Humanitarian intervention after the Iraq crisis.
Defining the criteria for intervening in the affairs of sovereign states has become a pressing issue for the international community. Pre-emptive actions, based on a unilateral view of evil or risk, have caused divisions and questions of legitimacy, whilst the failures to take collective actions against extreme suffering reflect a lack of coherence in international decision making. The current concerns about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and failed states lack clear definition of these and of how risks might be estimated, to whom the risks apply and the responsibilities of the various players. The primacy of the United States is without question, but opinion within and without is divided, many feeling the US should use its power to do what is best for the world as a whole and not just act out of self-interest. There is a need to engage with the US and its institutions at all levels. There is also a need to develop more robust conflict prevention strategies with adequate resources, personnel and management, such as suggested in the BASIC conflict prevention service.
Davis
Ian
I
British American Security Information Council, London N1 6HT. idavis@basicint.org
D000533:Altruism; D002959:Civil Defense / Q000941:ethics*; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D006076:Government; D006801:Humans; D038622:Internationality; D007493:Iraq; D011050:Policy Making; D011057:Politics; D023481:Terrorism / Q000517:prevention & control*; D014480:United Nations; D014481:United States; D014857:Warfare / Q000941:ethics*