Responsibility to protect or Trojan Horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq

What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments.

Comparative susceptibility of indigenous and improved pig breeds to Classical swine fever virus infection: Practical and epidemiological implications in a subsistence-based, developing country setting

This study investigated the comparative susceptibility of indigenous Moo Laat and improved Large White/Landrace pig breeds to infection with classical swine fever virus (CSFV) under controlled conditions in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). The Moo Laat (ML) and Large White/Landrace crossbreed (LWC) pigs were inoculated with a standard challenge strain designated Lao/Kham225 (infectivity titre of 10(2.75) TCID50/ml). The results demonstrated that both the native breed and an improved pig breed are fully susceptible to CSFV infection and the mortality rate is high. LWC pigs demonstrated lower (or shorter) survival times (50% survival time: 11 days), earlier and higher pyrexia and earlier onset of viraemia compared to ML pigs (50% survival time: 18 days). In the context of village-based pig production, the longer time from infection to death in native ML pigs means that incubating or early sick pigs are likely to be sold once an outbreak of CSF is recognized in a village. This increased longevity probably contributes to the maintenance and spread of disease in a population where generally the contact rate is low.