The UN's Authorization of Military Force

While we are all talking about the current situation in Libya, blogger Ackerman notices something else, that Yemen's government has also started firing on protesters. Ackerman asks the question: "Does the international community have a 'responsibility to protect' civilians in pariah-state Libya but not counterterrorism partner Yemen?"

It's a very good point. It appears as if America is acting the hypocrite, selecting only some nations to help and not others. Obviously, we have motives for leaving Yemen as is, that Yemen's government would continue to help us fight Al-Qaeda. This type of selective ignorance is also seen in Bahrain, as noted by blogger Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/pulling-down-the-pearl.html). We preach democracy, but turn a blind eye if the horrors are committed by our allies? No wonder we don't very much respect.

Knowing this, I ask if the UN's responsibility to protect principles's military force authorization should be continued. Is it worth it? The principles do not simply suggest it, but state that the international community has a responsibility to intervene. Especially considering when so many nations have similar problems, it becomes impossible for the UN to keep themselves from being biased for or against certain powerful or strategic nations. In the long run, this will lose respect for UN resolutions and diminish the UN's effectivness in other interventions. In addition, many nations are becoming more wary of military intervention, as seen in the debate over the no-fly zone over Libya, and many do not want to bring themselves into a disaster after the terrible example of the US's invasion of Iraq.

The UN might have a small chance of saving Libya with military force, but can it continue to do so in other nations? Can it be objective and ignore their allied bias and stop war crimes in allied nations as well? I do not believe that the international community have the financial means and political and moral incentives to do so. I do not want to get rid of R2P completely, as it is a good incentive for corrupt governments to avoid the use of violence against civilians, but sometimes though the motives are sound, the execution is not. Perhaps we should remove the military force portion of R2P, and just use diplomacy. This way we avoid digging ourselves into our grave too far.