One discussion centered on creating an international mechanism for humanitarian intervention when a malfunctioning nation’s leadership fails to address a building crisis like the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, or when it consciously abuses its people by conducting or abetting mass killings. There was no clear path to establishing such a protocol, although those at the meeting appeared to agree that the United Nations Security Council, in its current form at least, would never be the vehicle given the veto power of states dead-set against anything resembling outside interference in internal affairs.
But when the world watches avoidable disasters unfolding in plain sight, what should be done? With global media and Web connectedness, everyone — to some extent — bears witness to starvation or genocide or the like. Awareness comes with responsibility.
Still, in the long history of nation states, and given human beings’ persistent tribal tendencies, when does an outside institution, however well intentioned, have the right to intervene in another country? Who decides which interventions are moral and “right,” and which are not justified? There is a fundamental tension with us, still, between the rights of individuals (or individual states) and of the larger community (or community of nations). This was at the heart of my recent post on the enduring dream of global-scale thinking and action, with extends from Darwin through Havel and on through Bill and Melinda Gates’ view that all lives have equal value.
How this plays out will certainly help determine how many bumps there are in the road toward 9 billion people seeking a decent life. At the meeting, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright proposed an intermediate step through which rich countries could help speed the progress of poorer ones, creating new ways citizens can serve overseas to help foster freedom, economic development, and improve lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment