The most common critique of the Euston Manifesto that I've seen on the progressive blog circuit is that it is somehow pro-warmonger.
Part of this is because of some perception that the document is the brainchild of pro-war lefty hawks. It's not. There are people who were against the war when it started who are signatories, and people who would prefer that we withdraw now as well.
But what really gets more progressives' goat is probably this:
We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law -- in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".
So, go the critics, this is clearly a justification for invading Brown-skinned Oil Country of the Week.
Bogus.
It's really about Darfur; it's really about Bosnia; it's really about Kuwait and about Poland.
It's about Waking the Fuck Up, as MSOC put it.
Why is that so objectionable?