Print

12 Waging War to Make Peace question of whether nations are “ready” for R2P. In a world where the prerogatives of power prevail, he said, it would be applied selec- tively, “in cases where public opinion in P5 Member States supports intervention, as in Darfur, and not where it is opposed, as in Gaza.”7 Giving voice to the still-current anti-Western sentiment of the Group of 77 (G-77), he argued that a UN stamp of approval on R2P would “generate new ‘coalitions of the willing,’ crusades such as the inter- vention in Iraq led by self-appointed saviors.”8 Making for an odd alliance, conservatives in Washington similarly condemned the concept by arguing that it is a challenge to sovereignty, that is, American sovereignty: U.S. independence—hard won by the Founders and successive generations of Americans—would be compromised if the United States consented to be legally bound by the R2P doctrine. The United States needs to preserve its national sover- eignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and especially its military forces.9 Much of the resistance seems puzzling to proponents, considering that the list of four egregious crimes (and therefore reasons for possible intervention) is short—some say too short. Given that it includes only genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against human- ity, there is reason to believe that the notion could be popular among Americans. One could argue that the World Summit definition enshrines the very idea that every person, no matter his origin, is endowed with inalienable rights. That means, chiefly, the right to life and to liberty, or freedom from grievous assaults on human dignity, such as slavery or crimes that otherwise shock the conscience of mankind. It can also be argued that Americans have a track record of deciding that such moral principle is worth protecting, even to the point of laying down American lives. A reason for resistance, however, is that a fair amount of the debate in the United States centers on the third question this study examines, that is, the question of whether Americans should be obligated to intervene. Jean-Marc Coicaud of UN University says yes, arguing that rights and obligations need laws and cannot be left to mere “moral judgment.” Coicaud holds out great hope that international legal regimes, if only they are given more power, can resolve this intractable problem: Intervention based simply on moral considerations does not offer the benefits of the institutionalization and socialization that a right and obligation enjoy when they are a matter of law. . . . When doing the right thing is more or less a matter of moral judgment, and one somewhat at odds with standard law, it is destined to be problematic.