Skip to content
April 14, 2011 / J. Shaw

VIDEO-What is The Responsibility to PROTECT ACT? George Soros Using it

 

I have  closely watched the actions of George Soros and made some posts on the Soros Condition. Today, I found a web site that is a treasure trove of Soros informationYourDaddy’s Politics. What I found interesting there today was the idea of George Soros making changes in the mideast using the Responsibilty to Protect Act. Hiding  behind this act Soros can  get nations to make his desired changes for him. This was ceratinly involved in how the U.S. got involved in Libya and why the intervention was an on again off again  operation and finally the U.S. jumped into Libya with both feet. Two days later the U.S. was out of the Libyian operation. Obama couldn’t get out fast enough. Yet the U.S. is still quietly bombing Libya. The rest of this article will give you an idea of what the Responsibility to Protect Act is and how Soros is using it. SHAW

George Soros in his ideas of a new world Order has plans for  Israel Palestine conflict. These plans consist of getting aapproval for actions in that region using the  the Responsibility to Protect Act authored by Samantha Power, wife of Cass Sunstein.

Both are in the upper echelon of the Obama Administration and have great influence on Obama’s policy.   Samantha Power has been given credit for authoring the Responsibility to Protect act that is being used to legitimize the illegal bombing Libya.  This is all very much premeditated.  The plan for this ‘ kinetic’ military WAR on Libya was started in early  February 2011 under the umbrella of “The Responsibility to Protect Act”.

The Responsibility to Protect Act

The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.[1] The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.

  1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
  2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
  3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.[2]

In the international community RtoP is a norm, not a law. RtoP provides a framework for using tools that already exist (like mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VI powers) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the operationalization of RtoP. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.

One of the main concerns surround RtoP is that it infringes upon national sovereignty.[11][who?][original research?] This concern is rebutted by the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. According to the first pillar of RtoP, the state has the responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing, and according to the second pillar the international community has the responsibility to help States fulfill their responsibility. Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign. In this sense, RtoP can be understood as reinforcing sovereignty. However it is not clear who makes this decision on behalf on ‘international community’. Because of this in practical terms, RtoP is perceived as a tool of western countries to justify violations of sovereignty of other countries especially in developing world, using international institutions west controls.

RtoP and National Sovereignty

On March 19, 2011, the United Nations Security Council approved resolution 1973 and authorized the use of “all necessary measures to… protect civilians”[12]. The resolution passed with 10 in favor, 0 against and 5 abstains. The subsequent military action by NATO resulted in mixed opinions. Detractors of the intervention believe that problems in Libya are best resolved amongst Libyans.

MORE…..yourdaddy.net/  en.wikipedia.org/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: