The view, seemingly espoused by some in the West, that implies that intervention is permissible whenever it suits the major powers is just as unacceptable as the view that no action, no matter how terrible, justifies violating another state's sovereignty. There are instances, however, when a national government may take actions against its peoples that are so egregious that they cannot be ignored. In such instances, there may be a moral imperative for the international community to act. This requires an impartial verification mechanism. Even in such instances, the use of military force, while not precluded, should not be the first or only option.
Diplomacy is the first tool, along with political and economic external pressures as appropriate.
Should all other means fail or if the human suffering intensifies, then military intervention cannot be ruled out. Such intervention should, if possible, be applied through the United Nations or, failing that, through regional organizations or an ad hoc grouping, preferably with UN backing. The challenge is to get the proponents of the more extreme positions to sit down and discuss these or similar guidelines. I believe that Japan is ideally suited to take a lead role in stimulating and hosting the debate on the humanitarian intervention versus non-interference issue. As a country possessing both pacifist and humanitarian tendencies, Japan can be a credible interlocutor in attempting to find middle ground positions on this thorny issue.