The other responsibility to protect
James Forsyth 12:05pm
The Pakistan problem is one of the thorniest in international politics. It is almost impossible to see how you deal with a nuclear armed failing state whose government claims, with some justification, that it can’t control its military, intelligence service and all of its territory. But as Bob Kagan writes in the Washington Post today:
"...nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched. If there is such a thing as a 'responsibility to protect,' which justifies international intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe either caused or allowed by a nation's government, there must also be a responsibility to protect one's neighbors from attacks from one's own territory, even when the attacks are carried out by 'non-state actors.'"Hard as the Pakistan problem may be, it is unreasonable to expect India to sit passively by while terrorists flow into the country from Pakistan. If Pakistan is serious about wanting peace in South Asia, it will accept whatever help is needed for the government in Islamabad to regain control.
Previous
BrianSJ
December 2nd, 2008 12:40pm Report this commentMr Neocon interventionist would say that wouldn't he.
Not really compatible with with stopping Muslims running Somalia peacefully or the taleban ending the drugs trade, so needs a few tweaks as a full justification for US imperialism.
On this basis, the UK should secede large parts of Yorkshire, since that seems to be where the terrorists come from.
Searcher
December 2nd, 2008 1:00pm Report this commentAt least in this case we know for sure that Pakistan has WMDs.
Austin Barry
December 2nd, 2008 1:04pm Report this commentAnd what help would you suggest is likely to be effective for this friable, nuclear-armed Islamic dystopia with its murderous tentacles stretching into London, Luton and Leeds?
Rhoda Klapp
December 2nd, 2008 2:37pm Report this commentSo the US should/would have supported UK in invading the Irish Republic in the 70s in order to 'help' them get control of territory.....
GV
December 2nd, 2008 5:00pm Report this commentLast week I came across an online US newspaper claiming contingency plans were being drawn up for invasion of Western Pakistan with maps showing its division to provide a sort of no-man's land. Sorry, I can't recall the paper.
Herbert Thornton
December 2nd, 2008 8:02pm Report this commentA step in this direction would be India launching commando raids into Pakistan to destroy terrorists' bases, extremist Madrassas, and so on.
It would certainly be no more that a proportionate response to what Pakistan has been allowing to happen when it's elements have so frequently carried out attacks in India.
The apprehension is of course that it would cause a more full scale war between Pakistan and India.
But would it be nuclear in nature?
If it was clear that a nuclear war would result in Pakistan ceasing to exist, would Pakistan be so foolish as to attempt nuclear strikes against India?
Tim Carpenter LPUK
December 3rd, 2008 10:13am Report this commentNeo-cons have for some time had the idea to carve up Pakistan and form a new "state" in the south that incorporates bits of Iran and would provide an effective "gatekeeper" to the Gulf.
Watch this space.
The Dandiprat
December 3rd, 2008 6:25pm Report this commentGV.
The Fortean Times I think.
Herbert Thornton
December 3rd, 2008 11:08pm Report this commentBob Kagan absolutely right.
But nations' responsibilities are even wider. Britain in particular is now home to a great many people who have intentions similar to those of the maniacs who perpetrated the Bombay outrages.
Yet Britain seems to take very little action to stop the preaching of hate and terrorist recruitment in Mosques across Britain and even shelters extremists from extradition on the irrational - even insane - excuse that if extradited, these monsters may be ill treated after leaving Britain.
Back to top