Responsibility to Protect

Published June 24, 2008 7:40pm ET



The international community’s “responsibility to protect” populations from failed or predatory states is set to become the most hotly debated concept in foreign policy, no matter who becomes president on January 20, 2009. Bret Stephens explains why:

A solution for Zimbabwe’s crisis isn’t hard to come by: Someone – ideally the British – must remove Mr. Mugabe by force, install Mr. Tsvangirai as president, arm his supporters, prevent any rampages, and leave. “Saving Darfur” is a somewhat different story, but it also involves applying Western military force to whatever degree is necessary to get Khartoum to come to terms with an independent or autonomous Darfur. Burma? Same deal. … So let’s by all means end the hand-wringing and embrace the responsibility to protect, wherever necessary and feasible. Let’s spare the thousands of innocents, punish the wicked, oppose tyrants, and support democrats – both in places where it is now fashionable to do so (Burma) and in places where it is not (Iraq). If that turns out to be Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, it will be a worthy one. It does come oddly close to the Bush Doctrine.

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.