Response to Exam 2

Every nation is responsible to protect its citizen from disasters like humanitarian intervention, human rights, and other natural disasters. Sometimes armed force is not a good option to protect human beings. Other times it is very beneficial. Protection of human rights is being violated throughout the world in Asian and African nations extensively. R2P is responsibility to protect and includes the idea of sovereignty in international law.
The right to protect is a notion that every nation must protect its citizens form disasters like humanitarian intervention and natural disasters. Often times that notion is not something that benefits society. War is not a means of right to protect and it does not bring peace for the humanity. When Weiss says that “Over the last decade, we have witnessed not too much but rather too little armed force to protect human beings”, he is stating that armed force is not a means to protect human being. It does not work for every case. As the world witnessed the natural disasters like tsunami and hurricanes and earthquakes occur, the armed forces cannot do anything to prevent it from killing people and destroying properties. When he says that “the hard edge of the R2P stick has been ignored”, he is explaining that foundation of protection of human rights is being ignored. The foundation for human right is the consideration of philosophical, moral, and correct analogy.
Universalism is the identification of particular dogma, considering all nationalities in its formation. Universalism considers everyone as equal. That means the responsibility to protect is also equal between people. The connection between Universalism and the notion of a right to protect is the fact that human rights do not and should n...

... middle of paper ...

...ans about human rights violation and how they should stop their weapon of mass destruction, they will bring the argument that once upon a time the US themselves violated the rights of Asian and native American citizens and on top of that, the US bombed Japan and middle eastern countries and still tend to produce more and more nuclear weapon. Then there will be no right answer. The US cannot just say that history was history and now is now. When the US brings up the notion of universal rights and sovereignty, Syria will probably do the same thing. Considering all the aspect of a decision that has been presented, it is clear that the US is putting itself in a state of chaos where achieving one goal means giving up all the other things like life, money, and time. Everyone is capable of thinking rational and therefore, the US intervention in Syria is not a good analogy.