The responsibility to protect

The responsibility to protect refers to the right for a country to Prevent, Respond and Rebuild in the context of what it perceives as a violation of global interests by another country. This violation is usually on humanitarian grounds like those happening in Palestine or Sudan or Kashmir.

Before embarking on trying to assimilate this theory let me make one thing very clear. No country operates on any ground other than its own national interest. That is the reason they are countries in the first place. Simply put, countries are simply not driven by the altruistic motive of welfare to all. They will do something if they benefit from it.

The US is the perfect example of this. They claim that spreading democracy is their primary goal. Bullshit! To keep this free from frills. They perceive a national threat in countries moving towards communism. Politics is nothing but power play and leftist governments are a threat to American power. Just to elaborate on the hypocrisy of the altruistic idea... Look at China! Sino-American relations have always been strangely conducive apart from occasional hiccups ever since Kissinger had this marvelous brainwave of using befriending the Dragon. The reason America liaised with China in the first place was its economic and political potency and to use it as a tool to curb the growth of the more threatening Soviet expansion. I would also like to bring in the massive opprobrium that have been brewing in South American leftist regimes against the US muscle play. However, I'll keep this focused.

The primary shortcomings in the responsibility to protect can be substantiated in two essential questions:

1. Who enforces this responsibility?
2. What about the sovereignty of states and their right to reject incursion?

This responsibility is given to a nation by whom? International organizations one might say... The United Nation? :-) We all know where that is going to lead... a veto! Because ther is not such thing an an International Organization. The UN is a negotiation desk for pursuing National interests.

By what right does one nation intrude on the affairs of other nations? To make things simpler... by what right does the US intrude into the affairs of Iraq? All states have the right to sovereignty. So theoretically speaking Iraq has the right to determine what happens within its borders because of its right to sovereignty.

The next issue is how should one define sovereignty? A state that cannot protect its citizens anymore obviously cannot be considered sovereign. The very reason for the existence of a government is the protection of the citizens it governs. If this does not exist, how can the sovereignty exist. Natural disasters, Genocide, Military oppression lead to the loss of sovereignty of a state. This is a purely logical thought.

Now does the loss of this sovereignty justify intrusion of another nation in the affairs of the victim? When national interest is at stake, of course it does. But, let us not label it as service to mankind.

The way I see things, the primary responsibility of remaking the sovereignty of a nation is with its citizens. This is what any intrusion must stress on - creating a system of referendums within a nation rising from the aftermath of a revolution or disaster. This is why states are not the optimal medium to put into effect such a referendum. They will be biased towards serving their own needs (even at the cost of others). A truly supranational organization could be of real help here. That was what the UN was intended to be. I hope that reforms are heading in this direction.