Human Rights Watch World Report 1995
The work of the human rights monitors chronicled here constitutes a valuable international public service; many of the abuses, particularly in lesser-known countries, would go completely undocumented but for the work of the organizations contributing to the report. This year's report on human rights around the world makes for depressing reading, with a massive genocide in Rwanda, ongoing "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia, religious terrorism in Algeria, communal violence in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, and the like. The authors of the report harshly criticize the Clinton administration for practicing what they label "mercantilist" diplomacy by granting most-favored-nation status to China, the United Nations for a misguided neutrality in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and the world community as a whole for its failure to stop the ethnic killings in Rwanda. In their criticisms of the policies of the United States and other governments, however, the authors sometimes argue as if there were no legitimate foreign policy interests other than defense of human rights and tend to underestimate the risks, costs, and dangers of intervention to prevent human rights abuses.
Related
As western Sudan continues to suffer, much international attention has focused on whether to call what is happening there "genocide." Yet once the term was invoked, it did not trigger outside intervention. Terminology turns out to matter far less than was expected. And once more, the world has dithered while people die.
We face many foreign policy decisions--how to respond to the fighting in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Salvador, Angola, Kampuchea, the Philippines and soon, perhaps, South Africa--that involve the legality of intervening in a civil war. The international law journals are full of scholarly discussions on this subject. They are hard for non-scholars to follow. They disagree sharply, as scholars are wont to do, in their argumentation and conclusions. For readers who are not scholars of international law, this article tries to explain how the rules have evolved, where they now stand, and how they might be clarified to relieve the rising tension between the principle of nonintervention and the human rights of self-determination and open democratic elections.
In the past decade, 12,000 Nepalis have died in an increasingly brutal civil war that pits a backward-looking monarchy and an abusive military against fanatical Maoist rebels. To help solve the crisis, the rest of the world must convince both sides that there is a third way.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.