The weeks of delay in delivering humanitarian aid to the suffering millions in Myanmar highlighted one more time a new transnational norm, that governments have a duty to protect their people, and--that if they do not discharge it, they forfeit their right to sovereignty. It is a fine norm, but as it turns out, more than a new norm is needed.

The family provides a good analogy. Once upon a time, it was widely agreed that one's home was one's castle, and that whatever happened in one's home was nobody else's business. Feminists changed this concept, arguing that when one has reason to believe that child or spousal abuse occurs in a given home, intervention is justified. Thus, if neighbors hear someone being thrown against the wall and a cry for help, the community should rush in. In short, the right to privacy is not absolute. The same notion is now being applied to international relations.

Once upon a time, when a king converted his people from one religion to another--other kings sent their armies to convert them back. The results were very bloody wars. These came to an end in 1648, when the warring nations signed several treaties known together as the Peace of Westphalia, which entail a commitment not to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. Since then, the notion of national sovereignty has become almost sacrosanct.

A challenge to this concept came in 1996, when a Sudanese diplomat by the name of Francis M. Deng, troubled by the resistance of some nations to efforts to provide their people with humanitarian assistance, published a book entitled Sovereignty as Responsibility. Deng argued that sovereignty was not absolute but conditional; for it to be respected, a nation had to be a good citizen of the international community. If a nation fails in this duty, the international community may intervene to protect the at-risk citizens of the offending nation.

This idea was embraced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, established by the Canadian government, and by Kofi Annan and the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. Myanmar would have been a place where this new doctrine could have been applied. Indeed, we suggested that the country should be bombed with packages of rice, whether or not the junta welcomed such flights.

Events in recent days show that much more than a change in norms is needed. We see that all too often, when the United Nations sends in help, especially when it consists of peacekeepers or other personnel needed to deliver humanitarian aid, these individuals can become part of the problem. They pressure children for sexual favors; they deal in controlled substances; and they squander a good part of the aid they bring. Moreover, whenever the United Nations is called on for help, from Rwanda to East Timor, it typically must first scramble to find the funds and troops to respond.

Clearly what is needed is (a) a much larger contingent of so called Blue Helmets, UN forces. (b) These have to be placed near likely hot spots, on a stand-by basis. (c) These troops ought to be professionalized by mixing personnel from nations whose forces have already been trained properly and have developed the needed upright culture, with forces from nations whose troops still occupy a lower place on the learning curve.

Sadly there will be more Myanmars and Rwandas, indeed there is a need for more humanitarian intervention in the Sudan and the Congo right now. Granted, several other factors stand in the way of doing what ought to be done in these parts, difficult issues that must be tackled. Regrettably, one must add to the list the lack of professional forces ready to help rather than add injury to the massive suffering of the people of these distressed countries. We have a new norm; now we need now the proper forces to make it part of the new international reality.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com He can be contacted at comnet@gwu.edu