In TNR Online (free registration required), Richard Just takes Darfur as a test case for liberal foreign policy thinking. He writes:
A liberalism that cannot make genocide prevention a central plank of its foreign policy is not an idealistic brand of liberalism. Nor is it a liberalism that people of conscience will ever find particularly attractive.Apropos the American Prospect piece I discussed here yesterday, he says:
Yglesias and Rosenfeld, in their much talked about Prospect article, allude to Darfur only once: in order to ridicule TNR for "knee-jerk hawkishness" because we have urged, among other interventions, "action to halt genocide in Sudan." Then they protest, "We are not realists." I'm not so sure. If one claims to be a believer in the moral use of American power, and yet one can't advocate the use of American power in the most clear-cut and extreme of moral cases, then when, exactly, would one ever advocate intervention on moral grounds?Just's article briefly sets out the argument for Western intervention in Darfur. (Thanks: TH.)
