Tzvetan Todorov ("A case of right over might", THES February 9) makes an interesting contribution to the debate on humanitarian intervention but some points should be made in response.
Todorov's pluralism rests on three key assumptions: first, that there is no agreement about what values should guide intervention; second, that selectivity of response reduces the legitimacy of intervention; and third, that only in cases of genocide do states abrogate their sovereign rights.
Contrary to the first assumption, there is in fact a considerable degree of agreement about what human rights are. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been signed by virtually every state and reflects many different conceptions of human rights. Agreement about basic human rights is also echoed in similar declarations issued by regional organisations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The argument that humanitarian intervention cannot be legitimate if it is selectively applied is often stated, but weakly reasoned. Each case should be dealt with separately. The United Kingdom's failure to act against Turkish abuse of its Kurdish population should be criticised but it should not prevent it from helping the people of Kosovo when it is willing and able to do so.
Arguments over what is genocide are fruitless - in terms of the Genocide Convention, the Cambodian tragedy was not genocide. What is important is that states who persecute their people fail to live up to the responsibilities of sovereignty that accompany its rights. Humans created states and not vice versa. If a state kills and abuses its citizens, the idea that it should be protected by the principles of sovereignty is absurd.
Todorov's narrow vision of sovereignty has been superseded in the 1990s but we are still not sure what it should be replaced with. What we do know is that sovereignty cannot provide a veil to protect those who perpetrate human rights abuse on a massive scale.
Alex Bellamy
Joint Services Command and Staff College
Watchfield
Wiltshire