Sunday, September 18, 2005
Genocide and the free-rider problem
This is a profoundly unfair charge, as Kristof sorta kinda acknowledges in the penultimate paragraph of the column ("[p]perhaps it's unfair to focus so much on Mr. Bush, for there are no neat solutions and he has done more than most leaders"). But even in recognizing the unfairness of the attack Kristof is wrong about why it is unfair to denounce the United States for refusing to shoulder an "obligation" to respond to genocide. It isn't that the United States has done more than most other countries. It is that in many situations the United States is the only power that is capable of responding to or preventing genocide. Sure, other good countries can contribute troops and money, but what other country is even theoretically in the position to organize a major military intervention to prevent a genocide that is not in its own backyard? No other country has a large enough navy, and no other country has the airlift capacity. For the United Nations to declare that there is an "obligation" to respond to genocide is to demand that the United States deploy its military on a determination of the United Nations. This is free-riding of the worst sort, and the United States would be nuts to agree to it.
Other than its unfairness, there are at least three other reasons to oppose a legal obligation that the United States intervene to prevent genocide.
First, if for whatever reason the United States is not in a position to respond (perhaps because it is fighting two significant wars in the Muslim world and one of its major cities has just been destroyed), under Kristof's formulation the United States would have a tremendous incentive to block a determination that a "genocide" was underway. Why? Because otherwise it would fail to live up to its "obligation" under international law, which would be used as propaganda against us, both internally and externally. We should, as much as possible, de-politicize the recognition that genocide is happening, but if such recognition creates a legal obligation to respond it will be tempting to pretend that it isn't happening.
Second, a legal obligation to respond to genocide would create geopolitical leverage over the United States. If al Qaeda wanted to pressure the United States to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (for example), it could ignite humanitarian crises elsewhere to divert American resources. A legal obligation to intervene only increases the leverage of America's enemies.
Third, one can imagine all sorts of situations in which American intervention would inflame the genocide, rather than prevent it. As even Kristof points out fairly regularly, the United States is hardly popular in the world. More critically, what do we do about genocides in strategically significant places? It is one thing to demand intervention in the heart of Africa, where there is very little at stake. But what if a genocide occurs in Central Asia, where massive American intervention might be very destabilizing? Do we intervene, or shirk our "obligation"?
Of course, we might have gone ahead and agreed to be "obligated" as Kristof proposes, knowing that we would disingenuously obstruct any finding of genocide on which we were unwilling to act. But that would be disrespecting international law. The Bush administration is actually showing more respect for international law -- and the quaint idea that words have meanings -- than all the incapable countries of the world demanding that the world's only superpower intervene whenever there may be a genocide. Will left-liberal internationalists give him credit for this? I'm not holding my breath.
The most disappointing thing about Kristof's column this morning is that he is smart enough to think of all these arguments on his own and almost certainly has. That he did not raise them and dispose of them, and instead claimed that he was mystified that "Mr. Bush is soft on genocide," is profoundly disingenuous.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Sep 18, 02:53:00 PM:
And of course the proposed legalization could also have been misused by other nations as an excuse for their adventures. Suppose Ethiopia discovers a case of genocide in Eritrea? Or if Russia had decided that genocide was going on in Kosovo and therefore its militairy presence was required there, NATO & the UN having no legal means to stop them?
By , at
Sun Sep 18, 04:00:00 PM:
It would not take a New York
minute for the UN to declare
Isreal guilty of genocide against those "joyful" Palestinians.
And based on the evidence found in the Lancet - the USA is also guilty. Bet
a coalition to fight us in
Iraq would only 2 New York
(Turtle Bay) minutes.
Thank G.W. for the "meany"
John Bolton.
DO NOT MISS THIS:
Click here: OpinionJournal - Featured Article http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007275
THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
Our Man in the Twilight Zone
An interview with Ambassador John Bolton.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Nighmares of made of this:
President Kerry speech at
the UN was celebrated all
over the world. He praised
and signed all the reforms
that Kofi Annon sought to
implement.
By , at
Sat Oct 01, 09:46:00 PM:
Come and check it out if you get the time 8-)
