Questionable logic. (Letters to the Editor).

In "When Foreign Intervention Is Justified: Women Under the Taliban" (July/August 2002), Rose V. Lindgren says:

   When a nation signs international agreements, it is committing to support
   them not only within its own borders but also within other countries.... It
   is morally justified for a signatory nation to intervene ... if a nation's
   people have legitimate grievances against their government.... The United
   States has a contractual obligation ... even on foreign soil ... the
   intervening nation's people should support the action....

I believe the opinions advocated in this article are very bad logic and might lead to a dangerous and grave consequence to the entire human society in respect to the ethical criteria now still widely accepted in international affairs. My reasons are as follows:

First, sovereignty is still a "fact" for the time being in world affairs.

Second, one of the connotations of the word democracy can be explained as to let the people within a sovereign nation decide what to do about their own domestic affairs. But how? To what extent should such a basic "rule" of the game be justified? No politics can satisfy everyone to the same degree. The minority's preference shouldn't be ignored "too" much by the majority's dominance.

Third, there are always some conflicts inside a sovereignty or between or among sovereignties. Is it always possible to settle them in peaceful ways, fairly and unbiased? How does one define the word fairly?

Fourth, intervention--especially a military intervention (either unilateral or multilateral)--into a sovereignty's domestic affairs is still a very risky option. And who is authorized to have the final say about what is good and what is evil?

Thomas R. Liu
Flushing, NY