The issue of human rights has played a major role in foreign and domestic policy over the past thirty years. In some cases, it was human rights violations that prompted world action on the particular issue – South Africa under apartheid, the Balkan Wars of the 1990’s, U.S. action in Somalia. Based on the OSCE Report, Preliminary findings on the events in Andijan, Uzbekistan, 13 May 2005 (available in the Doc Sharing folder for Week 9), the Brief on the Andijan Incident, as well as of Issue Number 12 in the Scott text, it is quite clear that human rights plays an important and inseparable role in U.S. foreign policy. Under what circumstances should human rights be considered a justification for intervening in a country’ domestic affairs and what role could/should the United States play in dealing with Uzbekistan? In drafting your response, please consider the following as a guide in responding to the above question: Are human rights violations always a justification for intervention, or only in some cases? Should the United States intervene only in those countries where can make a difference? Should the United States, in some cases, ignore human rights violations in regions where it has no national interests?