The international community’s “responsibility to protect” populations from failed or predatory states is set to become the most hotly debated concept in foreign policy, no matter who becomes president on January 20, 2009. Bret Stephens explains why:
Indeed, Obama’s statement on Zimbabwe is arguably more interventionist than McCain’s. Both Obama and McCain agree that Robert Mugabe’s government is no longer legitimate. They both call for increased sanctions against the Mugabe gang. But Obama writes: “If fresh elections prove impossible, regional leaders backed by the international community should pursue an enforceable, negotiated political transition in Zimbabwe that would end repressive rule and enable genuine democracy to take root.” That door to intervention is absent from McCain’s statement, which suggests the administration “consider expelling Mugabe’s diplomats from Washington and explore options with our friends in Africa and beyond, including suspending Zimbabwe’s participation in regional organizations as long a Mugabe clings to power.” Obama is already moving to the center on a host of issues. How will the Angry Left react when – not if – President Obama participates in the long and noble tradition of American humanitarian intervention?
