Health imperative 'justifies interventionism'
Friday, 03 Oct 2008 08:30
Aid following Cyclone Nargis was delayed by several weeks
In Focus
A look back at Zimbabwe's failed election. Full Story
Western countries should be prepared to intervene without permission when countries like Burma or
Zimbabwe threaten the survival of whole populations, two global health experts have said.
Professor Lawrence Gostin and others from Georgetown University in the US call on political leaders to place the survival of large populations over "the sovereignty claims of despotic leaders".
They argue restrictions on humanitarian assistance, as seen in the wake of Cyclone Nargis in Burma, can have a devastating impact on public health in affected countries.
"Forced intervention is a complex policy question, but blanket rejection may condemn innocent civilians and prevent deterrence of crimes against humanity," they write in this week's Lancet journal.
"Where leaders engage in intentional acts of cruelty toward their populations, wealthy nations should be prepared to intervene beyond their borders to safeguard health and human rights."
The writers suggest leaders who fail to refuse aid to those in need, as in Burma, or actively create a humanitarian emergency, as in Zimbabwe, are committing a "crime against humanity".
In these circumstances the appropriate response is intervention, they argue, without host-country consent.
The report says the UN security council is often "paralysed" by vetoes from its five permanent members, making examination necessary of the legality of unilateral or coalition interventions.
This creates the need for a careful approach, they say.
"Nations should be justifiably cautious about using or threatening intervention to stop crimes against humanity," the writers add.
"Policy makers must carefully consider risks to relief workers, civilians, and troops, as well as the danger of complicating future health-promotion activities."