Can International Involvement Prevent Genocide?
Politics
| May 5, 2004
| Tim
I've never really blogged by request. But recently, a reader asked:
can you please voice your opinion on international involvement in preventing the rwanda, serbia, holocaust, genocides
This is a profound question, and well worth considering.
Can international involvement prevent genocides and holocausts? There are two different extreme positions: Interventionists and isolationists.
A short history, as I see it
When George Washington left office, he warned about becoming involved in foreign entanglements. This was a wise warning -- trying to straighten out someone's else's country -- as we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan -- can be a very expensive proposition. It can also earn you a lot of enemies.
Historically, the US has tended towards an "isolationist" stance until the first world war, viewing most of the problems in the rest of the world as being... well, most of the rest of the world's problem.
The two world wars, and the Soviet desire for world domination, left America with no option but to become a more "interventionist" nation. After the war, many people hoped the UN would be an organization which nations would participate in -- much as people do in a democracy -- in order to band together than stop things like war or genocide.
That was the theory, anyway.
Since then, "right wingers" have tended to use the military to support our political or economic allies. For example, in the Gulf War, Bush 41 used our military to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We also used our the military to remove Panamanian dictator Manuel Noreiga.
"Left wingers", on the other hand, sometimes argued we should be using our military to stop holocausts or overthrow dictators -- for example, Clinton's attempts at "nation building" in Somalia and Bosnia. They point to the mess in Afghanistan, and argue we should have done more to "help out" after we created the situation when we sponsored the Afghan rebellion against the USSR. (I agree.)
Bush 43 is a bit of an oddity, because he's basicly continued Clinton's policies, both in wanting regime change in Iraq and in doing what leftists said we should have done years ago -- which is to attempt to "fix" Afghanistan. Yet the opposition he faces is from the same people who supported the idea under Clinton. And the reverse can also be said, though to a lesser extent, of his support from the right.
The United Nations: My View
Though people hoped the UN would help stop things like war and genocide, my own observation has been that they've been of no help, or sometimes worse. They tend to run away at the first sign of trouble, and sometimes sided with the "bad guys". See this article for a critical review of a few bad UN actions through history.
The problem with the UN tends to be that dictators wield a lot of influence. They don't represent their people, but they get to vote anyway. So the UN doesn't really represent what most people in the world want, and tends to side with dictators.
To Intervene or Isolate?
I'm honestly on the fence on this issue. I personally find it hard to say: "No, don't interfere!" when people are being slaughtered. On the other hand, in some cases, you can only delay the oncoming slaughter. And I also understand the dangers of setting a strong precedent of violating national sovereignty -- even for seemingly worthwhile causes.
Consider Sudan.
In the last decade, the northern Muslim extremist government has starved or slaughtered some 2 million Christians and animists in the south as part of it's jihad. The media almost never covers this, and even more seldom reports on the religious affiliation of the killers.
The US, the UN, or the international community could get involved in several different ways. One could be that we could put in "peacekeeping troops" to attempt to stop the slaughter. But this would only work a little bit, and only as long as we kept the troops there -- the minute we pulled them out -- even ten years from now -- the Jihad would quickly resume.
Another option would be to split Sudan into two countries, or arm the people in the south so they could defend themselves. This is a drastic option, but it would limit our exposure and long-term commitment, and give the people being killed a right to self-defense.
But you can bet the international community wouldn't support this idea. But I probably would.
A third option would be to evacuate the people who were marked for slaughter, if the marked group was small enough. I'd support this as well, but I suspect I'd be rather alone here, as well.
So which is more important? National soverignty or saving lives? When do we do one thing, when do we do the other? This is a tough, tough question. I'm open to arguments both ways, and respect people who hold both opinions. But I expect those who have strong opinions to be consistent in their application of them.
Consider Iraq.
Saddam wanted to kill the Kurds. That's genocide. Saddam killed millions of Muslims. That's bad too. Saddam started wars with his neighbors, and continued to be a threat. And Saddam had a penchant for slowly dissasembling his citizens, in painful ways, whenver he or his insane relatives felt a bit bored.
Here was a case where we could do something about killing, war, human rights abuses and genocide, and there was both a moral and economic case for doing it.
My own view was to go in if the world agreed with us and would support us -- basicly, to force the rest of the world to vote and publicly declare their views. Would other nations support overthrowing a dictator this bad?
If they voted yes, I thought we should do it, go along, adopt an "interventionist" policy. If they voted "no", I thought we should forget it and adopt an "isolationist" policy. A real one. Incuding defunding the UN, kicking them out of the US, dropping all international aid besides a very few close allies, controlling the borders, and tell Europe to have fun sorting out the mideast's problems.
My Solution
This brings me to what I think is the right long-term answer. First, we need to stop listening to non-democratic countries. If a government can't listen to it's own people, there's little reason for them to have a voice in the world community. (I'm not a person (leftist) who feels that "engagement" -- e.g. talking to dictators a lot -- will suddenly make them be nice people and stop torturing their subjects. Such people have no understanding of human nature.)
Second, I think these democratic nations need to decide when it's appropriate to intervene or not in other countries. Not some subjective criteria, like whenever the leadership of France likes the idea, but some more objective set of criteria. At least then, when intervention occurs (or does not), the majority of free people on the planet will agree they've at least done what they asked.
Of course, none of this will ever happen, IMHO.
Here in the US, leftists, who tend to listen to despots, would probaby not support such an idea (prove me wrong, leftists). And our citizens are quickly losing an understanding of what democracy actually is, and forgetting George Washington's warning that democracy cannot long survive without a moral populace.
Europe is further "ahead" on this same curve, and is rapidly losing it's democratic underpinnings. Russia is still stuck in a partial democracy. And China is getting richer, but still growing worse on it's human rights record. Radical Islam is on the move, expanding into countries like the Sudan, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, and the Phillipines, and will not produce democracy either.
So we're left deciding on a case-by-case basis.
And the UN continues to be discredited daily. Since the UN security council is largely corrupt and undemocratic, as is its top leadership and human-rights council, any nation or group of nations which attempts to do anything even vaguely moral will find itself actually opposed by the "international community."
So I expect genocide (etc.) to continue apace in the near term.
thanks a lot mate
that was just what i was looking for
Another option would be to split Sudan into two countries, or arm the people in the south so they could defend themselves. This is a drastic option, but it would limit our exposure and long-term commitment, and give the people being killed a right to self-defense.
allready happening thru private concerns, thier are mercenaries helping to arm and train and lead christian and animist villagers in home defense militias to keep the muslim slavers and muslim gov. forces at bay.
....read about it in soldier of fortune....
Why should the US stay out of genocide going on around the world?
I am working on a school debate, Ive had trouble justifying this assigned argument:
Why should the US abstain from militarily intervening in genocide and ethnic cleansing around the world? In other words , why is it beneficial for the US to stay out?
Any input means a lot.
MK
i think that we must do all we can to prevent genocide! If President Bush would pull his head out of his ass and see what the hell is going on, then maybe, perhaps we could get things done.
I wish I had something intelligent to share on this issue, but all I can offer is this...."Gencocide is a very serious issue, I wish there was something the U.S. could do to stop it. Why can't we go in and save people's lives? If we can go into foreign countries and try to rebuild their government, then why can't we provide military services to save peoples lives?
-17-Oregon
Sandy/Kelcie,
You did two things that will normally get you banned/deleted from this forum: (a) crude language, (b) posting under two different identities.
But I like your question, so you get to stay...
i think that we must do all we can to prevent genocide!
Great then! So, uh, what have you done?
If President Bush would pull his head out of his a**...
Ah, I see. "We all" means someone else.
There are 190 countries in this big world, and "President Bush" is the only leader you can find to criticize? It wouldn't take an entire army to help, just several hundred troops -- enough that even Denmark could do it.
If so, why not get angry that the Chinese aren't helping out, too? Or the Russians? Or the Canadians or Mexicans or Malaysians? And the French -- hey, they've been helping and arming the people who have committed genocide in Sudan.
But more to the point: Why not be unhappy that the UN (and Kofi Anan), whose whole purpose for existing was supposedly to help stop these kinds of problems? The UN refused to even call it "genocide", and put Sudan in charge of policing human rights, and generally has obstructed any meaningful efforts to help mitigate the crisis.
Me, personally, I would be in favor of helping the victims fight back, or placing troops between them and their persecutors. But politicians, sadly, have to try to figure out what's the best way to help without giving countries -- say, like Russia -- an excuse to use that as a pretext to invade another nations, claiming the same grounds.
(Russia could invade Georgia, for example, and claim that ethnic Russians who lived there were in danger of persecution.)
I wish we lived in a perfect world, where everything we wish for at 17 could just come true. But there are these annoying detail things which can come back to hurt even more people if we don't think them through.
In the end, it seems to me, the choice comes down to this: Invade Sudan, or don't -- and continue to try to work through normal diplomatic channels, and try to get the UN to do what it's supposed to do.
Which one do you recommend?
First of all the US is not clean of involvement in acts of Genocide itself (Indonesia, and the Plains Wars that ensued, and let us not for get the Native Americans who are the ORIGINAL "Natives" of the North American continent, who were viciously and ruthlessly slaughtered in the name of western expansion). The US does not involve itself in Genocides occuring in countries such as Rawanda, or the Sudan, or Camobodia, because, other than the reason to stop the killing of innocents, theres nothing beneficial in terms of "Material" or other incentives. Hence the fallacies and lies that we believed going into IRAQ ( That we'ed free the people from an evil dictator bent on the genocide of his own people and out for the destruction of Isreal and the west with his mobile chemical labs, and dirty nuclear bombs) we based solely on the purpose of attaining material good, Not set up a democratic government which will fail no matter what we do.
I also have an arguement against the author of this Article, if thats what you want to call it.
"Another option would be to split Sudan into two countries, or arm the people in the south so they could defend themselves. This is a drastic option, but it would limit our exposure and long-term commitment, and give the people being killed a right to self-defense."
This has already been proven not to work in the case of Pakistan and India, when India, split by the british imperialist power in order to seperate religious and ethnic groups, left tensions between the two groups that resulted in another US funded Genocide by both countries of Eastern pakistani populations.
Even though I did not state my opinion on a solution I would like to just say that I also believe Genocide is horrible and that we need to take action, but that won't happen until the united states equalizes itself with the other nations involved in the UN.
Theres my two cents
As the author of this "Article", I'd be more than happy to respond to your comments...
First of all the US is not clean of involvement in acts of Genocide itself...
The US did quite a number of things wrong in history. So what? Why are you incapable of having a discussion of what is happening in the world today without constantly focusing on what happened 150 years ago?
And they say we "conservatives" are backward-looking?
See, I'm trying to solve a problem here. People are being killed. I don't care if we did something wrong in the past, I want us to do something right today. And I'm glad, for once, we seem to be on the right side of this one, so far.
I don't know for sure, but you seem to be threatened by that, also also apparently threated by evidence that the UN is "objectively" (as Marxists would put it) on the side of those committing the genocide. So an effort must be made to say we have no right to speak, because, hey, bad things were done here in the past by previous generations.
So, ironically, you're actually working to morally tarnish and deflect the speech of those who are aruging in favor of stopping the genocide.
And your core argument here is that the children are guilty of the sins of the fathers.
The US does not involve itself in Genocides occuring in countries such as Rawanda, or the Sudan, or Camobodia, because, other than the reason to stop the killing of innocents, theres nothing beneficial in terms of "Material" or other incentives.
But your assertions are contradicted by the plain facts.
What was the "Material" benefit of Kosovo? Which natural resource did the US plunder from that region? And what "material" benefit will you argue we receive from Iraq, when the big complaint that it is a money loser? If we were there for the oil, then why did Bush give this resource to the Iraqi government, rather than a western oil company?
And it's ironic that you should mention Cambodia. The US was involved in that region because we believed communism was a force which brought slavery, poverty, and mass murder to the regions it controlled. So we fought to keep it out.
Contrary to your claim, we did involve ourselves in Cambodia -- not to mention Vietnam and Korea -- stopping this force. It was only AFTER we left (in the case of Cambodia and Vietnam, under pressure from those who share your views) that these forces were unleashsed, killing hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, millions in Cambodia -- and millions are still being killed and starved in North Korea today.
And "materials" were we supposed to be coveting in the jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia? Which precious natural resource were we there to steal? Vines? Rubber plants? Monkeys? And how have we plundered South Korea, who US soldiers did save from suffering North Korea's fate?
And so now you argue we are "not involved" in Sudan because it has nothing of material value? But, again, you are wrong: Whatever we may have done wrong in the past, the US is today currently leading efforts to stop the genocide in Sudan. Again, as I point out above, given that, it is odd to criticize the US for "uninvolvement" in Sudan, singling that country out, as you do.
History does not support your narrative, so I can't help but wonder what your real objection is.
This has already been proven not to work in the case of Pakistan and India, when India, split by the british imperialist power in order to seperate religious and ethnic groups, left tensions between the two groups...
Who taught you your history? Everything you say here is simply false. The truth seems teach the opposite lesson in each case.
Here, your narrative seems to be that the evil British imperialists were responsible for the tensions between India and Pakistan, because they split the nation up.
But the truth is to the contrary: the split happened when the British granted India its independence. British imperialism had been a force holding the split back not causing it. It came about because many Muslims couldn't stand to live with Hindus, and vise-versa. A mass migration and mass killings -- which the British also had absolutely do with -- soon followed.
Those tensions and killings have to do with conflicts between Muslims and Hindus. Again, why do you seek to blame the British for this, when the facts are so clearly to the contrary?
... resulted in another US funded Genocide by both countries of Eastern pakistani populations.
Really? There was a US "funded" genocide in Pakistan? When? Where? Tell me more about it please.
And I presume, as usual, no Pakistanis were actually culpable in these alleged killings. Only Americans, right?
Even though I did not state my opinion on a solution I would like to just say that I also believe Genocide is horrible and that we need to take action, but that won't happen until the united states equalizes itself with the other nations involved in the UN.
So you believe the whole reason that nobody is taking any action in Sudan is because the US is not "equal" with all other countries involved in the UN?
How much do you know about the UN? In particular, do you even know the information stated at the top of this page? For example, did you know that Sudan is a country in the UN?
So when the US is only allowed exactly as much power at the UN as, say, Sudan (and North Korea), THEN everyone will magically rush in and stop the genocide? This is what you actually believe?
Until then, it is entirely the US's fault, because it exerts MORE influence than Sudan, and thus is the only country on earth preventing people from stopping the genocide.
So the US needs to stop genocide in Sudan by becoming less powerful at the UN, and exerting less of the kind of influence it has been exerting there -- that is, influence to try to get the UN to stop the genocide?
Okay, I get it: The US (or sometimes Britain) is completely responsible for every single bad thing you can think of in history. And nobody else has any responsibility. For anything. Ever.
Especially Muslims and Pakistanis, I infer.
Its funny, I should have made this more clear, I wrote this after a class I just had and decided to do some research on Genocide when your article popped up. I'm really a hopeful person and believe that if we truely put the effort into stopping genocide then we can stop it from happening.
But you attack the left wing for appeasing dictators when a majority of our presidents have provided money and arms to these terrible regiemes ( Reagan, Bush Senior, Nixon)and regiemes. There is just as much or more blood on the hands of those presidents as any other president. I don't want to sound un patriotic because a lot of democratic presidents have made decisions the left blood on their hands as well.
Theres a book you should read, Genocide, War Crimes and the West, which gives insight and points of view from many authors from around the world about Genocide and war crimes. I'm not attacking the US or Britain, i'm only stating some facts that I have read and studied about. But i'm a little shacken by your high praise of both these countries, we have just as much or more as the soviet union or any other country involved in such acts. Read the book, you sound a little shakey on your history, maybe a little to dependent on the black and white information, come into some color. I hope your not a fan of Henry Kissinger, he's certainly left his mark on the third world.
I want to clarify that the US hasn't always been directly involved in some of these conflicts with american soldiers. I has done plenty of things behind the scenes with financial aid and backing, supplying of weapons and training. I don't know if you said this but I hope you don't think we are entirely clean of our share of the dirty work.
I think the UN is great and it has done a lot of good stuff in the way of humanitarian aid and efforts throughout the world, an amazing job. But it could do a lot better and I think america's control and influence, behind the scenes, is overbearing and agenda based at times.
Anyway I'm dead tired and I hope you get this message and I look forward to your response. And I urge you to read the book.
David
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Reviewing Reviews of "The Passion" |
Front Page |
Page Two
| CNN Demands an Apology, Again »
|
thanks a lot mate
that was just what i was looking for
Posted by: oliver on May 5, 2004 05:16 AM