Should the U.S. Support the UN's Responsibility to Protect Doctrine?

The refusal of the military regime in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) to accept large-scale international aid in response to a devastating cyclone has spurred new interest in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. That doctrine was incorporated into an outcome document at the 2005 UN summit, where the United States joined 150 other states in calling for the consideration of collective UN Security Council action should national authorities fail "to ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - May 23, 2008 - 8:50 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Francis Lilly
1.9
by Francis Lilly - Oct. 1, 2008

It is extremely important topic because it "reveals" the thought processes of institutions that are currently setting and controlling policy via the American political structure. Information, fairness, sources, context, evidence, balance, and accuracy are, in my opinion, are more close to propaganda than journalism because (although, on a micro level, the arguments center around R2P) the principles are themselves espousing macro level "doctrine" developed by their respective organizations that envisions global domination by America. Rather than journalism, I would consider this piece a "tract" for which the reader can discern doctrinal philosophy of the organization. For a different perspective and discernment, I recommend ... More »

(comment refers to full article) More »

See Full Review » (14 answers)
George Blahusiak
1.5
by George Blahusiak - Oct. 1, 2008

One of the worst pieces of journalism I have seen. A couple of sophists yapping on about how important the United States is, to the detriment of the rest of the world. As for Myanmar, nothing was said about the fact that the US put conditions on its humanitarian aid, apparently demanding that Ang San Su Ki be relased from home detention and that elections be held. In short, shows one side and draws a conclusion. And this organization calls itself nonpartisan? How did this ever get to be published?

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.3

Poor
from 5 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.1
Facts
2.0
Fairness
1.7
Information
2.3
Sourcing
2.3
Style
2.7
Accuracy
2.3
Balance
2.0
Context
1.7
Popularity
2.8
Recommendation
2.8
Credibility
2.2
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!