I also read the whole article.
it contained the essential ideas of "shaping," rather than reacting to, the rest of the world, and of preventing the rise of other superpowers. Its tone is one of skepticism about diplomatic partnerships
I can see how preventing new countries from becoming serious rivals would be in America's interest, but I can also see the actions needed to push the idea may not be in America's interest, or that the interest might not be enough to justify the action.
. Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United States, gain the right to intervene.
This idea isn't a new one. Particuarly the terrorism part. Countries, like people, have a right to self defense. If Country A shelters terrorists that attack country B, then country B might have to attack country A to defend itself.
The other idea, of an obligation "not to massacre your own people" and a right of other nations to intervene if you do, isn't new either but it is against traditional notions of sovereignty. I can see these interventions causing as many problems as they resolve, but on the other hand if there was, for example, a new Cambodian killing fields situation, I can't say I would find an attempt to stop it to be morally wrong. I think that due to practical and other considerations we should limit such interventions to situations where we can make a big difference with relatively little difficulty, or where at least one of these factors (big difference, small difficulty) is present and there is another compelling reason to intervene.
Tim |
