For nearly two weeks, we have witnessed the callous indifference of Myanmar's ruling junta to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. The regime's grotesque failure to permit more than a trickle of aid has stimulated calls for the United Nations to compel Myanmar to provide access for international relief efforts.
Whether such calls are answered could determine the survival of hundreds of thousands in Myanmar spared from the initial inundation but clinging to life without food, clean water, shelter and access to lifesaving medicines. It will also speak volumes about how we conceive of state sovereignty in the 20th century.
At the 2005 World Summit in New York, the 192 U.N. member states unanimously approved a new international doctrine known as "the responsibility to protect," often abbreviated as R2P. It establishes a norm of contingent sovereignty. When a government violates its fundamental obligations, either by committing mass atrocities against its people or allowing them to be committed, the international community may intervene to save lives.
The motivation behind R2P was to prevent future Rwandas, Srebenicas and Kosovos, where armed factions abetted by murderous regimes slaughtered thousands of unarmed citizens. Implementing the doctrine has proved more challenging than enunciating it, as the ongoing conflict in Darfur attests.
Last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner invoked the R2P principle for Myanmar. He called for a U.N. Security Council resolution to force the junta to accept humanitarian aid. Predictably, China and Russia quashed the proposal. U.N. officials themselves fear losing what little access in Myanmar they enjoy, and even the United States and United Kingdom remain lukewarm.
Despite this resistance, Mr. Kouchner's cause is not hopeless. But those of us who champion it will need to answer critical questions about the legal, political and practical feasibility of their argument.
First, does the doctrine apply to the Myanmar situation? The main critique of Mr. Kouchner's proposal is that U.N. member states endorsed the R2P for a narrow range of contingencies, specifically "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Any effort to broaden the doctrine would surely stimulate violent opposition among developing countries, congenitally worried about outside intervention. This could undermine the fragile consensus on R2P's application to genocide.
