Responsibility to Protect

I see the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) as a useful development of international law and I recently defended British action in Libya as an example of it. I admit that it may not be but I still believe the doctrine is a good one. Craig Murray has written an excellent article for the Independent about Libya and the coalition government's approach to foreign policy. The question is whether the Liberal Democrats are making any difference to foreign policy. Any evidence that we are ?

For more information on RtoP, go here and for NGO support for RtoP here.

Responsibility to Protect

I lost a debate last night. Not so terrible, you might think. We all lose arguments and perhaps I was wrong. I was defending the intervention in Libya by the USA, UK and France under UNSC 1973. My argument was based on the development of the Responsibility to Protect. I am disappointed not that I failed to persuade people that this intervention is a good, practical example of the doctrine, which is arguable. No, I am downhearted that radical, peace-loving people rejected the whole concept. Some went so far as to say that national sovereignty is essential to democracy ! As Lord Lothian proclaimed in 1935, "Pacifism is not enough". I am convinced that national sovereignty is the root cause of war. There is nothing surprising about right-wing opposition to the evolution of supranational democracy and international law. Those like Murdoch who wield global commercial might will always resist it as it constrains and regulates them. I remain astonished at left-wing opposition. How do people who recognise the dangers of concentrated private economic power propose to challenge it if they will not support the construction of supranational governance and if they insist on the untrammelled sovereignty of nation-states ?