Question for Max

[Max Sawicky]

Brett:
>  I wish I had used the argument put forth in the article Bill
Lear posted a couple of days ago.  I'd never seen the argument
made so lucidly before, although of course it makes perfect
sense - namely that this principle of intervention should be
rejected because:
>
> 1) of power asymmetry, i.e., only the powerful can intervene in
the affairs of the weak.  The powerful will not tolerate the
meddling of the weak (i.e., the US wouldn't stand for Cubans
bombing Miami as a means to put an end to sweatshops, for
example).
>
> 2) There is always some abuse you can point to in virtually ANY
country as
a justification for intervention.  So in practice this principle
acts as a
rationale for powerful states who want to intervene in the
affairs of
weaker nations, and can provide a cover for invervention for
other reasons. >

In the abstract, this is a good argument for international law
(IL).  IL would be a good thing.  But it does not necessarily
follow that any violation of IL should be condemned, just as a
cop breaking a law to protect an innocent person's life might be
excused, depending on the particulars.

In this case, atrocities are happening in real time and can't
wait for the machinery of IL to prevent them.  Even worse, if we
take the UN as the embodiment of IL, members of the Security
Council have an inherent interest in vetoing certain acts in
defense of innocent life.  For instance, China and Russia have an
interest in squelching any support for the self-determination of
oppressed nationalities, in light of the situations of Tibet and
Chechnya.  On some matters, the U.S. is no saint either.  Trying
to improve this state of affairs is a worthy undertaking.

Meanwhile there will be situations that can't and should not wait
for IL.  I agree that usually might will not make for right in
the absence of effective IL.  In the specific case of Kosova, a
serious effort to rescue Kosvars that entailed serious resistance
from Serbia would still be right.

mbs