Responsibility To Protect More Than A Principle — It Is A Moral Imperative
'The responsibility to protect is more than a principle — it is a moral imperative, rooted in our shared humanity and the U.N. Charter' - with these words, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the importance of the political commitment made by the world's leaders some 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, at the 2005 World Summit, world leaders affirmed the responsibility of individual States to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including through the prevention of these crimes and their incitement. They further agreed to encourage and help other States, as appropriate, to exercise that responsibility, and do so by using appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, among others. This political commitment of the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) was born from the horrors of the atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and was to ensure that 'never again would the international community stand silent as innocent lives were destroyed by the gravest crimes.'
Nonetheless, two decades later, the commitment appears to be greatly unfulfilled. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking before the U.N. General Assembly on June 25, 2025, stressed that the world is witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts since the end of the Second World War: 'Conflicts are becoming more protracted, complex and interconnected, while emerging threats such as the weaponization of new technologies and the proliferation of advanced weaponry require a constant adaptation to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes and to protect populations.' He added that 'too often, early warnings go unheeded, and alleged evidence of crimes committed by States and non-State actors is met with denial, indifference, or repression. Responses are often too little, too late, inconsistent or undermined by double standards; civilians are paying the highest price.'
Shortly before the meeting, the U.N. Secretary-General published a report looking into the two decades of the R2P. The report highlights efforts achieved through national prevention mechanisms or under regional leadership, demonstrating that early diplomacy, early warning and institutional innovation can be effective in preventing and responding to atrocity crimes. The report emphasizes the need to mainstream atrocity prevention across the United Nations system — from humanitarian action to peacekeeping to human rights. The report also calls for integrating early warning, supporting national prevention mechanisms and embedding atrocity prevention in the broader agendas of sustaining peace, human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The report emphasizes three priority areas for future action: (1) developing permanent prevention mechanisms at the national level, (2) enhancing regional dialogue to share lessons and strengthen cooperation, including through regional consultations, and (3) developing strategic and technical guidance on implementing the R2P at the domestic, regional and multilateral levels.
During the meeting at the U.N. General Assembly, several States raised their concerns in relation to the progress made (or not made) over the last two decades. Among others, several countries stressed the importance of the prevention of atrocity crimes, as the only way to prevent deaths and suffering. The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, stressed that all Member States must support both the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, as well as the French-Mexican initiative on refraining from the use of veto (by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council) in the case of mass atrocities. Australia's delegate, speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, referring to the reported violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen, stressed the importance of combating impunity and called for full accountability for atrocity crimes through appropriate national and international investigative and justice mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
As atrocity crimes are raging on globally, States must ensure that they implement their political commitments, such as the R2P, but also their legal obligations, such as the duty to prevent genocide (enshrined in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) and other international treaties. Protecting civilians and preventing atrocity crimes cannot be left to chance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Colorado says Republican budget bill will cut billions in federal funding for Medicaid in the state
State says Republican budget bill will cut billions in federal funding for Medicaid in Colorado State says Republican budget bill will cut billions in federal funding for Medicaid in Colorado State says Republican budget bill will cut billions in federal funding for Medicaid in Colorado Colorado is expected to lose up to $2.5 billion dollars annually in federal Medicaid funding under the Republican Party's massive tax and spending cuts bill. The measure passed the U.S. Senate Tuesday after Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. It would extend Republican 2017 tax cuts permanently, increase funding for defense and immigration enforcement and cut funding for Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would increase the deficit by about $3 trillion over ten years. The bill now goes back to the U.S. House of Representatives for approval. Among the differences between the Senate and House versions are changes to Medicaid, which provides health coverage for one in four Coloradans. The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill will reduce spending on Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, and maybe nowhere will those cuts be felt more than in rural Colorado, where half of all hospitals are already operating in the red. Lincoln Health in Hugo is among them. It is the only hospital on the I-70 corridor for 160 miles. The survival of those who live in the area depends on the survival of the hospital, which also operates family practice clinics, a nursing home and assisted living center. Lincoln Health CEO Kevin Stansbury CBS CEO Kevin Stansbury says those services are at risk under the bill. "We will have to close down some services," Stansbury told CBS Colorado. "And the challenge will be what services are not essential." Stansbury says 80% of the patients at Lincoln Health are on Medicaid or Medicare. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) -- which administers Medicaid -- says the bill would mean a loss of between $900 million and $2.5 billion a year in federal funding for Medicaid. It says the state would lose another $550 million a year due to a provision that caps a fee many states assess on hospitals at 3.5%. The bill also creates new verification requirements that HCPF says could cost the state $57 million to administer. It says the red tape will also result in thousands of Coloradans losing coverage. The bill requires recipients to provide proof they're going to school, volunteering, or working every month, and provide proof of their income and citizenship every six months. Stansbury says some recipients in Lincoln County don't have internet and will need to travel 80 miles to Fort Morgan to re-certify in person. He says many will drop off the rolls and end up uninsured. "Our patients have to travel to Fort Morgan for in-person revalidation of their Medicaid," Stansbury explained. "You're cutting access to care, which ironically could drive up the cost of care and put more financial stress on hospitals." Stansbury says Lincoln Health expects to lose about 25% of its Medicaid reimbursement under the bill. While it creates a new $50 billion rural hospital fund, he says it's unclear who would qualify for the money and how it would be distributed. "Where you live shouldn't determine if you live," Stansbury said. He notes many of the people who live in Lincoln County are conservatives. "I'm not sure that's what people out here voted for," Stansbury said. "I don't think they voted to have their hospital decimated." Lincoln Health may have to scale back services, but Stansbury says the hospital will survive. "This is a mission for us, and we're going to stick here. We're going to provide care to our patients," Stansbury said. "All we're asking is that we get paid equitably for it." The Senate dropped a provision in the House bill that would have cut federal Medicaid funding by 10% in states like Colorado that use their own tax dollars to cover Medicaid for non-citizens. The bill could also impact Medicare reimbursement. Because it adds to the deficit, it triggers the "Pay As You Go Act," which makes automatic cuts to federal spending. Medicare reimbursement could drop by an estimated 4%. Stansbury says rural hospitals are not only underpaid by Medicaid and Medicare, but by commercial insurers. He says Lincoln Health receives 100% less reimbursement from commercial carriers than hospitals in the Denver metro area. Both the Senate and House bills allow a subsidy program enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to expire at the end of the year. It caps premiums for those who buy insurance on the Health Exchange at 8.5% of a household's income. People who live in rural or mountain communities could see their premiums double.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nurses rally against ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Medicaid cuts
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN) — Registered nurses are teaming up across the nation to push for change. National Nurses United is the nation's largest union of registered nurses. On Tuesday, they planned rallies at lawmakers' offices in eight different states, urging lawmakers to vote against proposed Medicaid cuts in the GOP reconciliation package. Senate passes big, beautiful bill 2 NEWS visited Congressman Mike Turner's office, where dozens of registered nurses showed up to protest against a decision they say could cost thousands of lives. There are almost 80 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid as of March 2025. Medicaid provides healthcare coverage to all types of Americans, including vulnerable populations like the elderly, disabled and children. 'We all know someone who depends on Medicaid, and for many families, this is life or death,' said Irma Westmoreland, National Nurses United vice president. 'For our friends, for our community, for our relatives, Medicaid and Ohio Medicaid provides necessary resources to many, so that they can live a full, productive life.' Specifically, these registered nurses showed up to ask Rep. Turner to vote against the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act. They said his initial condemnation of attacks of federal works and co-sponsoring the Protect America's Workforce Act gave them hope that he would stand by them. However, in light of his latest votes and the Senate decision today to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill, nurses are now asking him to make a critical choice. 'We've seen you do what's right, and we need you to stand up with us now more than ever. Representative Turner, do you want to be on the side of billionaire donors, or do you want to support the patients and the loved ones that we care for each and everyday?' said Westmoreland. 2 NEWS reached out to Turner's office for comment and are waiting to hear back. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Senate Passes One Big Beautiful Bill Despite One Big Not-So-Beautiful Price Tag
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pauses while speaking to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Getty Images Senate Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' with a 51-50 vote after three Republicans—(Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—joined Democrats in voting no. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker vote. The tax provisions in the Senate would make permanent a number of the expiring tax cuts contained in Trump's signature 2017 tax legislation— the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWB Model), a nonpartisan, research-based initiative that provides an economic analysis of public policy's fiscal impact, making those cuts permanent would increase the deficit by $4.3 trillion over 10 years. These changes would be partly offset by spending cuts of $1.460 trillion for a total conventional cost of $3.104 trillion. The PWB Model analysis scored the legislation against a current law baseline. That's also how the Joint Committee on Taxation originally scored the bill. The baseline impacts how the cost of extending tax cuts is calculated (that's called scoring) and how it impacts the overall budget. As you know from past bills, including the Bush tax cuts, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, it has long been the case that bills are scored based on the cost to move forward based on current law (so, in all of those examples, any provisions that were set to expire are reset to zero while those previously made permanent are ignored). Senate Republicans had requested that the JCT rescore it using a new approach called a current policy baseline. With a current policy baseline, extending provisions that are set to expire are scored as having zero cost. The Parliamentarian ruled that the new approach breaks the rules—this is consistent with precedent. With a current law baseline, the cost of the extensions is fully counted. Senate Committees According to the PWB Model analysis, increases in spending under the Armed Services, Judiciary, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees would add $290 billion to the deficit. While other committees proposed net spending cuts or revenue increases, the savings amount to only $1.5 trillion, offsetting less than one-third of the $4.6 trillion increase in deficits from tax cuts and spending increases. You can see how those costs are expected to play out here: Penn Wharton Budget Model Analysis, Senate Bill Kelly Phillips Erb (You can read more about the TCJA extensions as they originally appeared in the House version of the bill here.) Major Spending Cuts The Senate bill includes changes to health programs, including Medicaid. Notably, it would cut Medicaid spending by imposing work requirements, restricting state-level taxes on healthcare providers that receive federal matching funds, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks, changing Medicaid eligibility requirements based on immigration status, and phasing down state-directed payments to providers to align with Medicare rates. Overall, cuts to Medicaid would reduce the federal deficit by more than $900 billion. The bill also reduces spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) by $186 billion over ten years. The cost doesn't just disappear—it shifts the responsibility for payment to the states with a new cost-sharing formula. It would also create additional work documentation requirements, shift administrative costs to states, and make other changes to reduce federal SNAP costs. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee eliminates subsidized and income-driven loan repayment plans, imposes new limits on student borrowing, and tightens the eligibility requirements for Pell Grants. Altogether, it would reduce spending by $350 billion over the budget window. Impact To The Federal Debt Overall, the PWB Model analysis predicts that the bill would increase debt by 7.6% over 10 years and decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3% over the same period. That's different than the impact to the federal deficit. Here's the quick difference between deficit and debt: The federal deficit is the excess of expenditures over revenue in a fiscal year. In simple terms, if we spend more than we take in, we have a deficit. If we spend exactly what we take in, we achieve a balanced budget. If we take in more than we spend, we have a surplus. The deficit is recalculated annually based on the shortfall or surplus each month. If there is a deficit, the Treasury borrows money to make up the difference. The Treasury accomplishes this by selling securities like T-bills, notes, and savings bonds. The federal debt is essentially the total of the deficits. So, if we owe $800 million one year and it's not repaid, and in another year we owe $500 million that is also not repaid, we accumulate a debt of $1.3 billion. Make sense? Since this amount represents borrowed money, we also pay interest on it, causing it to continue growing even if we are not actively adding to it. Next Steps Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it moves back to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose three votes—the last iteration in the House passed 215-214. The versions passed in the House and Senate must match exactly for the bill to become law. Forbes What's Comes Next For The One Big Beautiful Bill Act By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes As The Byrd Bath Continues, Here's A Look At What Will Likely Be Out Of The One Big Beautiful Bill (Updated) By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House Passes Trump Tax Bill After Marathon Session, Now It Moves To The Senate By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes A Guide To The Tax Cuts In (And Out) Of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' By Kelly Phillips Erb
