Not since the debate about the Kosovo War of 1999 has there been such widespread discussion of humanitarian intervention, including the semantics of coupling ‘humanitarian’ with the word ‘intervention.’ At one extreme of this debate about language stands Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia, who is a staunch advocate of displacing the discourse on ‘humanitarian intervention’ by relying on concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ (known as R2P). Evans was, in fact, co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that came up a decade ago with the idea of R2P. This approach to intervention was skillfully marketed it to the international community, including the United Nations. Arguing the conceptual case for R2P, Evans writes, “[b]y changing the focus from the ‘right’ to ‘responsibility,’ and from ‘intervene’ to ‘protect,’ by making clear that there needed to be at much attention paid to prevention as to reaction and non-coercive measures, and by emphasizing that military coercion—which needed to be mandated by the UN Security Council—was an absolute last resort in civilian protection cases.’ [Evans, “Humanitarian intervention is only justified when…” Global Brief, Summer 2011, 60.]
Insisting that the coercive actions in the Ivory Coast and Libya show the benefits of this approach, as contrasted with the supposed failures of the 1990s to take action in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo, Evans feels so vindicated by recent events as to make the following plea: “So let us please lay ‘humanitarian intervention’ language to rest once and for all.” This raises three questions: Should we? Will we? Does it really matter? My answer to the first two is ‘no,’ and to the third, ‘not much.’ My basic problem with the R2P approach is that it downplays the role of geopolitics in the diplomacy of both decisions to intervene and to not intervene. By hiding this fundamental element in the decision process behind a screen of moralizing language talking of R2P rather than humanitarian intervention invites misunderstanding, as well as encourages imperial ambitions.
At the other semantic extreme is Michael Walzer, who writing in Foreign Affairs, insists that the idea of humanitarianism has become a central feature of world politics in the early 21st century. He starts his article with some hyperbolic language to this effect: “Humanitarianism is probably the most important ‘ism’ in the world today, given the collapse of communism, the discrediting of neoliberalism, and general distrust of large-scale ideologies.” [“On Humanitarianism,” Foreign Affairs, 90(No.4): 69-80.] I find such a sentiment to be so exaggerated as to defy reasoned discussion. One wonders has how such an incredible sentence escaped the scrutiny of the eagle-eyed editors of Foreign Affairs. Walzer appears to be suggesting that humanitarianism now eclipses realism and nationalism as an influential global force in the world of ideas and statecraft, which is not only farfetched and wrong, but especially surprising considering that Walzer is without question one of the world’s most respected and influential thinkers on the ethical dimensions of relations among sovereign states. His overall effort in the article is to demonstrate that this humanitarian impulse is a matter of duty for governments, and should not be treated as a species of charity, a potentially valuable distinction that becomes clear when he comes to discuss humanitarian intervention without even mentioning the R2P approach, presumably because it obscures rather than illuminates the underlying issues of choice.
Walzer looks behind the semantics of intervention to appraise the responses to situations where populations are genuinely at risk. He faults the UN Security Council as having a dismal record in the past due to its failures “to rescue those in need of rescuing,” giving Rwanda and Bosnia as examples. Walzer goes on to conclude that the “UN Security Council rarely acts effectively in crises, not only because of the veto power of its leading members but also because its members do not have a strong sense of responsibility for global security, for the survival of minority peoples, for public health and environmental safety, or for general well-being. They pursue their own national interests while the world burns.” [75] This passage sounds to me like an old-fashioned reaffirmation, after all, of realism and nationalism, and is far more descriptively credible than Walzer’s assertion that humanitarianism is the recently emergent dominant ideology.
Coming to specifics, Walzer understandably turns his attention to Libya as having generated a new debate about humanitarian intervention. He summarily dismisses leftist suspicions about Western recourse to hard power solutions to international conflict situations, but also acknowledges that this NATO intervention does not seem to be succeeding in making good on its initial humanitarian claim. Nevertheless, he gives the interveners a surprising clean bill of health as far as their intentions are concerned: “Their motives were and are humanitarian, but not sufficiently shaped by considerations of prudence and justice.” [77] Walzer is alive to the complexity of international political life that makes him skeptical about endorsing generalized solutions to such general problems as what to do about a menaced civilian population. Instead he advocates a situational approach to gross civilian vulnerability. He argues that any state can serve as a humanitarian agent even without necessarily receiving permission from the international community for a use of non-defensive force. In Walzer’s words, “[t]here is no established procedure that will tell us the proper name of the agent.” He gives approval to several non-Western examples of humanitarian intervention: Vietnam in 1978 contra the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, India in 1971 contra Pakistan in what was then East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh, and Tanzania in 1979 contra the bloody tyranny of Idi Amin in Uganda. These uses of force are endorsed as serving humanitarian ends even though they failed to receive any mandate to act from the Security Council and although in each instance, despite rescuing a vulnerable population, the predominant motivation to intervene seemed clearly non-humanitarian in character. In contrast, Walzer pushing to the outer limit his central thesis as to the rise of humanitarian diplomacy writes “In these circumstances, decisions about intervention and aid will often have to be made unilaterally…. The governing principle is, Whoever can, should,” [79] which is the second extraordinary statement made in his article.
Such a volitional framework governing interventionary initiatives negates, without even an explanatory comment, the essential effort of contemporary international law to prohibit all international uses of force that are neither instances of self-defense (as defined by the UN Charter in Article 51) nor authorized by the UN Security Council. In this respect, Walzer seems to be endorsing a kind of ethical anarchism as the best available means for achieving global justice in these situations. At this point he veers back to his confidence in the purity of geopolitical motives by contending that ‘what drives’ these uses of force “is not only humanitarian benevolence but also a strong sense of what justice requires.” [79] This is written as if imperial ambitions even if packaged as ‘grand strategy’ should not be a concern. What about the protection of vulnerable states that are victimized by geopolitical maneuvers associated with resources, markets, and congenial ideology? It might be well to recall that it was a notorious tactic of Hitler’s expansionist foreign policy to intervene or threaten to do so for the sake of protecting German minorities being allegedly abused in neighboring countries.
Returning to a comparison of perspectives, Evans sets forth a series of guidelines that he believes will make it more likely that uses of force in these interventionary settings will be respectful of international law while at the same time recognizing the sensitivities in the post-colonial world about giving approval to military encroachments upon sovereign space, which are invariably of a North/South character if acted upon by the United Nations, that is, the North as agent of intervention, the South as the site where force is used. His five criteria are law-oriented, and deferential to the authority vested in the Security Council: (1) seriousness of the risk; (2) purposeful and discriminate use of force to end threat of harm; (3) force as a last resort; (4) proportionality of military means authorized with respect to the humanitarian goals of the mission; (5) the likely benefit of the contemplated use of force for those being protected. Since Evans, unlike Walzer’s willingness to live with unilateralism, seeks a consensual foundation for such uses of force, he insists that the final mandate for an R2P operation must be shaped within the five-part framework set forth and based on a formal Security Council authorization.
Walzer argues more opportunistically, geopolitically naively, that states should be empowered to act even without proper authorization if they have the will and means to do so. His examples of humanitarian interventions by non-Western states (Vietnam, India, Tanzania) were all neighbors of the target state, and at the time contested to varying degrees due to the play of geopolitical forces, not as a reflection of different levels of humanitarian urgency. In this regard, the strongest humanitarian argument was undoubtedly present in support of the Vietnam intervention in Cambodia to stop a massive genocide, but also the most controversial as it contravened the American policy at the time of placating China so as to increase pressure on the Soviet Union. Acting under the umbrella of R2P is most likely to generate intense controversy when the United States acts with or without European backing (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya), especially if the humanitarian claim seems marginal or as a cloak hiding strategic and imperial goals. Only in the Libyan debate did R2P figure prominently, and maybe led several of the members of the Security Council, including China and Russia, to abstain rather than to vote against SC Resolution that gave NATO the green light to commence its military campaign.
In this sense, Evans’ claims need to be taken seriously, but not because they represent a step forward, but rather because they weaken the overall effort of the UN and international law to minimize war and military options in international political life.
What makes these discussions serious is their bearing on life and death issues for vulnerable peoples and their supposed benefactors. On the one side, Noam Chomsky is right to worry about ‘military humanism,’ which he depicts as the grand strategy of hegemonic political actors being cleverly disguised as global public works projects. In effect, humanitarianism is the pathetic fig leaf selected to hide the emperor’s nudity. Chomsky points to ‘double standards’ as proof positive that whatever the explanation given for a particular intervention by the United States or NATO, the claimed humanitarian motivation is window dressing, and not the primary consideration. He treats Western silence about decades of brutal Turkish suppression of the Kurdish movement for human rights as an illuminating example of geopolitical blinkering whenever it seems inconvenient to take action on behalf of a victimized minority. In my view, the most extreme instance of double standards involves the failure of the UN System or ‘a coalition of the willing’ to take any action protective of the Palestinian population enduring an oppressive occupation for more than forty-four years, despite the direct UN and colonialist responsibility for the Palestinian ordeal.
On the other side of this debate among progressives is Mary Kaldor who worries that without the intervention option, dreadful atrocities would take place with even greater frequency. She supported intervention to protect the endangered Albanian population of Kosovo, fearing that otherwise the genocidal horrors of Bosnia would likely have been repeated, including even the risk of reenacting the grisly massacre of Srebrenica. At the same time, Kaldor was not indifferent to the risks of great power abuse, and tried, in the manner of Gareth Evan, to condition her endorsement of intervention with a framework of guidelines that if followed would make the restraints of international humanitarian law applicable and minimize the exploitative opportunities of intervening powers. This framework was embodied in the report of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo on which Kaldo was an influential member. That report also took account of the inability of the interveners to win UN Security Council approval (in this instance, because of the expectation of Russian and Chinese vetoes). The report took the position that in situations of imminent humanitarian catastrophe it would be legitimate to intervene if the capabilities were available to exercise effective proportionate force, although unlawful given the UN Charter prohibition on all non-defensive claims to use force. It is, of course, not generally desirable to create exceptions to restraints that enjoy the status of fundamental rules of international law, but it can seem even more discrediting for the role of law in world affairs to be paralyzed in humanitarian emergencies by rigid rules and procedures that produce inaction, and expose vulnerable peoples to the ultimate abuse of genocide or severe crimes against humanity.
There is no right and wrong in such a debate. Both orientations are in touch with relevant realities, and there is no principled way to choose between such contradictory concerns beyond an assessment of risks, costs, and likely effects of intervention or inaction in each instance depending on its overall properties. Judgment here is necessarily operating in a domain of radical uncertainty, that is, nobody knows! This raises the crucial question, what to do when nobody knows? It is this unavoidable responsibility for a decision when the consequences are great and available knowledge is of only limited help that points to the difficulties of the human condition even putting to one side the distorting effects of greed, ambition, civilizational bias, and the maneuvers of geopolitics. The late great French philosophical presence, Jacque Derrida, explored this dilemma in many discourses that related freedom to responsibility, with some collateral damage to Enlightenment confidence in the role of reason in human affairs. For Derrida, making such decisions is an unavoidable ordeal that is embedded in what it means to be human, combining helplessness with urgency.
I would suggest two lines of response. First, there are degrees of uncertainty, making some decisions more prudent and principled, although inevitably with the unclear contours with respect to envisioning outcomes given ‘the fog of war.’ In this regard everything is guesswork when it comes to composing a balance sheet of horrors. Still, it seems plausible to insist that Rwanda in 1994 was a lost opportunity to spare many lives taken in a genocidal onslaught, a claim strengthened now and later by the preexisting presence of a UN peacekeeping force in the country, and the informed judgment of both the UN commander on the ground and many observers. General Roméo Dallaire indicated at the start of the crisis that 5,000 additional troops plus a protective mandate to act from the UN could have prevented most of the killings, estimated to be over 800,000. (Dallaire commanded the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda; see also Linda Malvern, Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide, Verso, 1994). From the perspective of prudence, the fate of minorities trapped in major states is almost always an unattractive option, although non-military initiatives of support and censure may have positive effects in some instances. It is unattractive because the costs would be high, the target state has major capabilities, the scale of an effective intervention would exceed the political will to protect a threatened minority, and most important, there would be a high risk of starting a general war.
The Libyan intervention in 2011 was falsely labeled and the mission authorized was light years away from the operational goals of the NATO operation. In effect, this amounts to a disguised form of an unlawful use of force, but coupled with a dereliction of duty on the part of the Security Council to ensure that the gap between its mandate and the actual operation was closed. Besides, those who are being protected, or more accurately, being helped in a struggle for control of the country, were a shadowy organization thrown together on the spot, lacking in cohesion, and almost from the outset having recourse to violence in a manner that violated the spirit and character of the inspiring Arab Spring popular movements in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
At the same time, there was a humanitarian challenge, as the dictatorial leader, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, was delivering bloody rants and the civilian population, under siege in Benghazi, was definitely in a situation of imminent risk. Under these circumstances, a carefully delineated protective move under UN auspices could have been justified, but it would have depended on placing NATO troops in situations of potential danger. The kind of air campaign that has been waged by inflating and exceeding the actual UN mandate depicted in Security Council Resolution 1973 has been discrediting for UN peacekeeping and authority. It has been ineffectual in stopping the violence in Libya, and likely responsible for its spread. At the same time, so far the intervention has resulted in not a single NATO casualty (while causing a rather large number of Libyan civilian deaths). Whether the stalemate in the conflict will produce a negotiated compromise remains uncertain, but the shaping and execution of the intervention is suggestive of the inadequacy of either allowing the decisions and policies relating to humanitarian catastrophe to be made by governments on the basis of their own calculus or through reliance on a UN framework that is susceptible to major geopolitical manipulation.
There is a preferable, although imperfect, alternative that has been around for several years: the establishment of a UN Emergency Peace Force (UNEPF) capable of being activated through the joint authority of the Secretary-General and a super-majority of two-thirds of the membership of the UN Security Council in reaction to either a humanitarian catastrophe arising from political policies or conflict, or a natural disaster that exceeds the response capabilities of the national government. The UNEPF should ideally be funded through some kind of small global tax imposed on the sale of luxury goods, international travel, currency transactions in financial markets, or some combination. If this proves to be impractical, then voluntary contributions by non-permanent members of the UN Security Council would be acceptable. The whole idea would be, to the extent possible, to break the present links between ‘humanitarian interventions’ and geopolitics. The only means to do this would be through the creation of a maximally independent international agency for such undertakings that would engender confidence in its good faith and through its prudent tactics and effective operations. Unlike such delegated interventions as the Gulf War of 1991, the Kosovo War of 1999, and the Libyan War of 2011, UNEPF would rely on tactics that were geared toward minimizing risks for a threatened population and would operate under the strict supervision of the mandating authorities while carrying out an interventionary or relief mission. UNEPF capabilities would be constructed from the ground up, with separate recruitment, training, doctrine, and command structure.
This seems like such a sensible innovation for the benefit of humanity that it may seem puzzling why it has never gained significant political support from UN members, but it should not be. For decades global reformers have been advocating a UN tax (often named a ‘Tobin Tax’ after James Tobin, an Nobel economist who first floated such a proposal) and the kind of UNEPF recommended above (for instance, carefully outlined in a proposal developed by Robert Johansen in collaboration with other scholars, a prominent political scientist who has for years been associated with the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at Notre Dame). Such a practical solution to this daunting challenge is not on the table because it would weaken the leverage of geopolitical actors over the resolution of conflict situations. Reverting to the earlier discussion of Walzer, it is precisely because humanitarianism is marginal to the conduct of world politics that makes the UNEPF proposal seem utopian. In relation to Evans, geopolitical forces can accommodate his framework, which is probably well-intended, but provides intervening states with a rationalization for their desired uses of force without significantly interfering with the discretion to intervene and not to intervene. As the Libyan debate and decision confirms, geopolitics remains in control despite recourse to the framing of action by reference to R2P. If we want more principled and effective action in the future, it will require a great deal of pressure from global civil society in collaboration with middle powers, the sort of coalition that led to the surprising establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 over the opposition of such international stalwarts as the United States, China, Russia, and India.
The former Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Nebojsa Covic has told Kosovo Serbs they should have trust in Belgrade’s negotiators.
This man is a Politician and a Businessman, and it could be that Tadic and his Company of Traitors has Deceived this Person, or that he has been offered Lucrative Business Deals if he Deceives the Kosovo Serbs.
It is not important if he is a Puppet of America who has been Secretly and Willingly been Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia in order to be allowed to become Rich because of being a Puppet for America, and the Nazis of Europe.
The important thing is that President Boris Tadic is a Puppet of America, and of the Nazis of Europe, and we know that Puppets will give the Guarantee to their Puppet Masters to be Puppets by Willingly being Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia.
This is the Guarantee that the Euro-American Plutocrats and Banksters insist on before they allow most of the Politicians in Euro-America, and now in Serbia to be giving their Puppetship by means of rigged Elections, and a Corrupt and Biased Media, who has also been Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia to ensure Total Puppetship to the Euro-American Plutocrats and Banksters.
I will not say that President Bush Senior or President Bush Junior had to Willing Agree to be Secretly Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia by the American Plutocrats and Bansksters.
This is because the Bush Presidents are Plutocrats and Banksters, and so they will Willingly do what is in the Interests of Plutocrats and Banksters, with no need for Guarantees to Puppetship as ordinary People must give to the Euro-American Plutocrats and Banksters.
We all knowq that the Italian Prime Minister is a Plutocrat, and probably has shares with other Banksters, and we also know that he does not need to be Secretly Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia to ensure that he works for the Interests of Plutocrats and Banksters, because everyone works for their own Interests.
We know that the Italian Prime Minister is known for his unusual Parties where young women attend, and which have been described as being sexual in nature.
We further know that the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has been Charged with having sex with an under aged Person, and that the Matter is now before the Italian Courts.
I do believe that Bill Clinton had to Willingly Agree to be Secretly Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia before he could become a Presidential Candidate, and I think that it was Hillary Clinton that pushed him to that situation.
There could be People who would think that Hillary Clinton would have firstly Agreed to be Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia, and that she might have done this to say that she can make or break Bill Clinton’s Presidential Career unless Bill Clinton Agreed to be Secretly Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia in order to Puppetize him to the American Plutocrats and Banksters.
We know that Bill Clinton started to cheat on his wife, and we know that Hillary Clinton needs Bill Clinton, because she Lusts to become the American President again.
We know that Barack Obama came from Chicago, which is the Mafia City, and he promised to give hope and to changed that future America Presidents will not need to be Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia to become the President.
Barack Obama also promised to Respect and Obey the America Constitution, but many Loyal and Patriotic American Citizens do not believe his promise, because of what they have seen him tell lies.
My Honest Opinion is that the Kosovo Serbs should not trust in Tadic’s Belgrade’s negotiators, because Tadic and Company are Puppetized Quislings of America and the Nazis of Europe.
They would not want Films of them in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia to be given to the World, and that is why they know that they must try their best to say that There No Alternative Other Than To Join The Europe Union.
Russia and China can learn a few things about America always protecting Israel at the United Nations, regardless of what Israel does.
The Kosovo Albanians are Terrorists and Criminals, and Israel does not Negotiate with Terrorists, and Serbia should learn a few things from them.
They Know, And Every Idiot Should Know, That the Price For That Is To Give Away Kosovo For The False Promise Of Joining The European Union.
We see that Libya has nothing to do with Responsibility to Protect, and that this was Deliberately Engineered to Steal Saudi Arabia’s Money, and to set up a Military Dictatorship in America.
Euro-America needs Saudi Arabia’s Money, because Germany wants to preserve the European Union, because it is the Fourth Reich.
The Politicians of England, France and America do not want to die, and they would appreciate it if Saudi Arabia handed over most of its Money to Euro-America.
America wants the World to see that Islam is totally useless to a Country, and they are using Libya and Al-Qaeda to do this.
If an Islamic Country cannot be a Peace during their Holy Month of Ramadan, then imagine what it is like for the rest of the year.
Even in Kosovo we see how the Muslims behave during the Month of Ramadan, and they are doing this because America’s Puppets have been Filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia, just like the Rebels in Libya.
We saw how one Rebel Commander was murdered, and this was Secretly done on American orders to Puppetize the rest that of the Rebel Leaders that they will be murdered if Films of them in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia are put on the Internet by the CIA.
We see that the CIA murdered the Navy SEALs that supposedly captured Osama Bin Laden, because dead people cannot tell others the truth.
The Navy SEALs knew that America would have extracted all the information from Osama Bib Laden by now. And some may have thought that this was the time to tell Americans the truth.
There may be West Libyans who will one day want to get revenge on the West for the murders of their People by Western Governments.
This has nothing to do with Religion; because, even Yankee Atheists would want revenge on those who murdered their family and friends, even if those murdered Yankee People where the Scum and Filth of the Earth, because they had a long Criminal Record, or were American Career Politicians.
This is because Scum Loves Scum, and they do not appreciate it if others, either Religious, Agnostic, or Non-Religious murder their friends and family, because they do not wish to judge by proper r fair standards, because they themselves are Scum that cannot or will not judge by fair and proper standards.
People cannot blame the Libyan Leader, because People will act independent of the Leader in a Cashed Up Libya, regardless of who ends up being the Government of Libya.
Euro-America is poor, and needs the Arab League’s Money and there will be Atheist who might perform Terrorist acts for Money, even though it will be blamed on Religionists, even if it is at times done by Atheists.
People cannot blame Religion for this, because things would be exactly the same even if all Libya were Non-Religious.
In other words, the Yanks want to deny others the Right to Human Nature and to the Revenge that even they would want, and would consider it to be the Right, even if they were Atheists doing revenge killing on other Atheists, or even if those Yankees who were murdered deserved to be executed several times over if possible.
We can see that their is a Double standard here, but that is just the way Yankees have always been, but if the Yankees do not give others their Rights, then they will take them.
There could be People who are not Libyans, and who may blame revenge attacks on the West on Libyans.
This is why the Right Thing for England, France, Canada, and America to do is to give their current Leaders over to the World to be executed Humanely by the Administration of Lethal Injections.
Russia and China should realise that that England, France, and America really need the United Nations, and that they can simply ask Euro-American Politicians how much is their life worth to them?
We see that the Responsibility to Protect is only fulfilled if the Leading Politicians and High Officials of Euro-America and NATO are given over for execution in order to prevent revenge attacks by America’s Victims.
If I were a Politician of a Puppet America Country, then I would resign, and say that the reason I was doing it was because the rest of Politicians of my Country needed to be killed very soon, because this is the Responsibility to Protect the Citizens of my Country, and the Citizens of other Countries.
I should have mentioned that the American Dictators want revenge attacks on America, because they want to shred the American Constitution in order to set up a Military Dictatorship in America.
As we can see that Euro-America always has more than one Policy Objectives, and the Arab League need to know that Allies are Allies, but Euro-America needs the Money from the Arab League Countries.
We can see where this Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Leads, and we can see why those who framed the United Nations Charter, said that other Countries should not interfere in the internal workings of other Countries.
If I were a Politician of a Puppet America Country, then I would resign, and say that the reason I was resigning was because most of the Leading Politicians of my Country needed to be killed very soon, because this is the Responsibility to Protect the Citizens of my Country, and the only way to Protect People of other Countries.
The Leading Politicians of America and NATO Countries are the most Guilty ones here, but the Puppets must also share Guilt, because they are Cowardly Scum, and they lust for the Dirty Money of Evil Banksters.
The Responsibility to Protect means that the Euro-Atlantic Politicians and their Corrupt and Bribed Media tell People the truth, and that the Leading NATO Politicians of the Leading NATO Countries are War Criminals.
The World needs to hear that Slobodan Milosevic is saint compared to the Leaders of the Croats, the Bosnian Muslims, the Kosovo Albanians, and America, and the Leading NATO Countries.
If an Atheist did something wrong, then would these Hypocrites be blaming Charles Darwin, or ask for the Evil Lies of Evolution no longer be taught in Schools, or that Creation Teaching can have equal time in the Classroom, if the Lies of Evolution are allowed there.
We know that the principle of Might is Right, and do not look at my Hypocrisy, even though the NATO Hypocrites try their best to make the Victims of their War Crimes be their Scapegoat, while America and the rest of NATO perverts the Course of Justice against Innocent People.
There could be People who might accuse me of be Hypocritical at times, but Perhaps, just Perhaps if we are Honest with ourselves and others, then We Will Say That We Are All Hypocrites To Varying Degrees.
This applies to People who are Religious, Believers who are Non-Religious, Agnostics, those who are Atheists, and even those who Falsely claim that they are Atheists, and who Falsely claim that they are Democratic where People can believe what they want, and say what they want.
America and NATO demand that others should not look at Their Hypocrisy and Their Evil Deeds, because the NATO Hypocrites try their best to make the Victims of their War Crimes be their Scapegoats, while America and the rest of NATO perverts the Course of Justice against Innocent People.
We know that America and NATO claim to have no Hypocrisy or Evil, and we know what a lie that is.
I do not think that I have met greater Hypocrites or Evil than what America and the Leading NATO Countries are.
I should have mentioned that there are some Atheists who are decent People, but I used the example that Human Nature demands revenge from those who kill their loved ones regardless of whether they are good, bad, or average.
Afghanistan shows us that America reserves for itself a Right to avenge itself, and even though 9/11 was done by the American Elites, yet they will Hypocritically Squeal like the Dirty Pigs that they are, if others want the same Standards allowed to them.
If any intervention was never a responsibility to Protect, then it was the Illegal and Immoral War against Serbia to supposedly protect the Kosovo Albanians.
The truth is that the Kosovo Albanians Leaders engineered Terrorist Attacks on Innocent People with the backing and approval of America.
The Western Media lied from the beginning, and continues to lie to this day, because they never had any plans to Protect anyone or anything except their own Agendas.
It is time for the decent countries of the world who were pressured by America to begin Revoking their recognition of Kosovo Albanians Illegal and Immoral Unilateral Declaration of independence.
If Continental Europe is to survive, then they should understand that America needs to leave Continental Europe Completely and Permanently.
America’s protection is the same as the Protection Racket of the Mafia, because England and America run the largest Mafia Protection Racket in the World, and on Continental Europe.
Another obvious Criminal Act that has nothing to do with Protecting Civilians is the Policy of Genocide by England, France, America, and their Libyan Traitor Puppets that they found to help them perform their Genocide on the Innocent Libyan People.
THE – Twilight Zone
The Twilight is a better time of the day to begin to see things clearly, and to walk rather than the Darkness of night.
We know the Evil and the Darkness of Anglo-America and how they are able to deceive the Gullible.
There are those that will not provide evidence for the purity of Anglo-America and for the Nazis of Europe.
This is because there is no evidence for Anglo-America and the Nazis of Europe having pure motives.
To receive their CIA, Bankster, Plutocrat pay packets they will try to belittle those People who have done Genuine Research, who are Honest, and who know Human Nature.
I certainly hope that even the little light that Twilight brings is sufficient to dispel the Darkness of the Bankster and Plutocratic controlled Anglo-America and Modern Day Nazis of Europe.
We know that there is a refugee problem in the world, and that People are claiming refugee status with various countries.
There will always be those who will abuse the system, and this is why Governments have expensive and fallible screening and selection processes to access who is a genuine refugee from an economic refugee.
A Country could say that anyone who claims to be a refugee will be accepted with no selection process, and they will be flown to the Country rather than coming by sea.
Those claiming persecution would have to work in a Five Star Human Non-Nazi Concentration Camp Factory until they voluntarily wanted to go back to their Country, because Work Sets You Free.
These People would never be allowed to become Citizens of the Country with this asylum seeker program.
This is because they would be paid a few dollars a day to work, and that they would take this money back with them when they went back to their Country after they considered it to be safe.
They would be able to send some of their earned money back to their families and friends while they were working 6 days a week in the Five Star Concentration Camp Factories.
They would voluntarily say that they wish to escape persecution in their own Country, and they will leave their asylum Country voluntarily.
They would not be a burden on the taxpayers, and they will earn money for the Country that grants them asylum.
Any Country that does this will attract much Foreign Investment, and would have cheap products to sell to their Citizens, and to other Countries.
There are Many People who have written how Germany was the main planner of the recent Balkan wars.
Germany has for centuries wanted to dominate Continental Europe, and that objective has not changed, but the methods have had to change, because the world changed.
We know that if the wining Countries of WW 1 had occupied Germany, then this would have prevented Hitler starting WW 2.
That problem was addressed after WW 2 with the winning Countries occupying Germany, and so Germany had to use different methods to Dominate Continental Europe.
There are some tactics and strategies that Germany had to change because of the new reality, however, some of the tactics and strategies are fundamental things, and they apply as time goes by.
Germany wants to Dominate Europe with the Germanic, Nordic, and Baltic Countries, while they need France and Poland as Allies for their necessity.
Germany needs France because France and Britain are Friends, but Spain and Portugal are part of Black Europe, and they will not interfere with Germany’s designs just like it was in the WW 2.
Countries like Belgium, Holland, Austria, and Denmark are part of the German Empire, while Germany will want other Countries of Europe to mirror their Puppetship to the German Empire just like they did in WW 2.
Nazi Germany was a creator of Greater Croatia, and a Greater Albania in WW 2; and that purpose remains the same, because for Germany, the fundamental things apply as time goes by.
We all know that Nazi Germany was able to find Traitors among the Serbian People who would form a Puppet Government for Hitler.
Today, the same applies with even the Puppet Prime Minister Cvetkovic who looks the same as the WW 2 Puppet Prime Minister of war time Yugoslavia.
Wikipedia says concerning WW 2 Puppet Cvetkovic: He served as the prime minister of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1939 to 1941. He left Serbia on September 4, 1944 for Bulgaria, and later to Turkey. He spent the rest of his life in Paris. On September 25, 2009, the regional court in Cvetković’s hometown of Serbian City of Niš rehabilitated him from charges laid against him by the Yugoslav government in 1945.
This rehabilitation was done during the current Prime Ministership of the other Cvetkovic because they share the same surname, and are devoted to Puppetship to Germany.
The current Serbian President, Boris Tadic, is from Muslim Sarajevo, which is the Modern Day Janissary City, and Tadic also has a Paris connection, and Sarajevo could be likened to Turkey who invented the Janissary system.
There could be People who think that America is more of a Friend and Ally of Germany rather than Britain, because Germany will have more to offer America in the future because of its Economic position.
This does not mean that Britain is not America’s Ally, but America’s foremost Ally is America first, and then the list continues with this Country that does not have Friends, but only interests.
It is just that America and Germany need each other at the moment to fulfil each other’s objectives.
America’s objectives are Global, and Germany’s objectives are the Fourth German Reich for Europe, and any German Reich is not good for the Serbian People and for other European People.
The Puppets and Traitors in Belgrade will slowly but surely be mentored by the Nazis of Europe to give away Kosovo for the next phase of the Genocide against the Serbian People.
The most devastating phase of the Genocide for the Serbian People will be if Serbia ever joins the European Union.
This will enable all the Educated People to leave Serbia, and it will be accompanied by an influx of foreigners whose mission is to destroy what is left of Serbia.
Serbia is such a Perfect example for other Countries to awaken from their Deep Slumber of Gullibility and Complacency and see what their Bankster and Plutocrat Puppets and Traitors will do to their Countries, and to their friends, their loved ones, and to themselves.
If a Country that exports goods and services wanted to increase their exports, then they would have to be cheaper or more competitive for a given quality of product.
We all know that wages and salaries are a key component of the final cost of the product, and amount of wages and salaries that are needed depends on how much housing costs to buy, or to rent.
If a Country has large homelessness, then that Country may not be worth investing in, because a Country with high homelessness cannot produce good workers, or good students, or a law-abiding good society.
If Countries began to build New Cities and Towns on cheap Government Land, with even some Government housing, then this will make buying and renting houses much cheaper, and increase a Country’s competitiveness, and increase its exports.
The Plutocratic Banksters and Parasitic Real Estate Investors are strongly opposed to this because it lowers the amount of easy Money they make, regardless of whether it is good for their Country and its People.
The Government would receive Revenue on Publicly owned houses to Rent, and some of this Money would be used to employ those in the Private Sector who do maintenance on Houses, because Houses need maintenance.
America is trying to lower the cost of its Housing by making many People homeless, and this was deliberately engineered by the Presidents Clintons with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Utopian Socialist Lie.
The purpose of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Utopian Socialist Lie was to create mass homelessness in America in order to make housing cheaper to increase American exports.
If Americans could all have housing, then America would have largely forget about engagement with the rest of the World, and trade with themselves and recycle all their resources.
The American Plutocrats and their Puppet American Politicians do not want that because they make a lot of dirty money by means of the American Military Industrial Complex.
If all that stimulus money and the money that was given to the Banksters was used to buy the houses that the Banksters now owned because People could not afford to pay the Mortgages, then I think it would have been the right thing to do.
The Banks would have had their money, the Government would have owned many houses that they could have slowly sold, while receiving a Source of Revenue, and People would not be homeless.
The problem as far as the Plutocrats and Banksters are concerned is that it would keep house prices higher, while only a few People would need to lend money from the Banksters, and this would prevent them from being as Greedy and Parasitical as they would like to be.
It would make the American exports just as uncompetitive as they were before, and inflation or losing the Global Reserve Currency would not be what the American Plutocrats would voluntarily want.
This is because America was always going to embark on an unsustainable borrowing frenzy in the hope that borrowing too much money would cover things over until the next election.
The notion of Too Big to Fail, ensured that the ordinary American People were too small to succeed, and Successive American Governments did not intervene Humanitarianly in the American Economy by Pursuing Proper Economic Policies.
I want to say that I am not against Unions, and the only Unions I refer to in this comment are Public Sector Unions.
I need to state that health and safety should not be compromised in any workplace, or of proper and fair conditions and pay.
Public Sector Unions are those that represent Public Servants, and this comment does not concern Private Sector Unions.
I think that those Unions that represent Workers in Private Companies are more responsible than the Public Sector Unions, because the Workers and the Union bosses know that if a Private Company goes bankrupt, then they all lose their jobs.
However, Public Sector Unions and Public Servants know that Countries will always have a Government and taxpayers, and so they can afford to be more irresponsible.
We all know that in March of 2011, the English Government of Prime Minister David Cameron announced that Money for the English Police Force was to be reduced along with other Government Spending in an austerity measure, because of a lack of funds.
I am not making any allegations, but I am simply using the English Police as an example where a few could act opportunistically for their own benefit, and be Self Servers rather than Public Servants.
It was announced on 7 July 2011, that, after 168 years in print, the News of the World would publish its last ever edition on 10 July, because of the phone hacking and bribery scandal.
We all know that the whistleblower reporter, Sean Hoare who alleged widespread hacking at the News of the World, has been found dead on 17 July 2011.
We know that there will be People who think that the English Police murdered him, and did it in a professional manner that cannot be detected.
We all know that England’s most senior Police Officer Sir Paul Stephenson announced his resignation on 17 July 2011, following questions over the hiring of a former Top Executive of News of the World, who was arrested in connection with the phone hacking and bribery probe.
We all know that England’s Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates resigned a day after his boss Sir Paul Stephenson resigned over the Scandal.
We all know how England’s Police Commissioner resigned because the Police were taking bribes from the Murdoch Press to break the Law and to collect Bribes.
We know that widespread rioting, looting, and arson occurred across parts of England from 6 to 10 August 2011, and disorder spread across London and to other areas of England, with the worst disturbances centred on a few major cities.
Those riots started in Tottenham, North London, following a protest which was organised as a result of the fatal killing of a man by Police Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 August 2011.
We all know that the English Police commit crimes, even murder, and they never prosecuted for it because the English Police cover up.
After those riots there was an acknowledgement that England needed more Police, and that the Government would give more taxpayers Money to the English Police Service.
I do not want to make any insinuations, because I do not have any proof, and the English Police are experienced enough not to leave any proof, and, as we already know, the English Media already have a cosy deal with the English Police.
We can see why many People think that Public Servants should not have a Union, because they will send a Country broke just to pander to their own selfishness and laziness.
Private Companies would go Bankrupt if they acted like the Government, those who are said to Serve the Public.