Like many, I see recent US (and my home country Australia) invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be utter mistakes, firstly because they’re doomed to failure, but also because their ethical underpinnings are shaky. However, like many, I decry the lack of action against genocide in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and now Darfur. How does the world ensure gross crimes against humanity can be acted against, without giving nations excuses to invade for immoral reasons?
If this bind seems familiar, check out Joe Lauria’s Wall Street Journal July 30 article: ‘U.S. Backs Implementing U.N. Doctrine Against Genocide.’ Apparently the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, endorsed by the United Nations in 2005, aims to kick in only upon genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, so the cutoff is appropriate. (Mind you, that hasn’t stopped Russia trying to bolster actions in Georgia and Chechnya on just such grounds – interpretation will always be made partly politically.) I gather this doctrine is non-binding, so it could be labelled as a feel-good piece of paper destined never to be used appropriately, but it surely seems to me a tiny step forward.