This morning, Madeleine Albright, writing in the New York Times, notes that “the notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground.” The result is that repulsive governments are increasingly able to do what they want, free from the fear that other nations will intervene to stop them.
Why are the planet’s worst leaders getting a free pass? As a Democrat, she largely blames “the disastrous results of the American invasion of Iraq.” “Indeed, many of the world’s necessary interventions in the decade before the invasion-in places like Haiti and the Balkans-would seem impossible in today’s climate,” she writes. So, according to her, there is less support for intervening, even “for worthy purposes.”
The former secretary of state is correct that the American-led effort to topple Saddam Hussein has been unpopular across continents. Yet, by making a partisan argument, she unintentionally raises the most important “sovereignty” issue we face today: Do we have a right to use force to eliminate grave threats to global security in the face of less-than-universal support?
Ms. Albright suggests there is “a responsibility to override sovereignty in emergency situations,” such as preventing ethnic cleansing or genocide, arresting war criminals, restoring democracy, or providing disaster relief when governments fail to do so. These are important goals to be sure, but the international community has, since the end of the Cold War, intervened to further them only in situations of lesser global consequence. She dwells on Burma, for instance. But the junta has been killing Burmese for years without having a discernable effect on those of us fortunate enough to live elsewhere.
This is not an argument for callousness. I make this observation because we need an answer to this question: If we have a right to protect the Burmese, do we also have an obligation to deal with dangers that potentially affect everyone? Today, the most serious of the immediate threats to international security is the one posed by Iran’s nuclear program. So, Ms. Albright, do we have the right to take away the mullahs’ ability to end the world as we know it? And if we do not, is our obligation to intervene limited only to inconsequential situations involving weak nations?
