Aqui fica um excerto do artigo de Clifford Orwin sobre aquilo a que se poderia chamar a insustentável ligeireza da "responsabilidade de proteger", sem dúvida mais um grande momento do humanitarismo contemporâneo.
.
Bernard Kouchner, the enfant terrible of the humanitarian movement turned Foreign Minister of France, has urged the UN Security Council to invoke the responsibility to protect. This would put Myanmar’s generals on notice that they could face air drops of relief supplies without their authorization or even armed intervention if they continue to obstruct the relief effort. Whatever we may think of the prudence of such a measure, there is no doubt that the doctrine supports it – and even, we might think, requires it. For if the responsibility to protect extends even to armed intervention as a last resort to curb obstinate abuses such as those of the junta, mustn’t we put the violators on notice that we mean business?
Yes – unless, as seems likely, we don’t. Ramesh Thakur, currently a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont., and an original architect of the responsibility to protect, finds Mr. Kouchner’s zeal untimely. He has argued against sabre-rattling, promoting instead continued reliance on diplomacy: “If we are not prepared to [march in with the marines] is it not better to avoid such language from the start?” Point well taken. Only thing is, considering that “our” (i.e., the UN’s) unwillingness to march is clearly chronic (first Darfur, now Myanmar), doesn’t Mr. Thakur’s argument suggest the UN should have “avoided such language at the start” by eschewing the responsibility to protect in the first place? Is there any spectacle more contemptible than that of weak justice?
Yes – unless, as seems likely, we don’t. Ramesh Thakur, currently a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont., and an original architect of the responsibility to protect, finds Mr. Kouchner’s zeal untimely. He has argued against sabre-rattling, promoting instead continued reliance on diplomacy: “If we are not prepared to [march in with the marines] is it not better to avoid such language from the start?” Point well taken. Only thing is, considering that “our” (i.e., the UN’s) unwillingness to march is clearly chronic (first Darfur, now Myanmar), doesn’t Mr. Thakur’s argument suggest the UN should have “avoided such language at the start” by eschewing the responsibility to protect in the first place? Is there any spectacle more contemptible than that of weak justice?
.
Clifford Orwin, "A responsibility, unshouldered", The Globe and Mail (15.05.2008)
0 comentários:
Enviar um comentário