Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
A decade later, the world's record in fulfilling the Responsibility to Protect remains poor, with hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Syria, Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Burundi, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo still threatened by mass atrocities.Is sovereignty really what emerging powers are defending? And does effective protection of populations always come down to intervention?As part of a team of academics and think tankers in Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Delhi, Frankfurt, Oxford, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, we recently completed a three-year research project that takes stock of the last decade's debates about prevention and intervention, sovereignty and responsibility, selectivity and hypocrisy. We found that the widespread view that the conflict is between "the West," promoting intervention, and "the rest," defending sovereignty, is misleading in two critical ways.First, "the West" is hardly keen to intervene, diplomatically or militarily, to protect populations from mass atrocities. Second, global support for protection from mass atrocities is far from dead.To protect populations more effectively from mass-atrocity crimes, governments, international organizations and civil-society groups should focus on practical challenges and learn from past mistakes.First, there is a need for constructive debate about how the Security Council manages the exercise of military force.
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE