The "responsibility to protect" (R2P) doctrine outlines the conditions in which the international community is obligated to intervene in another country, militarily if necessary, to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. Despite its noble goals, the United States should treat the R2P doctrine with extreme caution.

Adopting a doctrine that compels the United States to act to prevent atrocities occurring in other countries would be risky and imprudent. U.S. independence—hard won by the Founders and successive generations of Americans—would be compromised if the United States consented to be legally bound by the R2P doctrine. The United States needs to preserve its national sovereignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and especially its military forces.

There are ongoing efforts to legitimize the R2P doctrine within the United Nations and other inter­national forums. R2P is being advocated by certain organizations that do not necessarily consider the best interests of the United States as a priority. Inter­national organizations such as the United Nations and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Federalist Movement and the Open Society Institute promote R2P in the inter­est of a nebulous "international community," not in the interests of the United States or its citizens.

If the United States intervenes in the affairs of another nation, that decision should be based on U.S. national interest, not on any other criteria such as those set forth by the R2P doctrine or any other international "test."

Protecting American Sovereignty.Given the recognition of the responsibility to protect doctrine in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and the continuing efforts by certain actors in the international community to promote and opera­tionalize R2P, the United States should clarify its position on its national sovereignty and the criteria for the use of its armed forces.

To that end, the United States should:

• Maintain its current official position, as set forth in former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton’s letter regarding the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, that the R2P doctrine does not create a binding legal obligation on the United States to intervene in another nation for any purpose.
• Affirm that the United States need not seek authorization from the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the international community, or any other international organiza­tion to use its military forces to prevent acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other atrocities occurring in another country.
• Base its decisions to intervene in the affairs of other nations—including punitive economic, diplomatic, political, and military measures—on U.S. national interests, not on criteria set forth by the R2P doctrine or any other international "test."
• Scrutinize ongoing efforts by certain actors within the international community to opera­tionalize and otherwise promote the R2P doc­trine in the United States, the United Nations, the international NGO community, and other international forums.
• Reject the notion that the R2P doctrine is an established international norm.

Conclusion. The United States should take no comfort from the fact that, as a party to the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, it has commit­ted itself only to being "prepared to take collective action" to end atrocities or that the International Commission on Intervention and State Sover­eignty’s report represents the obligation to prevent atrocities as a mere "responsibility."

R2P advocates are attempting to achieve world­wide consensus that the international community has an obligation to intervene, with military force if necessary, in another country to prevent acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. R2P proponents may not be satisfied with anything less than a multilateral treaty—a United Nations Con­vention on the Responsibility to Protect—that cre­ates binding legal obligations on its signatories.

The United States should therefore continue to treat the responsibility to protect doctrine with grave skepticism. The independence won by Amer­ica’s Founding Fathers and defended by subsequent generations of Americans should not be squandered, but rather should be safeguarded from furtive encroachments by the international community.

Only by maintaining a monopoly on the deploy­ment of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and military forces will the United States preserve its national sovereignty. Acceding to a set of criteria such as those set forth by the R2P doctrine would be a dangerous and unnecessary step toward bolstering the authority of the United Nations and the international commu­nity and would compromise the consent of the American people.

Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fel­low in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a divi­sion of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.