Bret Stephens writing in the WSJ thinks its time to invoke the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine in Zimbabwe:
A solution for Zimbabwe's crisis isn't hard to come by: Someone – ideally the British(better still the AU...they did it in Comoros) – must remove Mr. Mugabe by force, install Mr. Tsvangirai as president, arm his supporters, prevent any rampages, and leave. "Saving Darfur" is a somewhat different story, but it also involves applying Western military force to whatever degree is necessary to get Khartoum to come to terms with an independent or autonomous Darfur. Burma? Same deal.
International relations theorists, including prominent Obama adviser Susan Rice, justify these sorts of interventions under the rubric of a "Responsibility to Protect" – a concept that comes oddly close to Kipling's White Man's Burden. So close, in fact, that its inherent paternalism has hitherto inhibited many liberals from endorsing the kinds of interventions toward which they are now tip-toeing, thousands of deaths too late.
"...The Responsibility to Protect describes an evolving concept about the duties of governments to prevent and end unconscionable acts of violence against the people of the world, wherever they occur.
The international community has a responsibility to protect the world’s populations from genocide, massive human rights abuses and other humanitarian crises. This responsibility to prevent, react to and rebuild following such crises rests first and foremost with each individual state. When states manifestly fail to protect their populations, the international community shares a collective responsibility to respond. This response should be the exercise of first peaceful, and then, if necessary, coercive, including forceful, steps to protect civilians..."-Responsibilitytoprotect.org
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar