Fghanistan and lobal norms
E US’S stance erodes the political basis of erventions. This is both good and bad news
After the end of the Soviet Union, during the unipolar moment — of United States (US) hegemony — the doctrine of humanitarian intervention picked up. This was based on notion that sovereignty was not sacred, and that regime was involved in human rights violations, international community was within its rights to rvene in a particular country. This principle was ked up by two different streams of thought. The t were the neo-conservatives who, during George ush’s era, argued that promoting democracy and bling regime change was a legitimate extension umanitarian intervention. The second were ral internationalists who extended the principle volve a doctrine of the responsibility to protect P) — if a State failed to protect its population m genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and mes against humanity, then other states could e timely, collective and decisive action. o be sure, as many states, including India had pected, this principle — either under the pretext umanitarian interventions, counterterrorism,
, or democracy-promotion — was used for tegic purposes by Western states. Interventions e often a function of the power balance that ted at the time; they were also driven by the itary-industrial complex, and served ideological commercial interests. But, in itself, the idea that egime could use sovereignty as an excuse to m its own population marked an evolution in ms. he fall of Afghanistan may well have eroded the re architecture of Western interventions. If the as Joe Biden’s speech defending the withdrawal Monday indicated yet again, is not willing to step o protect minority, women and human rights, can leave Afghans at the mercy of a brutal me which has a record of rights violations, it will ard for Washington to justify its intervention where in the future on these principles. The rise hina has already added a protective buffer to horitarian regimes. This does not mean that rventions won’t happen in the future — they will, ated by narrow State interests, as has always pened. But the abrupt end of an invasion meant ounter terror, create a democratic political order protect human rights may have ended up ding the political, moral and legal argument for h interventions itself. The possible dilution of bal military interventions is positive. But if it boldens despotic regimes, like the one taking over ul, the world is headed for more turbulent times.