To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » "In Larger Freedom" V

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

"In Larger Freedom" V

By David Peterson at Mar 25, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
A little more than halfway through his In Larger Freedom document, in a section bearing the curious title, "Rule of Law" (pars. 133-139), the Secretary-General writes:
134. Nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and reality — between declarations and deeds — so stark and so deadly as in the field of international humanitarian law. It cannot be right, when the international community is faced with genocide or massive human rights abuses, for the United Nations to stand by and let them unfold to the end, with disastrous consequences for many thousands of innocent people. ............ 135. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and more recently the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, with its 16 members from all around the world, endorsed what they described as an “emerging norm that there is a collective responsibility to protect” (see A/59/565, para. 203). While I am well aware of the sensitivities involved in this issue, I strongly agree with this approach. I believe that we must embrace the responsibility to protect, and, when necessary, we must act on it. This responsibility lies, first and foremost, with each individual State, whose primary raison d'être and duty is to protect its population. But if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then the responsibility shifts to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods to help protect the human rights and well-being of civilian populations. When such methods appear insufficient, the Security Council may out of necessity decide to take action under the Charter of the United Nations, including enforcement action, if so required.
Sounds good, Mr. Secretary-General. So, then, here is a question for everyone at the United Nations to ponder over the course of the next six months---as well as for the various legions of thinkers and actors and witness-bearers who affirm what the literature refers to as the "emerging norm of a collective international responsibility to protect," and are not overly shy about the grotesque selectivity with which they observe it: Given the fact that as the American and British governments were preparing to launch their March, 2003 war over Iraq, the Government of Iraq clearly was unable to protect its citizens against these foreign aggressors (a bona fide Chapter VII "threat to international peace and security," if ever there were one---though Chapter VII's phrasing differs), did not the responsibility to protect Iraqi nationals therefore shift to the international community, and above all to the Security Council? Or in the very least shouldn't it have---remaining faithful not only to this emerging norm of collective international responsibility, but also to clearcut Chapter VII principles of collective self-defense? The "rule of law" indeed, Mr. Secretary-General. To date, all that this alleged emerging norm has meant is the rule of the ad hoc in international affairs. Ad hoc imilitary interventions when they've advanced the perceived self-interests of the Greater Powers. (Don't overlook the fact that the so-called High-Level Panel's 2004 Report cited as cases in point "The successive humanitarian disasters in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovia, Rwanda, Kososo, and now Darfur, Sudan" (par. 201).) And ad hoc tribunals when they've done likewise. (Interestingly enough, with respect to the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda especially.) But no rule of law. Nor even a minor strengthening of it. Only the demise of the rule of law---and massive intellectual efforts to concoct "emerging norms" out of its carcass. In the end, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that in real-world affairs, the gap between rhetoric and reality increases in direct proportion to the power of the actors involved. Now there's a norm for the ages. Something for the 60th session of the United Nations to take up and consider, when it convenes next September. Postscript. The word 'aggression' (i.e., the crime that the American and British governments committed over Iraq in March, 2003---and that Iraq committed over Kuwait in August, 1990) appears a grand total of once in the text of the Secretary-General's In Larger Freedom document. Namely, in Par. 19, which states in full:
The proposals contained in the present report are designed to strengthen States and enable them to serve their peoples better by working together on the basis of shared principles and priorities — which is, after all, the very reason the United Nations exists. Sovereign States are the basic and indispensable building blocks of the international system. It is their job to guarantee the rights of their citizens, to protect them from crime, violence and aggression, and to provide the framework of freedom under law in which individuals can prosper and society develop. If States are fragile, the peoples of the world will not enjoy the security, development and justice that are their right. Therefore, one of the great challenges of the newmillennium is to ensure that all States are strong enough to meet the many challenges they face.
Seems, then, that the moment is propitious to talk about the emerging norms of a collective international responsibility to protect---but to protect against internal threats, civil wars, violations of international humanitarian law, and the like, rather than external ones. As long as the nature of the violations are of a class such that Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo, and "now Darfur, Sudan" can be used to concentrate attention "not on the immunities of sovereign Governments but their responsibilities, both to their own people and to the wider international community," and of the "responsibility to protect of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe---mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease," as the High-Level Panel put the case last year (Par. 201), in the viciously-circular world of power and ideology. And snakes that swallow their own tails.
An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping (A/47/277-S/24111), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., June, 1992 An Agenda for Development (A/48/935), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., May, 1994 Supplement to An Agenda for Peace, (A/50/60-S/1995/1), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., January, 1995 (Please note that all three of these documents are electronically archived by the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) The Responsibility To Protect, Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun et al., September, 2001 (For the HTML version of the same.) United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/55/L.2), UN General Assembly, September 8, 2000 "We the Peoples": The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nation, 2000 UN Millennium Development Goals (Overview with links) UN Millennium Project (Homepage) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Anand Panyarachun et al., 2004 (For the complete PDF version of the same.) Investing in Development: A Practical Plan To Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, Jeffrey D. Sachs et al., 2005 (For the complete PDF version of the same.---Also see the accompanying Media Release.) In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for decisions by Heads of State and Government in September 2005 (A/59/2005), Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nations, 2005 (For the PDF version of the report.) "In Larger Freedom" I, March 20, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" II, March 21, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" III, March 21, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" IV, March 22, 2005

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (10)

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 28, 2005 09:04 AM
The crusade was not motivated by Christian "idealism" either.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 28, 2005 09:03 AM
I disagree with realpc's premise that the neo cons are motivated by idealsim(however misguided). I won't run down the list here, but there is too much evidence contradicting this assumption even if one were naive enough to believe that idealism has ever had any role in formulating state policies(I am not just talking about the Bush regime). The cynicsm of the neo cons are very apparant even if you just read some articles on the Znet.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Jautter, Mind at Mar 27, 2005 04:32 AM
JB56- You got me wrong.I didn't intend the word your to mean David.Your means US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Shannon, James at Mar 26, 2005 19:20 PM
6.5 Billion minds - all twisted and controlled by forces both within and external. All human thought is flawed. Most are incapable of rational thought. The idealism of Realpc proves why his flawed irrational arguments are entrenched in his little brain over and over and over.

Reply this comment

Person

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 26, 2005 17:28 PM
The US needs to focus on itself and return to its liberal and conservative principles. Arrogance and idealism are the gravest dangers in any organization. Leftist idealism and ideology are most definitely not the answer.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 26, 2005 17:24 PM
Christian idealism resulted in the crusades and the inquisition. Communist idealism resulted in mass murders in Russia, China, etc. Hitler was an idealist who believed in genetic and ethnic superiority and the possibility of creating a perfect society. Now the idealistic faith of the neo-cons is distracting them from the intricate balancing act that allows the world to survive in an age of nuclear weapons.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 26, 2005 17:18 PM
It is a highly volatile situation but the answer is to correct the balance. The neo-cons sincerely believe they know how to create a peaceful and prosperous world -- democratic nations have never been enemies so simply force all nations to be democratic. This is faulty reasoning -- just because democracies have never been enemies does not mean they never will. The neo-cons are obviously too sure of themselves and have managed to grab too much power. But they are dangerous, not evil. Idealism of any kind is usually the greatest threat to peace.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 26, 2005 17:13 PM
The US is currently the most powerful and, in some ways, successful, nation in the world. Naturally it is hated, feared and envied. And naturally it takes advantage of the situation. Many different individuals lead the US; some are highly idealistic, others try to combine high ideals with practical good sense, others are self-deceiving hypocrites, some are evil parasites. In other words, we are not talking about a group of like-minded conspirators.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Shannon, James at Mar 26, 2005 02:43 AM
"In the end, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that in real-world affairs, the gap between rhetoric and reality increases in direct proportion to the power of the actors involved." There is no "rule of law". Reality proves that might makes right. The only thing worse than a liar is a hippocrite. Politicians the world over need to be both to get elected and to rule.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" V

By Jautter, Mind at Mar 25, 2005 23:06 PM
"And the snakes that swallow their own tails".Perfect,Dave,your ass up your head is as good as your head up your ass.

Reply this comment

Loading_border