Iran and China compared.

I have always been sceptical about external attempts to force regime change by boycott, diplomatic isolation or armed intervention. Six months before this article was published Prime Minister Blair in his Chicago speech sketched out the idea of conditional sovereignty (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html), in which he elaborated on NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, on the grounds that Milosevic’s Serbia had been seeking to cleanse the territory of its mainly Albanian, Muslim population.

“The most pressing foreign policy problem we face”, the Prime Minister stated, ” is to identify the circumstances in which we should get actively involved in other people’s conflicts. Non -interference has long been considered an important principle of international order. And it is not one we would want to jettison too readily. One state should not feel it has the right to change the political system of another or foment subversion or seize pieces of territory to which it feels it should have some claim. But the principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter. When oppression produces massive flows of refugees which unsettle neighbouring countries then they can properly be described as “threats to international peace and security”. When regimes are based on minority rule they lose legitimacy – look at South Africa.”

But how to select from a long list of countries engaged in such barbarous acts? Blair suggested five criteria: are we sure of our case? have we exhausted all diplomatic options? are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? If we get involved, are we prepared for the long term? do we have national interests involved? 

Arguably, these criteria were not adequately applied in the diplomacy surrounding the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2002 to 2003. But they did represent a response to the experience of the genocides of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia or in Africa. They also challenged the traditional reading of states rights to be independent in the ways they ran their own affairs. The new notion of conditional sovereignty was predicated on the idea that sovereignty entails responsibilities as well as rights. The most famous application of this principle has come to be known as the “responsibility to protect.” The principle is that a state’s first responsibility is to protect those within its borders from atrocities. States that fail to fulfil that responsibility, through acts of either commission or omission, are accountable for their actions.(International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect , Ottawa, Canada: irdc, 2001).

In 2004 these principles were embraced by a UN panel to the effect that: “Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.” The inescapable problem flowing from this position is that if a state is not fulfilling its duties as a member of the club of sovereigns, then intervention in the internal affairs of the offending states becomes a duty to the members of the club, conveniently termed “the international community”. The members of this self appointed society tend to be self elected. As I argue here in the case of Iran and China, better to allow domestic evolution to run its course. The implication is that if judges in Iran stone women to death, there is little we can do; or if Beijing persecutes Tibetans, we should ask the Tibetans what they would prefer us to do. The answer, I am assured, is that they suffer if we kick up a fuss to satisfy our own righteousness, and would prefer us to be measured. In other words, to think before we act, and then act with a clear and limited intent. In short, to be aware of our limits.

image2014-01-10-113413[3]

Advertisements

About Jonathan Story, Professor Emeritus, INSEAD

Jonathan Story is Emeritus Professor of International Political Economy at INSEAD. Prior to joining INSEAD in 1974, he worked in Brussels and Washington, where he obtained his PhD from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He has held the Marusi Chair of Global Business at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and is currently Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Graduate Schoold of Business, Fordham University, New York. He is preparing a monograph on China’s impact on the world political economy, and another on a proposal for a contextual approach to business studies. He has a chapter forthcoming on the Euro crisis. His latest book is China UnCovered: What you need to know to do business in China, (FT/ Pearson’s, 2010) (www.chinauncovered.net) His previous books include “China: The Race to Market” (FT/Pearsons, 2003), The Frontiers of Fortune, (Pitman’s, 1999); and The Political Economy of Financial Integration in Europe : The Battle of the Systems,(MIT Press, 1998) on monetary union and financial markets in the EU, and co-authored with Ingo Walter of NYU. His books have been translated into French, Italian, German, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Arabic. He is also a co-author in the Oxford Handbook on Business and Government(2010), and has contributed numerous chapters in books and articles in professional journals. He is a regular contributor to newspapers, and has been four times winner of the European Case Clearing House “Best Case of the Year” award. His latest cases detail hotel investments in Egypt and Argentina, as well as a women’s garment manufacturer in Sri Lanka and a Chinese auto parts producer. He teaches courses on international business and the global political economy. At the INSEAD campus, in Fontainebleau and Singapore, he has taught European and world politics, markets, and business in the MBA, and PhD programs. He has taught on INSEAD’s flagship Advanced Management Programme for the last three decades, as well as on other Executive Development and Company Specific courses. Jonathan Story works with governments, international organisations and multinational corporations. He is married with four children, and, now, thirteen grandchildren. Besides English, he is fluent in French, German, Spanish, Italian, reads Portuguese and is learning Russian. He has a bass voice, and gives concerts, including Afro-American spirituals, Russian folk, classical opera and oratorio.
This entry was posted in China and East Asia, Oil, the Mid East and Gulf, World politics, business and economics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s