[Peace-discuss] Refutation of "humanitarian intervention"

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Chomsky suggests that the corruption of R2P to big power purposes is 
not absolute.  Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.]

"...But the maxims that largely guide international affairs [e.g., the 
maxim of Thucydides that the strong do as they wish while the weak 
suffer as they must] are not immutable, and, in fact, have become less 
harsh over the years as a result of the civilizing effect of popular 
movements.

"For such progressive reform, R2P can be a valuable tool, much as the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been.

"Even though states do not adhere to the Universal Declaration, and some 
formally reject much of it (crucially including the world’s most 
powerful state), nonetheless it serves as an ideal that activists can 
appeal to in educational and organizing efforts, often effectively.

"The discussion of R2P may be similar. With sufficient commitment, 
unfortunately not yet detectable among the powerful, it could be 
significant indeed."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/4696/making_war_to_bring_peace/

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I don't understand the following statement of Chomsky, after he shows 
> the hypocrisy and faults of R2P. Perhaps someone can explain...
> 
>> "American public opinion brings up a further consideration.  The maxims 
>> that largely guide international affairs are not graven in stone, and, 
>> in fact, have become considerably less harsh over the years as a 
>> result of the civilizing effect of popular movements.  For that 
>> continuing and essential project, R2P can be a valuable tool, much as 
>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been..."