Emergence of the Blair/Clinton doctrine

Early debate:

• Conservative 2000 account of humanitarian military intervention
  
• In 2000, the outlook began to come into focus: an irresistible shift in public attitudes
• 2001 Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA) article marks the origin of Clinton doctrine merging realism and liberal internationalism
• 2002 policy essay laws out the moral conflict and advocates multilateralism
  
• 2002 U.S. Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) foreign policy platform: 'progressive internationalism'
  
• British PM Blair adopted the principle that military intervention is justified in failed states
• A special 2002 interview involving Walzer on humanitarian intervention and the 'new killing fields'
• In this 2003 on-line discussion multilateralism becomes a linchpin in the humanitarian intervention debate
• 2003 on-line discussion: 'the centre left embraces internationalist military intervention' during the summer of 2003
  

The Blair/Clinton doctrine and 'Responsibility to Protect':

• U.N. High Level Panel's Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004)
• 2004 call for U.N. guidelines on military force for new century
  
• In 2004 Kenneth Roth (of Human Rights Watch) deploys the outlook in arguing that Iraq War II was unjustified
  
• Annan creates a new category in 2004 by labeling humanitarian military intervention a threat to security
  
• U.K. Foreign Secretary Cook's 2001 speech to Commons
• U.K. PM Blair's 1999 'Doctrine of the International Community' speech
• Discussion of Blair's doctrine in 2004
• When is 'regime change' justified? (2004)
  
• Canadian PM Martin pushes for UN reform around 'responsibility to protect' principles in APEC speech, and adds a surprising suggestion about new 'L20'
  
• John Tirman describes establishment prior to 2003-4 of new 'norm' of humanitarian military intervention
• Annan reiterates support for 'responsibility to protect', denies existence of a 'right to intervene', and points to U.N. Charter (Chapter 7) in 2005
• Straw speech to Labour Party in 2005: 'We are in Iraq to bring about democracy'
• MSF's Dumait-Harper argues in 2002 for clear line between military and non-coercive humanitarian/NGO operations
  
• 2005 roundtable discussion in International Relations gives a snapshot of this outlook's philosophical underpinnings
  
• Summer 2006 endorsement of humanitarian military intervention on U.S. think tank website
  

2004-6's decline:

• 2004 Guardian article labels peacekeeping operations 'Imperial crusades'
  
• 2004 criticism: liberal interventions in Kosovo and Iraq preceded by false claims and followed by installation of neo-liberal economics
  
• Noam Chomsky's skepticism about humanitarian intervention and the renaissance of the just war tradition (2006)
• 2004 Foreign Policy in Focus article points out the failures of liberal interventionism
  
• Walden Bello's 2006 warning: noble interventions have undesirable consequences
• During 2005 visit Venezuelan President Chavez interrupts chorus of U.N. praise for 'responsibility to protect', calling it 'invalid and illegal'.
• China's 2005 U.N. submission shows strong concerns with 'responsibility to protect' framework
• Milleneum+5 Outcome Document (2005) adds restricted endorsement of 'responsibility to protect'
• 2006 article details Canadians' cynical use of 'responsibility to protect' doctrine with involvement in 2004 Haiti coup.
  
• 2006 article about possible 'empire-like' and destabilizing character of 'responsibility to protect'
  
• 2005 NYT piece concerned with military internationalism's descent into colonialism
• Major 2006 Washington Post article by Eric Posner challenges the paradox of humanitarian war arguing that peace operations can
• 2005 legitimacy deficit following massacres and tragedies
  
• Rieff's 'consistency problem' in a 2005 on-line discussion
  
• Paul Diehl in 2005: a failure to translate sentiment into action on concept of U.N. armed humanitarian emergency force
  
• Recent critical approach