<head><style>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</style></head><body id="compText">Hi, George, I think your comment on the AlertNet blog is brilliant. We need this kind of detail concerning precedents and the legal implications. I am taking the liberty of copying my note here and thereby your own response to the blog to our friends who debate on RADIX's list server. I think they can certainly benefit from your clear thinking and may want to add observations or questions.<br><br>The only observation from my side concerns your final sentence. Yes, the military regime has let one plane in sent by the IFRC and 4 flight by the UN, but very, very few logistics experts have been allowed in (in fact a grand total, I think, of 4 out of a list of 40 the UN submitted). I am not sure the military regime is relenting fast enough to save lives. Also it remains to be seen tomorrow or the next day if the junta heeds Ban Ki-Moon's appeal and postpones its referendum and gives FULL attention to the desperate urgency of relief.<br><br>Cheers, BEN
<o:p></o:p><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px;"><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: windowtext;">/quote/<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">[In international
law,] the discussion is mainly about the rights of the donors to have access to
the needy so that their goods and services can be delivered without
interference. The argument says needy people have a right to receive assistance
if other people offer to provide it. It does not say that the needy have a right
to receive certain kinds of assistance, and therefore others have an obligation
to provide it.<span style=""> </span>The main concern
appears to be with the rights of those who provide the assistance, not the
rights of those who need it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: windowtext;">The
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty advanced an
argument of this sort in 2001 in its report on <i>The Responsibility to
Protect,</i></span><span style="color: windowtext;"> clarifying guidelines for
humanitarian intervention. The approach was highlighted in a UN report on <i>A
More Secure World</i></span><span style="color: windowtext;"> in 2004, a UN
declaration in 2005, and again in the G8 Summit in 2006. On April 28, 2006, in
Resolution 1674, the UN Security Council again made similar claims, asserting
the right of the international community to provide protection to people whose
human rights were being violated. It acknowledged that at least under some
circumstances the international community has a responsibility to provide such
protection, but this responsibility has not been spelled out. . . .<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: windowtext;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: windowtext;">The
assertion of a <i>right</i></span><span style="color: windowtext;"> to intervene
with no counterpart <i>obligation</i></span><span style="color: windowtext;"> to
intervene under some circumstances implicitly invites the politicization of
intervention decisions. Those who intervene within nations on humanitarian
grounds should not be free to choose who and when they help. . . . </span><span style="color: black;">There should be recognition of obligations, and not only
rights, on the part of those who would intervene.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">It is not
surprising that the donors and protectors tend to emphasize their rights rather
than their obligations. However, one would think that if the powerful are going
to claim a right to assist under some conditions, they should also have an
obligation to assist under some conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">/unquote/<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">The
dangers of powerful countries claiming the right to help as they please is
demonstrated with glaring clarity in Iraq. Forcible intervention anywhere
should be decided multilaterally, in the Security Council, and not by single
nations acting on their own authority. We should be cautious about encouraging
powerful countries to act as they please. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">Apart
from the legal considerations, the unfolding situation in Myanmar shows that
John Holmes is correct. The regime there is in fact relenting and allowing
assistance to come in.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">Aloha,
George Kent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div>
<!--EndFragment-->
</div><!--StartFragment-->
Should the world help even if Myanmar doesn’t want it? The
relevant legal context was discussed in a recent book I edited on Global
Obligations for the Right to Food.<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On May 8, 2008, at 8:52 AM, <a target="_blank" href="mailto:bwisner@igc.org">bwisner@igc.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi, George,<br><br>AlertNet just posted a Blog with a spot for reactions below.<br><br>Why don't you have at them?<br><br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1516/2008/04/8-135751-1.htm">http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1516/2008/04/8-135751-1.htm</a> <br><br>Cheers, BEN<br></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></body>