Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A UN doctrine of pre-emption?

By Daniel Flitton - posted Wednesday, 21 September 2005


None of this is terribly controversial. But other aspects of Bolton's letter are bound to draw a sharp response. For instance, his demand to recognise the option of responding to a humanitarian crisis ''absent authorisation of the Security Council'' is deeply divisive. Military intervention without a UN mandate raises questions over a country's motives. The Iraq war, with the post- invasion humanitarian justification, is the obvious example.

This scepticism is not blind anti-Americanism. China and Russia framed their recent joint military exercise as a hypothetical response to ethnic violence in a third country. No doubt US officials regarded this news with contempt, and instead saw it as a direct challenge to Washington.

Although it is tempting to attribute the friction at the United Nations to Bolton's abrasive personality - the ''kiss up, kick down sort of guy'' described in his aborted Senate confirmation hearings - the dispute over this idea of ''humanitarian intervention'' actually reflects a much deeper philosophical debate about the nature of world politics.

Advertisement

Despite the advance of globalisation, the world remains firmly divided into separate political communities, with governments that jealously guard their independence. For instance, Alexander Downer's talk of benefiting humanity did not prevent a dramatic reinforcement of Australia's sovereign border control in response to asylum-seeker arrivals.

But many people believe that human rights transcend the borders between countries, that no government has the right to systematically abuse its citizens. This debate is not new. It will outlast the latest round of UN scandals to hit the headlines, along with the tenure of John Bolton.

Finding a way for the international community to come together and establish the responsibility to protect could become a far more enduring legacy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Canberra Times on September 15, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Daniel Flitton is a Visiting Research Associate at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and works at the Australian National University, Canberra.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Daniel Flitton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy