Last week’s Economist included an interesting article on the new wave of thinking within diplomatic circles on the topic of forceful humanitarian intervention. With the disasters of difference machinations arising in Zimbabwe and Myanmar recently, the question has never been more pertinent.

The gist of the argument rests on the premise that, in special circumstance, forcing military and humanitarian assistance upon a state can be more important than that state’s own wishes. The classic case would be the Kosovo War, which was never sanctioned by the UN’s Security Council, but was carried out by NATO anyway, with great strategic success. The question, then, is whether states should be obligated to intervene in similar circumstances of dire humanitarian crises, like Genocide and Civil War, regardless of what that state’s own opinions are?

I’m slightly conflicted about this. The realist in me screams that violating a state’s authority by using the brute collective force of the UN is akin to schoolyard bullying. Hell it doesn’t even prescribe to the old-school methods of state sovereignty. I don’t think Hobbes ever envisioned an entire global military force impeding upon a single state. On the other hand, the idea is sound from a humanitarian perspective. Forcing horrid little Communist fiefdoms and dictatorships to be subjected to international intervention can create a lot of good in the world for obvious reasons. I don’t think anyone would agree that Zimbabwe would be better off without a UN presence.

But there are two major problems to this argument of prying open the closed doors of insular yet chaos-ridden states. Firstly, and perhaps less importantly, is the question of just where do we draw the line? The Iraq War was justified under similar criteria, yet was hardly a clear-cut case at the best of times. That’s not to say it wasn’t justifed. Saddam Hussein’s self-imposed genocide upon his own people should - in the right context - be cause enough for international intervention. Kosovo was a success story for NATO, and provides impetus for the case of intervention, while Iraq is perhaps pushing the line.

I believe the criteria can be identified by the UN, and that it should be recognised. I just have no idea on what few points those will be, knowing full well that the general assembly and SC will prune away any and all important factors demanding intervention.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the problem that that world just isn’t ready to walk the walk. For all the bleating about human rights and sanctity of life and law and such rosy and warm rhetoric, the international community and the UN is neither capable nor prepared in any moral or physical capacity to actually enforce the values they preach down upon other nations. It’s America and Britain, ironically, who are the only ones who actually act on some semblance of moral imperative while the rest of the world wails about the illegitimacy of their actions and the lack of due process.

The UN isn’t ready to take so much responsibility into their hands, nor do I think they will ever be. The international community is too weak-willed to put their money where their mouth is, and the best we can hope for is a quasi-benevolent unilateral interventionist state or states who will act on their behalf. A UN-mandated obligation to pro-actively countermand the sovereignty of states in times of dire crisis is a great sentiment, but will remain just that. Much, I believe, like most of the UN’s policies.