Dec 01 2007
Speaking about the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” in the 2005 UN World Summit Declaration, Byers condemns the Canadian government for taking the “substance out of the concept and agreed that it would act merely as a guideline for U.N. Security Council action. That’s not leadership; it was a move designed to impress domestic audiences and nothing else.”
But almost in the very same breath, Byers has the audacity to smack Canada again for not signing the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples that he helped draft, reasoning that the document had no binding force. Byers: “Canada should have supported the declaration because the vast majority of countries were comfortable ratifying it and did not view it as a threat.”
Isn’t Byers suggesting that signing the declaration would have been a move “designed to impress domestic audiences and nothing else”?
For some inexplicable reason, Johal refrains from pouncing on the helpless mark.
But presumably, at some point a Canadian journalist will have to take this highly regarded academic, who simultaneously affirms the Responsibility to Protect and condemns Canada’s actual efforts to protect, to task.