Working group for new policy proposal on Responsibility to Protect doctrine

Home / Blogs / Stephen LaFrenie's blog /
By Stephen LaFrenie on 23 January 2012 - 2:16am

I'm looking to put together a working group willing to debate and develop a cohesive policy for the Green Party surrounding the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.  If you are interested then please reply to this post.  I will be setting up a page or new post shortly in the Foreign Policy forum.  If you are not already a member of the forum then please join and make your voice heard there or here. 

Key points;

Where should the Green Party, in keeping with its principles of non-violence, draw the line when R2P is invoked?

What safeguards should Canada implement to avoid being dragged into a war of aggression under the "guise" of R2P?

What are the dangers of embracing this doctrine for the GPC as an international Green Party and national political party with its leader in Parliament?

What is our responsibility to separate myth from reality for the Canadian public?

Here are some links for those who wish to read up on different aspects of the doctrine.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sgsm14068.doc.htm

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27935

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/victory+Responsibility+Protect/5600183...

Attachment(s): 
application/pdf icongreen_party_defence_and_international_policy.pdf

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We have the mechanisms we

Submitted by Stephen LaFrenie on 28 January 2012 - 2:40pm.

We have the mechanisms we need to try and prevent wars such as the ones in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Darfur, and elsewhere. These mechanisms require self examination. They require not only the concept behind doctrines like Responsibility to Protect (R2P) but more importantly, responsibility not to be complicit. So long as we refuse to acknowledge this truth there is no solution only duplicity.

Why are we outraged and deeply concerned by China's growing influence but not the U.S., Canada, and Britain over Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and elsewhere? 

Why is it that the systematic killing, torture and abuse of political groups by allies, governments in good standing, remain exempt from our outrage?

A lot of questions need to be asked and a need for resolve to oppose unacceptable answers like; "Well we can't be everywhere." This has never been the point and never will be.

Responsibility not to be complicit. - Canada as a nation needs to withdraw from global economic and political exploitive strategies. Neutrality does not mean inaction or prevent Canada from joining an intervention on its own terms based on its own independent assessment of the crisis.

Responsibility to Protect. - The UN Security Council needs to be reformed first to remove veto power. A country can refuse to participate but cannot block an action. UN Security Council must be equipped to confront its own members and investigate when evidence of complicity or duplicity is presented.

Responsibility to Prevent (Article 3 of R2P doctrine) – International development aid is the major peace building mechanism but both liberal and conservative governments continue to abuse CIDA.

This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca 

http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com