Part-Time Pundit

Coalition for Darfur: A Meaningless Pledge

From Coalition for Darfur.

——–

Some are hailing
the inclusion of language regarding a “responsibility to protect” in
the draft declaration on UN reform to be discussed during the three-day
summit being held in New York.

The “Responsibility to Protect” is, according to the seminal report on the topic

[T]he
idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own
citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling
or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader
community of states.

The report, and the idea, were
generated by the international community’s ignominious failure to
intervene in situations such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The thinking
was that it was necessary to shift the debate away from a “right to
intervene,” which carries serious implications for the cherished idea
of national sovereignty, and toward a “responsibility to protect” those
people in danger.

After much debate, compromise and rewriting, the final text included in the draft declaration came out looking like this

The
international community, through the United Nations, also has the
responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other
peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter,
to help 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 UN 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 manifestly failing to protect their populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue
consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and
its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the
United Nations and international law. We also intend to commit
ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states build capacity
to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assist those which are
under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

Nowhere
has the Security Council or the UN member states actually pledged to do
anything. This section carries no legal obligations; rather, it merely
reiterates that the UN has a responsibility “to help protect
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity,” which is something they already an obligation to
prevent under the Genocide Convention.

Note
also that it doesn’t say that the UN has a “responsibility to protect”
but rather a “responsibility … to help protect” those at risk. That
is a big difference.

As such, it is a little difficult to share Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin’s excitement

But
a Canadian-inspired initiative highlighting the world’s responsibility
to protect threatened people and prevent genocides is a clear move
forward, Martin said.

The doctrine “essentially says that if
Rwanda occurred today that the United Nations would act,” he said,
referring to the genocide that took an estimated 800,000 lives in the
African country in the mid-1990s.

Considering that there
is “another Rwanda” currently taking place in Darfur, why are we to
expect that suddenly the UN is going to take seriously its
“responsibility to protect”? Has the UN failed to act thus far solely
because it lacked this one resolution? The UN has resisted acting on
Darfur for two years and there is absolutely no reason to believe that
this recognition of a theoretical “responsibility to protect” will have
any impact on the legal or political concerns that have thus far
prevented action.

If the UN and its members truly believed in
the “responsibility to protect,” they would be protecting the people of
Darfur, not writing resolutions vaguely promising to act when
Darfur-like situations arise in the future.

September 14th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics, Sudan, United Nations | 2 comments

The Unconstitutional Pledge: Redux

A federal judge in San Francisco today has ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The ruling flies in the face of the recent Newdow v Common Sense ruling in 2003 that says there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom. There is also nothing illegal about people such as Newdow lobbying their federal legislators to change the law, but that takes too much time. The court that ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional was also the same court that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in the Neadow case.

updates as I get them

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

It’s unclear why Judge Karlton believes he’s bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court as wrong. Newdow has brought the case that he lost again to the courts, this time representing some atheist families and their children. While Karlton has narrowed the case to recitation of the Pledge instead of the constitutionality of the pledge itself, he made it clear that “There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country”.

The Supreme Court case in 2003 focused solely on Newdow’s ability to sue on behalf of a child he does not see and does not have custody of. This case remedies the problem by Newdow fishing out a few families to represent instead and present the same arguments laying the way for the Supreme Court to actually decide the issue this time.

=============
Judge Karlton can be contacted at:
Karlton, Lawrence K.
Hinkle, Tim, Secretary, 916-930-4130, Fax: 916-491-3905
Rivas, Ana, CRD, 916-930-4133, Fax: 916-491-3934

Others talking about this:
OTB, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, ABP, others…

September 14th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Law / Legal Issues, National, Politics, Religion | 7 comments

DI Letters to the Editor

I got two DI letters to my last column. Neither address the fact that it was, in fact, Mayor Nagin who left 500 buses to get destroyed instead of evacuating his people.

Blaming all the Wrongs

What does this have to do with anything? Nothing.

Stop the Namecalling

Jason, a history major, has never read anything that has filled him with such anger as when I call someone who is a communist a commie. I got a good laugh at least.

September 14th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | DailyIllini, Hurricane Katrina | 2 comments

Fiscal Conservativism: 1994-2005 R.I.P.

Today Tom Delay announced that Fiscal Conservativism and Limited Government has died.

In proclaiming a new era of government waste at the hands of legislators, Tom DeLay, a key figure in the Republican Revolution in 1994, has made clear that corruption will trump principle in the GOP.

September 14th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | National, Politics, Satire | one comment