Intervention & R2P


If noting the geopolitical nature of the motives involved behind a country’s external adventurism is to be treated as sufficient factor for legitimizing that country’s behavior, then, no country can be ever be faulted or condemned for its adventurism, be it an Iran, a Russia, a China, a France or a United States. As such, those who insist on justifying Iran, Russia or China’s adventurism while condemning France’s or America’s reveal their ideological slant and hypocrisy. If one is truly opposed to intervention in the “internal” affairs of other states one has to do it across the board, and not play favorites.


However, it is equally important for all of us to recognize that there are indeed times and occasions when intervention is morally justified and needs our support. This is the position that the signatories to Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have in essence agreed to support. Signed by 191 states so far, R2P as a binding legal document is no less important in terms of our moral and ethical evolution than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.