Pro-interventionists are paying the price for their earlier success.
(Page 2 of 2)
This is what happens when “measures to protect civilians under threat of attack” masquerade as regime change by means of asymmetric airpower, in support of armed insurgency. Whatever happened in Libya, it was not R2P. The protection of innocent civilians and commitments to noncombatant immunity do not equate to the support of armed rebels.
R2P is revolutionary precisely because it challenges state-centric conceptions of the world. It emphasizes the international community’s moral commitment to universal principles, and it treats sovereignty as a right that is conditional upon fulfillment of that responsibility — rather than a privilege of statehood.
Now, the purpose of this essay is not to weigh the costs and benefits of robust military statecraft, but to suggest that the international community (those states that exist outside the treaty obligations of NATO) will not warm to the notion of conditional sovereignty.
This presumption applies most specifically to those states that may suffer (or sponsor) widespread human rights violations, of their own — say, in Tibet or Chechnya, to pull two examples from a hat.
Something to consider as we reimagine what our responsibility to protect entails, while counting casualties in Syria.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?