Is Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the shape of Never Again?

I took my son and attended a briefing at the Brookings Institution titled, "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect" (you can download the full audio here).  Here's a summary of the topic:

The Libyan crisis has brought focus to the critical and complex issue of the “responsibility to protect” populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. In Libya and beyond, the international community is faced with urgent tests of a hotly debated doctrine about when, where and how nations should respond to populations threatened with the gravest international crimes. Now more than ever, real world events are being discussed in terms of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, or R2P, which was adopted by all the world’s governments in 2005 and appeared explicitly in the 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized force in Libya, also invoked the responsibility to protect as part of its argument for action.

The topic caught my attention for many reasons, not the least of which was the involvement of the USHMM's Committee on Conscience.  The discussion opened with reference to the promise "Never Again" that we vow in response to the Holocaust but quickly made clear how complicated it can be to implement such a promise in reality.  Many of the historical references were above the head of my son, 13 years old, but the essential confusion around the issue and its practical implementation was as clear to him as anyone.  He left frustrated, feeling that nobody ever directly answered the question about R2P - specifically why and how it gets applied in one situation but not another (Libya but not Syria, for example).  I suspect many felt the same way.  A more nuanced listener may have heard more from the panelists.  But I don't think many could leave the talk feeling bolstered about R2P's application in reality.  Personally, I learned that at best R2P may be able help get a situation onto the agenda but the decision to use force will never be dictated by R2P.  Politics and personality will guide those decisions.

Interesting points from the talk: Prof. Sewall talking about the use of force - particularly given the Western preference for air power - for humanitarian purposes is a decision to trade civilian casualties for civilian casualties.  Also, her warning to be mindful of mission creep in any operation.
Richard Williamson's admission that we simply need better evidence in order to make these decisions and then citing an article that drew parallels between Bush entering Iraq and Obama in Libya - both decisions based on "evidence" of worse trouble to come if we didn't act beforehand.

I'm glad I went but I left with as many, if not more, questions than I had at the start.

Is God in or out?

A few weeks ago at our temple's annual meeting, we had a spirited debate over God.  In approving changes to our temple's by-laws a few months ago, the mission statement made no reference to God.  A temple member pointed out that the original mission statement of the congregation was quite God focused.  Members of the by-laws revision committee noted that the newly adopted mission statement was not a principled decision about God or the community's theology.  So, the annual meeting entertained a motion to insert "worship of God" into the mission statement of the congregation.  The debate was interesting, heartfelt and the meeting ultimately approved the motion but not without several "nay" votes.  It turns out we are not alone.

The Israeli military has been grappling with a similar issue.  An article in Haaretz newspaper, reports on the annual memorial ceremony for fallen soldiers on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem:

"Amikam Gurevich, who hosted the eve of Independence Day torch-lighting ceremonies on Mount Herzl for many years, always opened with "May the people of Israel remember." Subsequent announcers have taken up the "May God remember" version. A similar process has occurred in many Memorial Day services, often at the bequest of military rabbis and religious bereaved families."  But not everybody wants God in the memorial opener.  After several requests, as the paper notes, "IDF chief sides with Almighty to settle dispute over prayer for fallen soldiers."

So far, God is winning these referendums* but any political observer can tell you that these early votes indicate a broader trend and God will not always win.  Does God need better lobbyists or will God rely on old fashioned influence?

______________

* Yes, some people use "referenda" but the OED suggests referendums since the Latin word referendum is a gerund with no plural form of its own. Or so says Wikipedia.

Finding God, Religion, & the Internet: Jim Gilliam's Story

LeBron, Weiner, Confirmation, the annual meeting or the Tonys got you down? Here's a short video worth watching as it covers God, religion, the internet, faith in humanity, and the importance of organ donation in about 10 minutes.  The link was forwarded to me by Daniel Serwer - check out his blog peacefare.net. 


You can also hear more from Gilliam on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show from last week.