The Catholic case for “another” US-led invasion…

No, not an incursion into the Middle East. Neither the Vatican, nor the Pope (current or past), nor the bishops, nor church teaching or tradition supported the American invasion of Iraq. But when President Bush, the author of that terrible tragedy, meets his new BFF, Pope Benedict XVI, in the Vatican later this week, the pope may want to bring up another idea: Invading Myanmar, aka Burma.
This would not be an attempt to overthrow the oppressive regime, but rather a humanitarian intervention under the rubric of the “responsibility to protect.” (How bad is it in the wake of May’s cyclone? Check out this TNR piece by Alvaro Vargas Llosa.) France’s foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, raised the intervention idea last month as the toll of death and misery sparked by the terrible cyclone was transformed into a catastrophe by the intransigence of the brutal Myanmar regime, which would not open its doors to international relief. As a New York Times story relates,


In 2005, the United Nations recognized the “responsibility to protect” doctrine when governments could not or would not protect their citizens, even if this meant intervention that violated national sovereignty. But it has been rarely applied.

The doctrine grew out of the West’s sense of guilt from our collective inaction in the 1990s over the ethnic cleansings in the Balkans and Rwanda, to take two prime examples. The French under Mitterand were a lone voice for action in Serbia and Croatia, just as they led the opposition to the 2003 Iraq misadventure. Now the Sarkozy government is proposing intervention in Myanmar. Time to give the French their due?
If giving Paris props is too much to bear, then how about the pope? One of the many overlooked (because they were overly-complex) passages from Benedict’s speeches in America in April was this central appeal from his address to the United Nations:


Recognition of the unity of the human family, and attention to the innate dignity of every man and woman, today find renewed emphasis in the principle of the responsibility to protect. This has only recently been defined, but it was already present implicitly at the origins of the United Nations, and is now increasingly characteristic of its activity. Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments. The action of the international community and its institutions, provided that it respects the principles undergirding the international order, should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty. On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage…When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.


Powerful stuff. Benedict traced the history of the principle of the “responsibility to protect” back to the first great theologian of international law, the sixteenth-century Dominican Friar Francisco de Vitoria, and he wraps it in his favored principles of human dignity and natural law. A strong editorial from the Jesuit weekly America also lays out the case for intervention.
Unfortunately, the moral standing of the United States in the wake of the Iraq debacle makes it difficult to make such an argument, and the responsibility would fall largely to the Europeans, who have been far too passive when we have been far too assertive. Moreover, if any papal-presidential conversation along these lines does take place in the Apostolic Palace, it will likely be in private, as Benedict has shown no willingness to pressure Bush, whom he apparently likes, on issues about which they disagree. That wouldn’t be sad. It’d be tragic. Let’s pray for a different outcome.

Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Reaganite in NYC

posted June 16, 2008 at 11:40 pm

What about the role (and culpability) of the Chinese regime headquartered in Beijing? Aren’t they the principal prop and trading partner for the brutual regime which controls Burma (yes, Burma, not “Myanmar”)?
This is an awful situation. But so was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. So is Cuba under Castro. And North Korea as well. Not to mention half a dozen other countries around the world. How do we justify intervening here, but not in the others? Are not people starving to death in North Korea? And how about the million or so political and religious prisoners languishing in “re-education camps” in the so-called People’s Republic of China? What does “America” magazine and their Jesuit editors propose in the way of military intervention to help these people?
Suppose we send troops into Burma and they meet fierce resistance from the Beijing-supplied military regime that runs that country. Casualties rise and surpass 500. More troops are sent in to reinforce the initial group which was dispatched. And more American soldiers get killed. What will you say then?

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Pontifications. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!   ...

posted 2:38:01pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Moving on, and many, many thanks... recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That ...

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored ...

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, ...

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's ...

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.