The aptly-named Ann-Marie Slaughter, one of Tony Blair’s “Three Witches” of so-called humanitarian warfare (with Susan Rice and Cass Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power), took to the pages of the Washington Post on June 8 to try to refute Henry Kissinger’s June 3 op-ed attack on Blair (whom he didn’t name), and Blair’s campaign since 1999 to repeal the 1648 Westphalia Doctrine of national sovereignty and international law,— to bring back a thermonuclear version of the preceding Thirty Years War, which Kissinger wrote killed off one-third the population of central Europe. Kissinger had warned against foreign military intervention in Syria; Slaughter, of course insists on it.
As she has for many months, Slaughter insists on a humanitarian war, but tries to make such humanitarianism more saleable at home, by promising that the “little brown brothers,” as the British call them, will take all the casualties of that war. Or in her words, “a U.N. Security Council resolution with clear parameters about a limited use of force… which would have to follow a request by the Arab League, should resolve to protect the establishment of no-kill zones by local Syrian authorities by whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground. These means would include the provision of intelligence and communications equipment, antitank and anti-mortar weapons, and, crucially, air support against Syrian government tanks and troops that seek to enter or overrun a zone. The provision of such support would also require the disabling of Syrian air defenses.”
If Americans are stupid enough to fall for Slaughter’s fevered fantasy of a Syria war where only the “natives” bear all the casualties, it is they themselves who will be exterminated in the thermonuclear exchange with Russia which results.
Slaughter lies outright that Blair’s so-called “responsibility to protect,” R2P, is already law, replacing the UN Charter. “Kissinger claimed that the Russian and Chinese governments are upholding the foundations of a world order that the United States should not lightly cast aside, an order in which sovereignty gives a government the right to rule its people and territory without intervention from other states and a corresponding obligation not to intervene in the affairs of others. It is true that this principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, but four years after the charter was passed U.N. members also adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By the end of the 20th century, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan—now the United Nations special envoy for Syria—was arguing that states existed to serve their people, rather than the other way around. [!] And by 2005 all the world’s states, on the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Charter’s passage, adopted the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which effectively adopted a definition of sovereignty as responsibility. Sovereigns bear responsibility to not only their fellow sovereigns but also their own people, to protect them from genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and grave and systematic war crimes.”
The UN General Assembly did indeed unwittingly vote for a document which included that phrase, but that is a far thing from an actual treaty which would somehow replace international law and repudiate centuries of legitimate treaties including the UN Charter.
Read more at LPAC