[R-G] The Right of Might

[Anthony Fenton]

The Right of Might
2008/05/16
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56155

WASHINGTON/BERLIN/YANGON(Own report) - A military intervention in  
Myanmar is supposed to help create a precedence for an  
institutionalized right to armed interventions in other countries.  
This is demanded by Western pressure groups supported by prominent  
German politicians. They are calling for the application of the  
"Responsibility to Protect", (R2P) concept that began appearing in  
Western documents in 2001, and was discussed for years in the UN - in  
spite of the resistance put up by states opposing Western hegemony.  
Disregarding their opinion, the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon has  
appointed an "R2P" special advisor to promote the institutionalization  
of this right of intervention. It justifies using military means in  
cases ambiguously defined as "crimes against humanity." It is  
currently alleged that this crime is being committed, if, in the  
aftermath of a natural disaster, a government refuses to allow all of  
the offered relief personnel into its country. It is not necessary to  
have the authorization of the UN Security Council. De facto, this  
right of intervention can only be applied by the major Western nations  
with powerful armed forces. An influential German officer assisted in  
the elaboration of their concept. He also declared recently that  
nuclear first-strikes were admissible.

"R2P"

"R2P" is a concept that Western governments have been trying to  
institutionalize for years. It is centered around the basic assumption  
that each state has a responsibility to protect its citizenry  
("Responsibility to Protect"). As "R2P" proponents argue, the  
fulfillment of this duty could be imposed from abroad through economic  
and political pressure, but above all with military means.  
Controversial is whether or not the UN Security Council must agree to  
the intervention. Leading "R2P" proponents argue this is not the case. 
1 Also unclear is what kind of violation of a government's duty to  
protect warrants armed operations. Categories usually mentioned are  
genocide, war crimes, racist motivated mass murder and "crimes against  
humanity". Particularly the term "crimes against humanity" is open to  
interpretation and considerably lowers the threshold to intervention.  
Proponents of the "R2P" concept claim that national sovereignty must  
therefore be scaled back.

Commission Report

Since 2000, the "R2P" concept has been systematically gaining  
prominence. In August 2000 the Canadian government set up the  
"International Commission on Intervention and State  
Sovereignty," (ICISS) that studied the question for about a year. The  
commission's work culminated in a report, which has laid the basis for  
discussions and was transmitted to the UN General Secretary in late  
2001. The commission, which also included hand-picked members from non- 
Western countries, was mainly financed by Canada and the USA.2 One of  
the commission members was the German general Klaus Naumann, formerly  
the Inspector General of the German Bundeswehr. Naumann is also co- 
author of a recently published study, that proposes a new Western  
military strategy. This study has drawn attention around the world,  
because its authors explicitly declare that a nuclear first strike is  
permissible.3

Special Advisor

Ever since the public introduction of "R2P" through the Canadian  
paper, Western politicians have been seeking to have it anchored as a  
basis of UN policy. They are having success, in spite of the  
resistance of numerous nations defying Western hegemony, including the  
Peoples Republic of China and Venezuela. At the United Nations Summit  
in September 2005, 150 nations approved a declaration containing "R2P"  
formulations.4 Following a heated dispute, UN General Secretary Ban Ki- 
moon has appointed a "special advisor", whose job is to promote "R2P"  
as a basis of UN policy. The advisor, a US citizen, is seeking to  
impose this concept and has already reached agreements with the German  
Foreign Ministry.5

Natural Disasters

The most recent offensive, using the pretext of the natural disaster  
in Myanmar, demonstrates the extent of the "R2P" proponents' plans.  
The local military government has for years felt under attack from the  
West, and for the past few months been confronted with threats of US  
air strikes, which is why it is not willing to unconditionally open up  
its territory to Western relief personnel, including soldiers.6 The  
"International Crisis Group" (ICG) says this refusal by the Myanmarian  
government could be considered a "crime against humanity" and - in  
accordance with "R2P" - trigger a military attack.7 In fact the  
Canadian "R2P" basic principles paper provides for "overwhelming  
natural or environmental catastrophes" as possible triggers for  
foreign intervention.8

Government Advisors

These ICG findings are not so amazing. After all Gareth Evans is the  
ICG chairman, a leading proponent of "R2P," who, as co-chairman of the  
Canadian commission, played a leading role in the elaboration of the  
"R2P" basic principles paper. The ICG, one of the most influential  
organizations of global government advisors, has for years been  
campaigning in favor of "R2P." Among its members are influential  
personalities from various Western nations, such as the US financier  
George Soros and the expert Zbigniew Brzezinski and German  
politicians. Also with ICG membership are the former German Foreign  
Minister, Josef Fischer (Green Party), on the senior advisory board is  
Volker Ruehe (CDU) and Uta Zapf (SPD). According to its own  
indications, the German Foreign Ministry is one of its financiers.

Inter-Party Consensus

Several government ministers have already declared their accord with a  
military intervention against Myanmar and thereby signaled their  
agreement with a liberal interpretation of "R2P." In Berlin this  
interpretation finds inter-party consensus. Even in the "Left Party" -  
which is critical toward the Bundeswehr - a prominent parliamentarian  
is in favor of an intervention in Myanmar. "One goes in with the  
military and distributes the relief supplies. And if the local  
military gets in the way, one takes measures to be able to continue to  
distribute the supplies."9 Relief organizations, such as the UN Office  
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), are urgently  
warning against this approach, because in addition to the fatal  
consequences of a natural disaster, it would provoke armed conflicts -  
at the expense of the civilian population, whose suffering is  
allegedly supposed to be relieved.

Disparate Rights

If "R2P" is institutionalized, this would mean that the right of might  
will be formalized as the valid norm in global relations. The certain  
amount of protection afforded by the principle of sovereignty to  
weaker nations - in force in international relations since the 17th  
Century - would now be defunct. The major powers would only have to  
choose a pretext, to accuse an annoying government of "crimes against  
humanity," to justify military operations. The inappropriate handling  
of a natural disaster could possibly be grounds enough. The thought  
that "R2P" will be implemented against major powers because of the  
growing human rights organizations' protests, can be excluded and the  
thought that weaker nations would be entitled to the same rights and  
could militarily intervene in Europe or the USA is absurd.

1 The Responsibility to Protect; www.crisisgroup.org
2 Neben US-Stiftungen und dem kanadischen Staat trugen die Regierungen  
Großbritanniens und der Schweiz kleinere Beträge bei. Der Bericht ist  
unter dem Titel "The Responsibility to Protect" erschienen und unter www.iciss.ca 
  abrufbar.
3 see also The Grand Strategy
4 "Art. 139. The international community, through the United Nations,  
also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic,  
humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI  
and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide,  
war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this  
context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and  
decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the  
Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in  
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate,  
should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are  
manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war  
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." World Summit  
Outcome Document, September 2005
5 "The Responsibility to Protect". Podium Globale Fragen mit Prof.  
Edward C. Luck am 26.02.2008 im Auswärtigen Amt in Berlin; www.auswaertiges-amt.de
6 see also Overt or Covert
7 Gareth Evans: Facing Up to Our Responsibilities; The Guardian  
12.05.2008
8 The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International  
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001; www.iciss.ca
9 Die Linke: "Da muss man militärisch eingreifen"; Tagesspiegel  
13.05.2008

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56155