promised increases in trade and investment from Western powers after both sides have drawn blood over the years. The first chance they had they immediately screwed him over, sucker!

---------- Post added at 03:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Why I also brought this up is because RTP in Libya last year, which was taken up by NATO, acted on the concerns of Gaddafi troops surrounding a city and they deemed mass killings as imminent. Also coupled with Gaddafi's overt verbal announcements of killing all rebels, all 6 criteria were thus defined as evident, met, and warranted a response. Once again, it is a very Constructivist definition, which we also argued as a weakness of RTP, as what can be considered as "signs" and meeting criteria of RTP are very subjective.

Nonetheless, what Libya was, almost stark a striking resemblance with 1989, and definitely the footage of tanks rolling into the Square would've massively led to emergency UNSC meeting warning Beijing, although whether UNSC that time will declare a humanitarian crisis, need for "humanitarian intervention", and then calling RTP is what I'm asking now.

Yeah RTP is subjective all right, anyone can use half-truths of any situation to justify intervention by whoever is capable of it against one side or another.

For example, the US invasion of Afghanistan meets all the requirements for RTP intervention against the US invasion. There is no way the US action caused less overall harm than inaction and clearly the US had intent to cause massive loss of life.

China in 1989 is nothing like Libya in 2011, for one the Chinese government didn't threaten to kill all who didn't disperse and most people did disperse. Chinese forces also didn't kill the majority of people who didn't disperse. More importantly nobody was going to militarily intervene in a country the size of China in terms of landmass and population, with significant military power including nuclear weapons.

It's drastic oversimplification to say there is video of tanks rolling in on both occasions so the situations are the same, it's also a perfect example of how sloppily a case can be made for RTP or intervention for one side or another.

If we're going to use examples from China, then RTP should have been used to protect Han Chinese from the Tibetans in the 2008 Tibet riots. Western coverage of those riots were mostly complete BS accusing Chinese of attacking Tibetans when it was actually the reverse.

RTP is likely to cost more lives and do more damage than a return to the Westphalian model of international relations.

Originally Posted by solarz

I guess these things are made up then?

Locals disagree on who's to blame for Attawapiskat crisis - The Globe and Mail

Why First Nations struggle with some of the country's dirtiest water | This Magazine

First nations lament living conditions in ‘many Attawapiskats’ - The Globe and Mail

Third-world living conditions for First Nations should be election issue: Chief - Winnipeg Free Press

Social Challenges: The Well-being of Aboriginal People

TB another big threat to communities | Windspeaker - AMMSA: Aboriginal news, information and culture.

I have personally witnessed many non-aboriginal people living in worse conditions, they just don't get the attention because they are not aboriginals.

Originally Posted by solarz

I guess these things are made up then?

Locals disagree on who's to blame for Attawapiskat crisis - The Globe and Mail

Why First Nations struggle with some of the country's dirtiest water | This Magazine

First nations lament living conditions in ‘many Attawapiskats’ - The Globe and Mail

Third-world living conditions for First Nations should be election issue: Chief - Winnipeg Free Press

Social Challenges: The Well-being of Aboriginal People

TB another big threat to communities | Windspeaker - AMMSA: Aboriginal news, information and culture.

LOL, why should we care? They're known for not working. Why should we pay tax to support them, when they're not working and just stay at home? Why should I pay tax so that their kids can go to university for free, even though my ancestors haven't killed any of them?

It's simple, they can get a job and get a better place. It's not our responsibility to feed them.

Plus, this would be a very rare case for reserves. I have been to a lot of reserves when I was doing door to door sales during the summer. I have not yet seen a house that wasn't as extravagant as a million dollar mansion.

Originally Posted by CottageLV

LOL, why should we care? They're known for not working. Why should we pay tax to support them, when they're not working and just stay at home? Why should I pay tax so that their kids can go to university for free, even though my ancestors haven't killed any of them?

It's simple, they can get a job and get a better place. It's not our responsibility to feed them.

Plus, this would be a very rare case for reserves. I have been to a lot of reserves when I was doing door to door sales during the summer. I have not yet seen a house that wasn't as extravagant as a million dollar mansion.

There's a common misconception that reserves are autonomous. That's not true.

Indian reserve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Indian Act gives the Minister of Indian Affairs the right to "determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used is for the use and benefit of the band." Title to land within the reserve may only be transferred to the band or to individual band members. Reserve lands may not be seized legally, nor is the personal property of a band or a band member living on a reserve subject to "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band" (section 89 (1) of the Indian Act). While the act was intended to protect the Indian holdings, the limitations make it difficult for the reserves and their residents to obtain financing for development and construction, or renovation. To answer this need, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has created an on-reserve housing loan program. Members of bands may enter into a trust agreement with CMHC, and lenders can receive loans to build or repair houses. In other programs, loans to residents of reserves are guaranteed by the federal government.

Provinces and municipalities may expropriate reserve land only if specifically authorized by a provincial or federal law. Few reserves have any economic advantages, such as resource revenues. The revenues of those reserves which do, are held in trust by the Minister of Indian Affairs. Reserve lands and the personal property of bands and resident band members are exempt from all forms of taxation except local taxation.

The Indian Act also creates a situation where the average aboriginal lives in a dictatorial community comparable to North Korea:

The problem is the Indian Act

Think about it this way: What if you, your neighbours and everyone else in your community had to rely on your municipal council for your income, your kids' education, your family's health care and housing? You had no independent income. What pay you received came through the local mayor and aldermen. You didn't own your own home. Where you lived and whether it was repaired or not was decided by council. You held your job at the pleasure of council, too, the same council that chose whether your children's university tuition and residence fees were paid for another year.

And because of the nature of Canada's political process, nobody is willing to change the status quo. All that happens is responsibility gets shuffled around while the troubled communities slip further under the cracks.