That if you were going to do it on the basis of suffering there were, as the vile Boutros-Ghali said, indeed many other places where people were worse off. That was true however humanly malignant it was for him to go to Sarajevo in December of '92 and say it to people who were suffering quite a lot. So, I never entirely understood the justification, and to some extent it seems to me that it represented a kind of fantasy of what was possible. I also think that over the course of the decade this humanitarian impulse got mixed in with the human rights impulse, so that now at the end of this first full post-Cold War decade we have all kinds of curious confusions between the human rights movement and the humanitarian movement, between the human rights imperative and the humanitarian imperative. Maybe this convergence is right, but I must say that I'm obviously on record as being very skeptical about it, its not obvious to me why this happened.
Some humanitarians say that all humanitarian crises are really human rights crises.
That's one form in which an explanation for this takes place. I don't know entirely what that means. I think he's absolutely right to say that. I take that to mean that there is no such thing as politics. Politics is not a relevant category anymore.