Watching the emergence of the New World Order / Globalisat Cabal; collating and commenting on news and articles from a non-institutional Christian perspective. Watching the end-time new world take shape.
So you really think the United Nations is a democratic body when a vote of 93% majority was dismissed by those that really run the organisation? Isn't it interesting that the progeny of Zionist founders of the UN are the power behind the throne that has dismissed a vote against Israel!
The United Nations is an occult body that wants world government in its hands, and the result will not be at all democratic. It will be draconian. The Bible has much to say about the Beast Kingdom, which is terrible in its persecution of those who stand in its way.
With the announcement this week from the US Government that UFOs have recently been sighted at close range by ships from their navy, and some historical sightings also confirmed, it's not long now before and official disclosure of 'alien' life, which is in fact no different from that recorded by ancient cultures and already present in earth (not from outer space) and having vehicles like UFOs and very advanced technologies. Isn't it interesting the official report from the US Navy cites the UFOs as 'splashing' - ie. entering the water; sometimes at speed which defines our understanding of physics. These creatures are the ilk of the Watchers, that is that are either other Fallen Angels not imprisoned with two hundred Watchers or they are Nephalim, hybrid creatures born of angelic beings and human women as recorded in the Bible and many other ancient records.
If there is a disclosure, you can bet your bottom dollar the United Nations will welcome them with open arms AND the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, will offer the baptise them as he has already stated. He is, as he's confessed, already watching for their coming with his telescope, named Lucifer.
Troops and military hardware are already in the USA in tens if thousands. What will the trigger be? Will it happen before Trump takes office in near days, or is Temp table am insider set up as an antithesis in a complex game of Hegelian Dialectic. I've said before I don't trust Temp, but I understand given the choice of him or Clinton, he's the clear winner. I just hope this Americas sake he's real and manages to hold is the NWO/UN forces that are minutes to midnight in their agenda to overthrow the USA.
https://youtu.be/CpjLbqdOk0Q
There's been a lot of noise in the USA about Russia lately. Hillary Clinton has been doing some real hard talk about retribution for Russia hacking the DNC and being subversive in the Middle East; particularly Syria. It's amazing how despite whistleblowers coming out one after the other, the USA government machine and NWO owned media seem able to bend the perspectives of the average American.
The referenced article quotes one of the early whistleblowers from inside the 'intelligence' establishment, saying the hacks to the Democratic National Congress servers were from inside the US intelligence community, not from Russia.
Sitting here in the comfort of country Victoria, Australia, I can only hope that the NWO/UN/Clinton camp gets derailed before they manage to drag the USA into a major war and finish the selling off of USA sovereignty to the UN & globalists. I have thought for years that Iraq may be the first country in the world effectively run by the UN, but recent events in the US such as masses of UN heavy vehicles coming in and suggestion the UN will have to supervise elections and maybe keep peace have got me wondering whether the USA might get there first.
"But that leaves them with Trump!" I hear you bemoan. Yeah, it may not seem a good alternative, but at least Trump is not ready to use the USA to ignite a global conflict. It's Hillary & Bill, the Bush family, Cheney and friends that make immense fortunes from war. Despite Trump's failings, there seems to be no personal incentive for him to either further sell off the USA or drag them into war.
Parking Officers were some months ago re-titled 'Civil Enforcement Officers' and being groomed as police. Private Security Officers have recently also between made "Accredited Persons" so they can take on a police role.
Why? Because war is coming. The Brits are planning for it now. How do the Brits know? Because it's been planned.
War has been planned!
Do you sometimes wonder with all the posturing and pontificating amongst world leaders, if there's something going on that we're just not going to hear about until it hits us?
Norman Dodds (one if a team of government investigators) investigated the 'Carnegie Endowment for International Peace', one of a plethora of not for profit institutions given to by the ultra wealthy and influential in the USA. He uncovered minutes of meetings back to early 1900s saying they planned to change American society using war. They instructed then president Woodrow Wilson to engage in the war and stay engaged until the social structure of the USA was indelibly changed, which it did.
World 2016. War is imminent.
We are at the same point again. Powers that be have planned another major war. It was in fact planned before the first and second world wars with a specific objective in mind. This time it's the war to end all wars, and yes, we've heard that before; but this is genuinely planned to be so. The first war was about removal of sovereignty. The second was to establish communism as a threat to Western democracy. The third has a flash point in the Middle East, reportedly Israel, and I've heard (said to be in the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion) pits Muslims against Western nations. This war is set to escalate onto a global conflict involving Europe, Russia, China, USA, England and the Commonwealth and if course Israel and the nation's of the Middle East. Pundits say we have witnessed the commencement of World War III already, and it will escalate from here on in.
The Goal is World Government
The goal of this war is to establish global government, removing national military forces and making all countries comply with a the Global Parliament I've recently written about. The mechanisms of global government are here. They've even had 'Provisional' sittings of the Global Parliament to get the workings good and ready (see http://watching-the-new-world-take-order.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/move-over-united-nations-world.html?m=1).
The only safe haven
The global elite are reportedly already in their safe places. For some, this means massive underground bunkers. I've Sweden a TV special about a bunker manufacturer and his luxurious and safe from the outside environment that's bunkers are, and it's amazing! Others are flying to a small group of countries said to be a safe haven. This definitely includes New Zealand and Australia. I think a few South Pacific nations are also on the list, as is South Africa. Why? Because we're on the southern hemisphere. Or half of the globe has much more water and less population. We are also largely insulated from any atmospheric fallout from incidents in three northern hemisphere as the hemispheres basically recycle their own air, with very little northern hemisphere air permeating to the southern hemisphere. That's good if nasty bombs are going off up north.
Do I feel safe?
Given I'm in Brisbane, Australia, I'm geographically removed from most of the world's trouble spots. If war erupts, it's possessible we'll see some direct conflict in northern Australia and just possibly down the Eastern Seaboard (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne). Darwin (Northern Territory) was bombed in WWII. Japanese subs came down as far as Brisbane on WWII too. So we're relatively safe, but not immune. However if the world teaching system collapses, we will see high unemployment and civil unrest here. They may role out police onto the streets. Government may already have our increasingly combat ready police trained up for more conflict, and times like the parking officer in England ready for civil unrest.
Again, Do I feel safe?
Not really. If this major war goes ahead, I believe it silk affect almost everyone, even in 'safe countries' adversely. My consolation is knowing the Hebrew scriptures prophesied much of what's going on when right now in the Middle East. Those same scriptures talk of Yehovah's love and care for his own. I'm not that much into church, but I sure am into the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the promised saviour 'Yeshua Mashiach' (which most Western Christians call Jesus Christ). I know my destiny. I'm able to pray and find shelter and rest for my soul in him. If you don't have that same assurance, it's time you picked up a Bible and asked him directly to meet with you. It will change your life. You will never be the same again.
By the way, these only relatively safe place I'm aware of in the northern hemisphere is Iceland. They have however tightened up heaps on immigration. They've tossed out corrupt global bankers and sent some residents back to countries of origin for being trouble makers. Iceland is socially very safe. It's aware of and careful in dealings with the NWO, it's geographically removed from Europe and it's a beautiful place. If you feel there nerf to moves you're family and Iceland gives you the cold shoulder, you could try New Zealand add their immigration seems easier to tackle than ours!
The UN has created an immense framework and capacity for world government, but it looks like the UN may be giving way to something bigger that has been lurking in wings. There are always multiple groups that look like a consensus, but eighty percent can usually be linked to the same powerful players behind the scenes.
Most of the governmental and public service pawns in various countries no doubt think this 'movement' is much more a grass roots, consensus driven renewal of the way humanity manages itself on a small planet (not bad for off the cuff wording, maybe I should work for them!), but digging into ideas or multi-faceted organic change movements frequently proves the manifold fronts are mostly a facade, and a singular set of hands and minds moves all the pieces, with the aim of it looking like a broad based movement with an altruistic agenda.
Please meet the following auspicious (or was that suspicious?) organisations:
The World Parliament: http://worldparliament-gov.org/about-the-wcpa/
The Earth Constitution: http://www.earth-constitution.org/
World Constitution and Parliament Association:
http://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/WCPA%20page.htm
The Earth Federation:
http://www.earthfederation.info/home.html
World Hellenic Inter - Parliamentary Association: http://www.whia.gr/central.aspx?sId=103I295I777I323I420684
Wow, so many official looking bodies, it must be a good thing, right?
What about our little Land Down Under, Australia?
Australia is part of this: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/International_Program/Delegations
Is it all talk, or if it happening?
It's happening alright! The14th Session of the Provisional World Government is evidenced in multiple sources:
More Information
This post, including sourcing the information came, as usual, from me following my nose through suspicious names and organisations. It Toulon under ninety minutes. More info can easily be found in search engines and is there for the taking. The NWO always publishes it's agenda as things get more solid.
Here's on link I found that may be of interest. Once you've digested there links I've provided, it works be good to add more URLs and provide more detail and commentary on this blog post.
Talks between Syrian factions at Geneva pushed by USA (30 Jan 2016)
Al Jazeera has reported on TV today that there will be talks (again) at Geneva between the Syrian Government and the ‘opposition’. The phrase ‘transition of government’ was mentioned.
Why, after putting in so much effort in a war in Syria, would the USA now want talks? It seems the USA had decided to engage in a war in Syria to help sort things out. So what’s really happening here?
FACT 1: There has been swathes of information coming to light that USA trained, and is supplying arms to IS. The USA may seem to be intent on killing off IS so ‘free elections’ can take place in Syria with the intent of replacing the current, problematic (for the USA) government, but killing a monster of its own making is unlikely.
FACT 2: IS has been selling oil from captured facilities via Turkey, where the President has been making a tidy dollar on sales (sort of like the oil invested politicians in the USA), so USA has an interest in having IS succeed.
FACT 3: The entry of Russia into the war has proved very embarrassing to the USA, because Russia has achieved in a week what the USA could not achieve in a year. That’s because Russia is genuinely intent on working with the elected Syrian government to bring IS to its knees and restore the rule of legitimate government.
FACT 4: The USA makes much noise about how bad the Syrian government is, and that it’s their humanitarian duty to effect ‘regime change’. If you’ve been keeping tabs on the large number of wars the USA has waged around the world, always in countries of geo-political or resource rich significance, you’ll probably be a bit sceptical about the ‘humanitarian duty’ spin by now. The USA acts in its own interest, which is actually the interest of the groups that really manage the government, being ultra-rich Jews and corporations.
FACT 5: We may not like the government, but it was elected, and the best chance Syria has of lasting peace is for they themselves to handle elections and install new government representative of the people.
FACT 6: Russia being on the ground in Syria has indelibly changed the game. I believe Russia has now set up a missile defence system which means it can control the air space tightly if needed. I. E. The USA is no longer the big player in Syria; Russia is .
FACT 7: Russia is getting more popular in the region. Other governments are looking at Russia favourably because they play more straightly than the USA. The USA has largely soiled itself as far as it's presence in the Middle East in concerned, and well known plans of the USA for regime change in a number of Middle Eastern countries have run amuck. Iraq is looking to Russia to help stabilise the nation, and is increasingly agitated with ‘help’ from the USA.
What’s an empire to do when a lesser empire enters the game an gains strategic advantage in a contested territory? I know, let's resort to DIPLOMACY! That’s exactly what we are seeing now. The USA can’t win the war the way it wants in Syria, looking like it has defeated IS and ousting the elected government so it can manipulate the future. The media machine that runs the USA is always ready to help with a new country so it can install itself and associated corporations there. Wars are waged on several levels: diplomatically, perceived warfare (like USA supposedly targeting IS), actual warfare (like Russia hitting IS), broadcast media and Internet, economically, with bribes and promises of wealth and power, and the list goes on. The USA has all of these in its arsenal, and having lost the ‘perceived war’, is now trying ‘diplomacy’.
Will the talks in Geneva achieve anything? I’m really not sure. It seems the Syrian Government is well aware of the USA’s devices, and doesn’t want any part of them; but it will probably have to consider the UN as part of its future. Maybe any involvement of the UN will be enough to pressure Assad to the negotiating table. Meanwhile Syria will continue to stabilise thanks to the Russians help.
I think a good part of the significance of these talks will be affected by the state of Syria when the parties actually make it to the table. If Syria continues to stabilise and the USA loses more of a foothold, then it may be that the existing government will regain full control with Russia as a resident helper. If not, then maybe the USA (which really represents the NWO / globalists in this case) will have a chance to manipulate Syria into a corner and gain what they want.
3pm Update: « It seems the Messiah people have been left out of the USA's last of parties for discussion of these matters, and is probable there will be no genuine process until they are invited a they effectively rule a band of northern Syria. »
Finally, this is all about Geo-Politics and resoucres. The globalists with USA and NATO behind them really want this region under their control. They have planned for regime change in the area for many years, and are quite determined to make it happen despite the hiccups. The big question remains: what will they try next if the situation in Syria stabilises, with Syria resisting the globalists and getting closer to Russia. My first guess is economic warfare. Sanctions / trade embargos. That’s been a big one for them. They’ve used it on Iran, Russian Cuba and a swathe of other countries.
We’re living in momentous times, and bible prophecy from thousands of years ago is coming alive before our eyes. I’m not going to speculate right now on this, but I’ll certainly be referencing the prophecies concerned if it gets any more obvious! Meanwhile, when you hear of wars and rumours of wars (like the USA fighting IS!!!), do what the bible says: “look up, for your redemption draws nigh”; which means the second coming of Jesus Christ is coming near, and we will see him as he arrives in the sky to sort out this mess.
Russia has apparently been negotiating for 18 years to join the WTO, which brings with it certain privileges. USA and NATO (major groups of countries behinf WTO) have wanted to deal with Syria, Iran and some others (even Pakistan) more directly, but have been hampered by lack of agreement with Russia and China.
Now Russia joins WTO and in the same breathm aligns with USA with a stronger statement regarding Syria. What comes to mind as I type regarding this?
What does China think about this, as they have a military pact with Russia
What will come next; Iran?
How will China respond if Russia aligns more with USA/NATO?
What will happen with Pakistan, which the CIA has long had on a hit list for regime change / breaking up into smaller states. How will China respond if Russia accepts this?
Russia has sent two nuclear-powered submarines to patrol Eastern Mediterranean waters around Cyprus and enforce the island's right to explore for undersea oil and gas in its territorial seas, according to information from Defencenet.gr, citing a Russian FM spokesman.
Alexander Lukashevich said that Russia supports Cyprus and guarantees its security if it is threatened: "Under the UN Convention on International Law, among 162 other signatory states, including Cyprus, each state has sovereign rights in its EEZ for exploring, exploiting and protecting both live and non-living natural resources, including water, the seabed and subsoil," said Lukashevich in comments made on August 19th and reported by Defencenet.gr (in Greek).
So far there has been no reaction from the foreign ministry on reports that Russian submarines will be sent to protect Cyprus from any potential military threat from Turkey. A telephone call to the foreign ministry for comment has not yet been returned. A telephone call to the press attache at the Russian Embassy in Nicosia has also not yet been returned. The submarines are due in early September and are being interpreted as a clear warning to Turkey to stay away from Noble Energy's drilling sites in Block 12. Noble is set to start exploring for undersea gas at the beginning of October along with Israeli energy company DELEK, which has reached an agreement with Noble Energy to share in its licensing deal with Cyprus, reported Globes.co.il.
Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis just wrapped up a visit to Israel to discuss undersea hydrocarbon exploration with President of Israel Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman. Israel and Cyprus' interests are closely aligned after the two countries signed an agreement delimiting their maritime borders in late 2010. The agreement also led to cooperation on undersea reserves exploitation and closer diplomatic relations, with Peres expected to visit Cyprus in the near future.
Turkey has also not yet commented on the development and is one of the countries which has not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, which has been in force since 1994. There are 162 countries that have ratified the Convention, including Cyprus and Greece.
On August 9th, Turkey renewed its veiled threats towards Cyprus on the issue of undersea gas and oil exploration, with a statement from its foreign ministry saying that "the Greek Cypriot Administration does not represent in law or in fact the Turkish Cypriots and Cyprus as a whole." Bilateral agreements between Cyprus, Lebanon and Israel are "unilateral actions" which could derail settlement talks, give rise to new conflicts and increase tensions in the region, according to the statement. "These unlawful acts create tension in the region, compromise and prejudge the Turkish Cypriots’ existing and inherent equal rights over the natural resources of the island," says Turkey's foreign ministry.
In response, recently-appointed foreign minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoulis said that the statements were 'posturing' from Turkey and that she would complain to the UN Security Council and the EU. And President Demetris Christofias called on the international community to end its silence on Turkey's threatening attitude to Cyprus.
Behind the scenes, the international community backs Cyprus on its oil exploration, according to US cables released by Wikileaks.ch. The government's plan to allow US companies like Noble Energy and others to drill in its Exclusive Economic Zone is well within its legal rights and Turkey does not have a "legal leg to stand on", says a 2007 confidential cable from the US Embassy in Nicosia.
Editors' introduction: The "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine is a diabolical bit of psychological wizardry; a conceptual Trojan Horse designed to advance the cause of global governance on a moral platform. The purpose of the doctrine is to legitimize and make legal wars of aggression against non-threatening nation-states. Strumming on emotional chords, a new music has been composed, helping power-hungry aggressors to gain entry into territories of otherwise reluctant sovereign states. Although every war in history has been accompanied by a multifaceted sales pitch--utilizing either fear, greed, ideology or religion; even appeals for a better world--the R2P war is now waged with the exclusive appeal to "help" the helpless; to "save" people's lives. It is a media war; a war for the hearts and minds.
If only these altruistic appeals could be considered trustworthy; if only the claims of 'genocide' could be verified. They are not. That the establishment media maintains for the public a near-total blackout pertaining to matters of substance, a platform is laid for these wars to continue. New legal norms are now being established without adequate knowledge, public participation or debate. The situation is so bizarre, in fact, that those opposing the current Libyan aggression have frequently and irresponsibly been painted as advocates of dictators or tyrants. This is modern democracy at its finest. Orwell himself wasn't so bold a visionary.
One notable aspect of the following article (transcribed from a 2002 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations' bi-monthy magazine,Foreign Affairs) is that it draws immediate attention to the amount of time that has been spent--largely in darkness--bringing this obscure globalist concept to fruition. Only this year, in 2011, did the world witness its first UN-sponsored R2P war (and many have yet to notice it still). In the article below, however, we see outlines of a 'Libyan operation' years in advance. In the article below we read of a blueprint that conveniently allows for a rush to judgment; one that's loaded with feigned compassion; that's full of gaping legal loopholes; and that prefers exclusivity of those empowered to decide and enforce its dictates. Especially we feel the outright hypocrisy of those individuals and governments that claim to advance freedom and democracy while bombing cities and murdering innocent men, women, and children.
This was written nine years ago, and the R2P trail goes back even further still. Who among us was aware? Who among us was asked what we thought? Whatever the case--regardless of our ignorance yesterday or today--regardless of our feelings of powerlessness or apathy--we are here, this is our lot, and we must make an effort to deal with it. The Libyan operation is the first R2P operation, but unless we take action, unless we educate ourselves and others, it won't be the last. Already Syria is on the horizon; already Sudan looms largely; already Belarus beckons. We see the signs. We discern the true intent. And soon it will be our own sovereignty that sits in the cross hairs. We here write from the United States. We ask rhetorically, has not our Constitution already been stretched to the breaking point by these same people? We are not alone. For these are not "mere words on paper"--there are real consequences, real harm to real people.
And although we may not understand the problem, we already know the remedy. The battle is waged first in the mind. These things can only come about when there is a psychological smokescreen to blind the world.
The Responsibility to Protect By Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun Originally published in Foreign Affairs November/December 2002, Volume 81, Number 6 Images and captions added by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics
Revisiting Humanitarian Intervention
The international community in the last decade repeatedly made a mess of handling the many demands that were made for "humanitarian intervention": coercive action against a state to protect people within its borders from suffering grave harm. There were no agreed rules for handling cases such as Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo at the start of the 1990s, and there remain none today. Disagreement continues about whether there is a right of intervention, how and when it should be exercised, and under whose authority.
Gareth Evans
Since September 11, 2001, policy attention has been captured by a different set of problems: the response to global terrorism and the case for "hot preemption" against countries believed to be irresponsibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. These issues, however, are conceptually and practically distinct. There are indeed common questions, especially concerning the precautionary principles that should apply to any military action anywhere. But what is involved in the debates about intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere is the scope and the limits of countries' rights to act in self-defense --not their right, or obligation, to intervene elsewhere to protect peoples other than their own.
Mohamed Sahnoun
Meanwhile, the debate about intervention for human protection purposes has not gone away. And it will not go away so long as human nature remains as fallible as it is and internal conflict and state failures stay as prevalent as they are. The debate was certainly a lively one throughout the 1990s. Controversy may have been muted in the case of the interventions, by varying casts of actors, in Liberia in 1990, northern Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994, Sierra Leone in 1997, and (not strictly coercively) East Timor in 1999. But in Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia in 1995, the UN action taken (if taken at all) was widely perceived as too little too late, misconceived, poorly resourced, poorly executed, or all of the above. During NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Security Council members were sharply divided; the legal justification for action without UN authority was asserted but largely unargued; and great misgivings surrounded the means by which the allies waged war.
It is only a matter of time before reports emerge again from somewhere of massacres, mass starvation, rape, and ethnic cleansing. And then the question will arise again in the Security Council, in political capitals, and in the media: What do we do? This time around the international community must have the answers.1 Few things have done more harm to its shared ideal that people are all equal in worth and dignity than the inability of the community of states to prevent these horrors. In this new century, there must be no more Rwandas.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, deeply troubled by the inconsistency of the international response, has repeatedly challenged the General Assembly to find a way through these dilemmas. But in the debates that followed his calls, he was rewarded for the most part by cantankerous exchanges in which fervent supporters of intervention on human rights grounds, opposed by anxious defenders of state sovereignty, dug themselves deeper and deeper into opposing trenches.
If the international community is to respond to this challenge, the whole debate must be turned on its head. The issue must be reframed not as an argument about the "right to intervene" but about the "responsibility to protect." And it has to be accepted that although this responsibility is owed by all sovereign states to their own citizens in the first instance, it must be picked up by the international community if that first-tier responsibility is abdicated, or if it cannot be exercised.
Sovereignty As Responsibility
Let us pause while our learned authors get ready for the costume ball. The idea here is to parade around highly-dubious acts of imperial aggression in "humanitarian" disguises. Below is proof of these authors' manipulative intent--a rare case, indeed, of the logic of a psychological operation having intentionally been made public.
Using this alternative language will help shake up the policy debate, getting governments in particular to think afresh about what the real issues are. Changing the terminology from "intervention" to "protection" gets away from the language of "humanitarian intervention." The latter term has always deeply concerned humanitarian relief organizations, which have hated the association of "humanitarian" with military activity. Beyond that, talking about the "responsibility to protect" rather than the "right to intervene" has three other big advantages. First, it implies evaluating the issues from the point of view of those needing support, rather than those who may be considering intervention. The searchlight is back where it should always be: on the duty to protect communities from mass killing, women from systematic rape, and children from starvation. Second, this formulation implies that the primary responsibility rests with the state concerned. Only if that state is unable or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility to protect, or is itself the perpetrator, should the international community take the responsibility to act in its place. Third, the "responsibility to protect" is an umbrella concept, embracing not just the "responsibility to react" but the "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" as well. Both of these dimensions have been much neglected in the traditional humanitarian-intervention debate. Bringing them back to center stage should help make the concept of reaction itself more palatable.
At the heart of this conceptual approach is a shift in thinking about the essence of sovereignty, from control to responsibility. In the classic Westphalian system of international relations, the defining characteristic of sovereignty has always been the state's capacity to make authoritative decisions regarding the people and resources within its territory. The principal of sovereign equality of states is enshrined in Article 2, Section 1, of the UN Charter, and the corresponding norm of nonintervention is enshrined in Article 2, Section 7: a sovereign state is empowered by international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders, and other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in its internal affairs. But working against this standard has been the increasing impact in recent decades of human rights norms, bringing a shift from a culture of sovereign impunity to one of national and international accountability. The increasing influence of the concept of human security has also played a role: what matters is not just state security but the protection of individuals against threats to life, livelihood, or dignity that can come from from within or without. In short, a large and growing gap has been developing between international behavior as articulated in the state-centered UN Charter, which was signed in 1946, and evolving state practice since then, which now emphasizes the limits of sovereignty.
June 26, 1945: Edward Reilly Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State, Chairman of the delegation from the United States, signing the UN Charter at a ceremony held at the Veterans' War Memorial Building in San Francisco.
Crest of the Fabian Society
Indeed, even the strongest supporters of state sovereignty will admit today that no state holds unlimited power to do what it wants to its own people. It is now commonly acknowledged that sovereignty implies a duel responsibility: externally, to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all the people within the state. In international human rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing this duel responsibility. Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good international citizenship. Although this new principal cannot be said to be customary international law yet, it is sufficiently accepted in practice to be regarded as a de facto emerging norm: the responsibility to protect.
Above is the stained glass window from the Beatrice Webb House, Surrey, England, former headquarters of the Fabian Society. This organization was at the ideological center of the early moves toward economic and political globalization, providing 'humanitarian' cover to assist in the creation of international governing bodies, like the League of Nations and its more expansive successor, the United Nations. At center right in the image, George Bernard Shaw and Sydney Webb smash at the world with hammers. Just above the world is the same crest shown separately above: a wolf in sheep's clothing. And across the top we read an excerpt from a poem. The verse is from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, and reads: "Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire/ To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,/ Would not we shatter it to bits--and then/ Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"
Military Intervention: Setting the Bar
Gaddafi waits to see if he qualifies for R2P intervention.
The responsibility to protect implies a duty to react to situations in which there is compelling need for human protection. If preventative measures fail to resolve or contain such a situation, and when the state in question is unable or unwilling to step in, then intervention by other states may be required. Coercive measures then may include political, economic, or judicial steps. In extreme cases--but only extreme cases--they may also include military action. But what is an extreme case? Where should we draw the line in determining when military intervention is defensible? What other conditions or restraints, if any, should apply in determining whether and how that intervention should proceed? And, most difficult of all, who should have the ultimate authority to determine whether an intrusion into a sovereign state, involving the use of deadly force on a potentially massive scale, should actually go ahead? These questions have generated an enormous literature and much competing terminology, but on the core issues there is great deal of common ground, most of it derived from "just war" theory. To justify military intervention, six principles have to be satisfied: the "just cause" threshold, four precautionary principles, and the requirement of "right authority."
Operation Just Cause
Q: What do you see?A: All I see is R2P.
As for the "just cause" threshold, our starting point is that military intervention for human protection purposes is an extraordinary measure. For it to be warranted, civilians must be faced with the threat of serious and irreparable harm in one of just two exceptional ways. The first is large-scale loss of life, actualoranticipated, with genocidal intent or not,which is the product of deliberate state of action, state neglect, inability to act, or state failure. The second is large-scale "ethnic cleansing,"actual or anticipated, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror, or rape.
Why does the bar for just cause need to be set so high? There is the conceptual reason that military intervention must be very exceptional. There is also a practical political rationale: if intervention is to happen when it is most necessary, it cannot be called on too often. In the two situations identified as legitimate triggers, we do not quantify what is "large scale" but make clear our belief that military action can be legitimate as an anticipatory measure in response to clear evidence of likely large-scale killing or ethnic cleansing. Without this possibility, the international community would be placed in the morally untenable position of being required to wait until genocide begins before being able to take action to stop it. The threshold criteria articulated here not only cover the deliberate preparation of horrors such as in the cases of Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo. They can also apply to situations of state collapse and the resultant exposure of the population to mass starvation or civil war, as in Somalia. Also potentially covered would be overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, in which the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to help and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened. What are not covered by our "just cause" threshold criteria are human rights violations falling short of outright killing or ethnic cleansing (such as systematic racial discrimination or political oppression), the overthrow of democratically elected governments, and the rescue by a state of its own nationals or foreign territory. Although deserving of external action--including in appropriate cases political, economic, or military sanctions--these are not instances that would seem to justify military action for human protection purposes.
Precautionary Principles
Of the precautionary principles needed to justify intervention, the first is "right intention." The primary purpose of the intervention,whatever other motives intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. There are a number of ways of helping ensure that the criterion is satisfied. One is to have military intervention always take place on a collective or multilateral basis. Another is to look at the extant to which the intervention is actually supported by the peoplefor whose benefit the intervention is intended. Yet another is to look to what extant the opinion of other countries in the region has been taken into account and is supportive. Complete disinterestedness may be an ideal, but it is not likely always to be a reality: mixed motives, in international relations as everywhere else, are a fact of life. Moreover, the budgetary cost and risk to personnel involved in any military action may make it imperative for the intervening state to be able to claim some degree of self-interest in the intervention, however altruistic its primary motive.
"Another [criterion for military intervention] is to look at the extent to which the intervention is actually supported by the people for whose benefit the intervention is intended." What are these writers telling us? Isn't the object of R2P to save "the people" from a 'massacre'? Who wouldn't want to be saved from a massacre? Odd behavior indeed. It makes one wonder who "the people for whose benefit the intervention is intended" really are. Take a look at the image above: a massive pro-Gaddafi rally in the capital of Tripoli, July, 2011. Not only are these people "not supportive" of being saved...these are "the people" being killed by NATO bombs. Take a look at the video below and think about the gap between truth and fiction concerning R2P. How are we to interpret this: tough love?? Perhaps "the people" of Libya are not those that the R2P intervention will benefit.
How Western media reports the Libyan bombing
The second precautionary principle is "last resort": military intervention can be justified only when every nonmilitary option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded. The responsibility to react with military coercion can be justified only when the responsibility to prevent has been fully discharged. This guideline does not necessarily mean that every such option must literally have been tried and failed; often there is simply not enough time for that process to work itself out. But it does mean that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that, given the circumstances, other measures would not have succeeded.
The video above captures just one brief moment in the entire NATO-sponsored Libyan campaign, one the mainstream media just won't share. This is Tripoli, the capital of Libya, a modern coastal city of over two million people. In the language of R2P, the men with guns must necessarily be the "humanitarian" protectors of the Libyan population, seeing as how their cause has been taken up and sponsored by the United Nations. Underneath the salesmanship, however, a different picture emerges...
The third principle is "proportional means": the scale, duration, and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined objective of protecting people. The scale of action taken must be commensurate with its stated purpose and with the magnitude of the original provocation. The effect on the political system of the country targeted should be limited to what is strictly necessary to accomplish the intervention's purpose. Although the precise practical implications of these strictures are always open to argument, the principles involved are clear enough.
Abdel Hakim al-Hasadi, the NATO operation's new military governor in Tripoli, Libya, is certainly no R2P angel, regardless of what the Western media now wants you to believe. In a recent interview, Dr. Webster Tarpley said this about al-Hasadi "He is a person who was a close friend of Bin Laden, trained with Bin Laden in Afghanistan at those camps. He organized Jihadists to go into Iraq and Afghanistan to kill US soldiers. He presumably has killed US soldiers himself...He is now directing a reign of terror [in Tripoli]...His signature is mass murder. He has left a trail of bodies across the globe. Right now you can even see on Aljazeera that they are singling out Black Libyans or indeed anybody Black. You can be from Fazan in Libya or you can be a guest worker from Mali or Chad or some other African countries and you are going to be prosecuted and hounded and maybe lynched and executed by these NATO puppet rebel forces...the current military governor needs to be arrested and put on trial for genocide"
Finally, there is the principle of "reasonable prospects": there must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering that has justified the intervention; the consequences of action should not be worse than the consequences of inaction. Military action must not risk triggering a greater conflagration. Applying this precautionary principle would, on purely utilitarian grounds, likely preclude military action against any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, even with all other conditions for intervention having been met. Otherwise, it is difficult to imagine a major conflict being avoided or success in the original objective being achieved. The same is true for other major powers that are not permanent members of the Security Council. This raises the familiar question of double standards, to which there is only one answer: The reality that interventions may not be plausibly mounted in every justifiable case is no reason for them not be mounted in any case.
Whose Authority?
R2P implies global governance: thus spoke the editors of this website.
The most difficult and controversial principle to apply is that of "right authority." When it comes to authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes, the argument is compelling that the United Nations, and in particular its Security Council, should be the first port of call. The difficult question--starkly raised by the Kosovo war--is whether it should be the last.
UN headquarters, New York City
The issue of principle here is unarguable. The UN is unquestionably the principle institution for building, consolidating, and using the authority of the international community. It was set up to be the linchpin of order and stability, the framework within which members of the international system negotiate agreements on the rules of behavior and the legal norms of proper conduct to preserve the society of states. The authority of the UN is underpinned not by coercive power but by its role as the applicator of legitimacy. The concept of legitimacy acts as the connecting link between the exercise of authority and the recourse to power. Attempts to enforce authority can be made only by the legitimate agents of that authority. Nations regard collective intervention blessed by the UN as legitimate because a representative international body duly authorized it, whereas unilateral intervention is seen as illegitimate because it is self-interested. Those who challenge or evade the authority of the UN run the risk of eroding its authority in general and undermining the principle of a world order based on international law and universal norms.
UN Security Council: this small room is the place where the fate of whole nations is now decided. It is here as well that the authors of this article advocate granting primary authority towards the violation of national sovereignty. Ironically, this unelected, authoritarian body claims to work in the service of 'democracy'. Actually this is no irony at all--it is deception--reality in this case being shielded by a clever use of language. So it is, as well, with R2P. The responsibility to "protect" is, in reality, only the responsibility to "power." Power is the essence of R2P.
The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority, but to make the council work better than it has. Security Council authorization should, in all cases, be sought prior to any military intervention being carried out. Those advocates calling for an intervention should formally request such authorization, ask the council to raise the matter on its own initiative, or demand that the secretary-general raise it under Article 99 of the UN Charter. The Security Council should deal promptly with any request for authority to intervene where there are allegations of large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing. It should, in this context, also seek adequate verification of facts or conditions on the ground that might support a military intervention. And the council's five permanent members should agree to not exercise their veto power (in matters where their vital state interests are not involved) to block resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes for which there is otherwise majority support. We know of at least one that will so agree.
UN General Assembly: fig leaf of legitimacy for R2P
If the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act in a case crying out for intervention, two institutional solutions are available. One is for the General Assembly to consider the matter in an emergency special session under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure, used in the cases of Korea in 1950, Egypt in 1956, and Congo in 1960. Had it been used, that approach could well have delivered a speedy majority recommendation for action in the Rwanda and Kosovo cases. The other is action within an area of jurisdiction by regional or subregional organizations under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council; that is what happened with the West African interventions in Liberia in the early 1990s and in Sierra Leone in 1997. But interventions by ad hoc coalitions (or individual states ) acting without the approval of the Security Council, the General Assembly, or a regional or subregional grouping do not find wide international favor. As a matter of political reality, then, it would simply be impossible to build consensus around any set of proposals for military intervention that acknowledged the validity of any intervention not authorized by the Security Council or General Assembly.
There are many reasons to be dissatisfied with the role that the Security Council usually plays: its generally uneven performance, its unrepresentative membership, and its inherent institutional double standards with the permanent-five veto power. But there is no better or more appropriate body than the Security Council to deal with military intervention issues for human protection purposes. The political reality--quite apart from the force of the argument in principle--is that if international consensus is ever to be reached about how military intervention should happen, the Security Council will clearly have to be at the heart of that consensus.
Raw power has a way of sorting out the legal nuance.
But what if the Security Council fails to discharge its own responsibility to protect in a conscience-shocking situation crying out for action, as was the case with Kosovo? A real question arises as to which of two evils is the worse: the damage to international order if the Security Council is bypassed, or the damage to that order if human beings are slaughtered while the Security Council stands by. The answer to this dilemma is twofold, and these messages have to be delivered loud and clear. First, if the Security Council does fail to discharge its responsibility in such a case, then concerned individual states simply may not rule out other means to address the gravity and urgency of the situation. It follows that there will be a risk that such interventions, without the discipline and constraints of UN authorization,will not be conducted for the right reasons or with the right commitment to the necessary precautionary principles. Second, if the council does fail to act and a military intervention by an ad hoc coalition or individual state follows and respects all the necessary threshold and precautionary criteria--and if that intervention succeeds and is seen by the world to have succeeded--this outcome may have enduringly serious consequences for the stature of the UN itself. This is essentially what happened with the NATO intervention in Kosovo. The UN cannot afford to drop the ball too many times on that scale.
The Problem of Political Will
Welcome to today's R2P propaganda...
As important as it is to reach consensus on the principles that should govern intervention for human protection purposes, unless the political will is mustered to act when necessary, the debate will be largely academic. As events during the 1990s too often demonstrated, even a decision by the Security Council to authorize international action in humanitarian cases has been no guarantee that any action would be taken, or taken effectively. The most compelling task now is to work to ensure that when the call for action goes out to the community of states, it will be answered.
Part of the problem is that there are few countries in the global community who have the assets most in demand in implementing intervention mandates. There are real constraints on how much spare capacity exists to take on additional burdens. United Nations peacekeeping peaked in 1993 at 78,000 personnel; today, if NATO and other multinational force operations (e.g., in Afghanistan) are included along with UN missions, the number of soldiers in international peace operations has grown by about 45 percent, to 113,000. Even states willing in principle to look at new foreign military commitments need to make choices about how to use limited and strained military capabilities.
...one-sided stories, tugging on our emotions...
If the right choices are to be made in the right situations, there is no alternative but to generate the necessary political will in the relevant constituencies. Too often more time is spent lamenting the absence of political will than on analyzing its ingredients and how to mobilize them. The key to mobilizing international support for intervention is to mobilize domestic support, or at least to neutralize domestic opposition. It is usually helpful to press three buttons in particular.
Moral appeals inspire and legitimize in almost any political environment: political leaders often underestimate the sheer sense of decency andcompassion that prevails among their electorates. Financial arguments also have their place: preventive strategies are likely to be far cheaper than responding after the event through military action, humanitarian relief assistance, postconflict reconstruction, or all three.
...exploiting our guilt; our ignorance...
If coercive action is required, however, earlier is always cheaper than later. National interest appeals are the most comfortable and effective of all and can be made at many different levels. Avoiding the disintegration of a neighbor, given the refugee outflows and effective of all and can be made at many different levels. Avoiding the disintegration of a neighbor, given the refugee outflows and general regional security destabilization associated with it, can be a compelling motive in many contexts. National economic interests often can be equally well served by keeping resource supply lines, trade routes, in the past, nowadays peace is generally regarded as much better for business than is war.
For those domestic constituencies who may actually demand that their governments not be moved by altruistic "right intention," the best short answer may be that these days good international citizenship is a matter of national self-interest. With the world as interdependent as it now is, and with crises as capable as they now are of generating major problems elsewhere (such as terrorism, refugee outflows, health pandemics, narcotics trafficking, and organized crime), it is in every country's interest to help resolve such problems, quite apart from the humanitarian imperative.
...always telling us that we didn't do enough.
It is the responsibility of the whole international community to ensure that when the next case of threatened mass killing or ethnic cleansing invariably comes along, the mistakes of the 1990s will not be repeated. A good place to start would be agreement by the Security Council, at least informally, to systematically apply the principles set out here to any such case. So too would be a declaratory UN General Assembly resolution giving weight to those principles and to the whole idea of the "responsibility to protect" as an emerging international norm. There is a developing consensus around the idea that sovereignty must be qualified by the responsibility to protect. But until there is general acceptance of the practical commitments this involves, more tragedies such as Rwanda will be all too likely.
Editors' Postscript (added September 15, 2011)
Canadian journalist Mahdi Nazemroaya spent two months in 2011 (primarily in Tripoli) covering the NATO-led and UN-sponsored assault on Libya. In the video below, he chats with James Corbett about his experience in the country, as well as offering his criticisms about how the Western media has been handling the reporting of this war.
Readers of this article that haven't familiarized themselves with non-mainstream first-hand accounts of this conflict, Mahdi Nazemroaya is one of a handful of English-speaking journalists that has a story to tell.
Footnote
1. In September 2000, the government of Canada established the ICISS. Our colleagues were Gisele Cote-Harper, Lee Hamilton, Michael Ignatieff, Vladimir Lukin, Klaus Naumann, Cyril Ramaphosa, Fidel Ramos, Cornelio Sommaruga, Eduardo Stein, and Ramesh Thakur. We met as a commission in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America and consulted comprehensively in Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, and China. This article is a distillation of the report.
Russia has sent two nuclear-powered submarines to patrol Eastern Mediterranean waters around Cyprus and enforce the island's right to explore for undersea oil and gas in its territorial seas, according to information from Defencenet.gr, citing a Russian FM spokesman.
