Admiral Beez
Superstar
Both Britain and France have done a credible job in intervening to protect human rights. The British army took an active and aggressive role in protecting the lives of thousands civilians during the Sierra Leone civil war of the mid-1990s, as did France's army during the troubles in Côte d’Ivoire.
For a county with less than double the size of Canada's population and a similiar GDP per capita, Britain fields a military that is vastly more capable than Canada's and has rarely lacked for "balls", not before or since Suez in 1956. Britain's military has been active overseas in harm's way or in combat almost continuously since the post-WW2 period, see complete list of deployments at http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html.
Next to the USA, no nation has a stronger expeditionary capability than Britain. The Russians are too poor and their fleet rusts in port, the Japanese can't leave their waters without having a constitutional cry-fest, the French are close but lack in some amphib capabilities and have but one poorly built aircraft carrier that spends too much time in dock, the Germans have no large blue water fleet, the Italians rarely leave the Med and the Chinese have lots of arms but it's mostly crap. The Indians should be respected, but the Spanish have one carrier, but little else. The Latin Americans are hopeless, using everyone else's second hand kit. We can debate the morality of Britain's post war military activity, but not its capability nor the nation's willingness to put it to action. Ask the Argentinians if Britain lacks for balls.