By JOE LAURIA
UNITED NATIONS -- The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement a U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide.
The next step is to see if the countries in favor of implementing the policy will act when a new genocide is brewing if all other diplomatic actions fail. The doctrine is political, not legal: Although these countries have expressed the political will to act, they aren't legally bound to.
The U.N. just concluded a weeklong debate on implementing the doctrine, which was endorsed by U.N. members in 2005.
The U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy, called the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It may be invoked in only four cases: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. Climate change, disease or natural disasters are excluded as causes for intervention.
The doctrine calls on governments to resolve internal conflicts before genocide occurs. If that doesn't work, the international community can step in. Among the options: The U.N. Security Council can vote for sanctions, the International Criminal Court can threaten prosecution, or the secretary-general can dispatch an envoy. After diplomatic intervention is exhausted, the last resort is Security Council-approved action by a multinational force. Nations would cover the costs of the troops they contribute.
The Security Council has approved multinational forces before. But some developing nations say they fear major powers would exploit the doctrine to interfere in sovereign nations for economic and strategic aims.
Proponents of the policy dismiss this view, saying the world has entered a new era after recent genocides in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. They say the doctrine rejects unilateral intervention in favor of Security Council-authorized, multilateral action as a last resort.
During the debate, Rosemary DiCarlo, U.S. alternate representative for special political affairs, told the General Assembly, "The type of horrors that marred the 20th century need not be part of the landscape of world politics. The United States is determined to work with the international community to prevent and respond to such atrocities."
Before last week's debate, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the General Assembly to implement the doctrine and not reopen a debate on it.
The doctrine was endorsed in principle at a 2005 summit by more than 150 heads of government, including President George W. Bush. China endorsed the 2005 communiqué and voted for a Security Council resolution in support of it. Russia supports it in principle but came under criticism when it tried to justify its interventions in Chechnya and in Georgia last year with the doctrine.
The doctrine is opposed by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a priest and a left-leaning former foreign minister of Nicaragua. Rev. d'Escoto and his allies dismiss the notion of a new era of altruistic military intervention.
Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and the architect of many the doctrine's details, said colonial motives wouldn't taint a humanitarian military mission because the world had changed after the "shame" of not responding to mass killings in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.
Write to Joe Lauria at newseditor@wsj.com
