human rights?
 

I am a newb to foreign policy, but i cannot get enough of it. I have been reading extensively(as much as I can out side of class..business major) Chomsky, McNamara, Rees...and I was wondering what people think we should be doing worldwide in regards to humanitarian intervention.
As much as I like to think that we have the responsibility to intervene into horrific and unimaginable human rights abuses...how can anyone possiblely intervene successfully? I hear it all the time, that someone should stop it? Who pays the bill to arm, equip, feed, etc. the intervening force? Also...how do you really win a fight like this? LIt is not a peacekeeping mission, it is certainly an invasion. Then you have to deal with the internal politics of racial hatred. We cannot forget the debacle in Somalia and Iraq where the goal is to stop the atrocity. So I think that we should not be intervening (unilaterallly) at all. If we are to be the "world police" as we are apt to believe, we should be acting mulitlatterally with the cooperation and will of other nations. But again how can you quell the racial hatred amongst peoples that have been at war for centuries? you cant walk in and hand them a ballot box and say everything will be alright.

Re: human rights?
 

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Even a simple no-fly zone over Darfur would be enormously beneficial. A few thousand troops could have stopped the Rwandan genocide cold. Will the things create democratic paradises, no. But they might save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Re: human rights?
 

The rwandan genocide happened in about 100 days. It is not so easy to mobilize troops that fast. then How long do we stay? how do you get tutsi's and hutus to live together? and in this case a no fly zone wont help much, b/c the killing was done mostly with machete's and ak's

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The rwandan genocide happened in about 100 days. It is not so easy to mobilize troops that fast. then How long do we stay? how do you get tutsi's and hutus to live together? and in this case a no fly zone wont help much, b/c the killing was done mostly with machete's and ak's

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no specific knowledge, but I cannot believe that it would take more than two weeks to create a sizeable presence in Rwanda. There was already a significant UN presence. In Rwanda there was already a well-developed resistance force to turn the government over to. Maybe in some cases that wouldn't be true, but how hard could it be to find or rig up some sort of non-genocidal government?

Re: human rights?
 

I think it would take at least a month to get into a devistated area(i dont know specifically either) Also, what do you mean by rig up? hutus and tutsi's obviously hate each other... who do you put in charge? and how long do you have to stay(iraq in mind)

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would take at least a month to get into a devistated area(i dont know specifically either) Also, what do you mean by rig up? hutus and tutsi's obviously hate each other... who do you put in charge? and how long do you have to stay(iraq in mind)

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously there are a lot of details, but genocides don't just happen. Even if the populations hate each other, it's invariably instigated and organized by the government. Therefore, any government that doesn't organize genocides should be a marked improvement. Since there are so few genocides in the world, it stands to reason that any new government will likely be a non-genocide one.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
..and I was wondering what people think we should be doing worldwide in regards to humanitarian intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's make sure we get our terms right. I don't think the government should do anything in regard to humanitarian intervention, but i think that there is plenty that private citizens and organizations could and should do.


[ QUOTE ]
As much as I like to think that we have the responsibility to intervene into horrific and unimaginable human rights abuses...how can anyone possibly intervene successfully?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard, and governments sure do suck at it. I had a fun idea with Darfur that I think is pretty cross-applicable to other areas - set up a charity to bring buses/DC-10's into wartorn areas and evacuate anyone who wants to leave.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear it all the time, that someone should stop it? Who pays the bill to arm, equip, feed, etc. the intervening force? Also...how do you really win a fight like this? LIt is not a peacekeeping mission, it is certainly an invasion. Then you have to deal with the internal politics of racial hatred. We cannot forget the debacle in Somalia and Iraq where the goal is to stop the atrocity. So I think that we should not be intervening (unilaterallly) at all. If we are to be the "world police" as we are apt to believe, we should be acting mulitlatterally with the cooperation and will of other nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks.

[ QUOTE ]
But again how can you quell the racial hatred amongst peoples that have been at war for centuries? you cant walk in and hand them a ballot box and say everything will be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

True that.

Re: human rights?
 

"I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks."

yea, but with the current pace of globalization and rapid spread of the internet, i dont that that unilateral policy will get us very far in making friends. we are the sole superpower for now... but it changes fast, lest we forget history [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks."

yea, but with the current pace of globalization and rapid spread of the internet, i dont that that unilateral policy will get us very far in making friends. we are the sole superpower for now... but it changes fast, lest we forget history [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, the rest of the world isnt doing a very good job of making friends with us. Most Europe is at odds with our country fundamentally; they view government as providers, we view (benificially) government as protectors of oppertunity. People who constantly talk about making friends and acting multilateral ususally just do so becuase their fundamental beliefs of government are at odds with the US system.

Re: human rights?
 

If you do the research, Rwanda is a good example of where the UN, and the Western members in particular, could have acted (with in place Canadien peacekeepers)to stop the genocide. But, failed to do so.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you do the research, Rwanda is a good example of where the UN, and the Western members in particular, could have acted (with in place Canadien peacekeepers)to stop the genocide. But, failed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one wants to go in and keep the peace at great expense to the occupying forces (UN...i.e US). Rwanda has nothing to offer the world in terms of natural resources(as far as I know). I think it was a strategic decision because intervention has no time-table and the cost will run up to billions of dollars, and what is truly accomplished? (in terms of international relations, I do realize that many human beings were killed)? Unfortunately, I think this is the main decision factor, and until the United States or any other 1st world country looks at these types of situations in terms of human cost instead of monetary cost, this way nothing will change. It's like they do an EV calculation of intervention. What is the expected value of saving this small 3rd world country. Usually is isn't +EV. Certainly a sad way to look at these types of situations.
A good example of why they will no longer intervene unilaterally is the movie "Black Hawk Down" where the U.S's botched humanitarian intervention in Somalia ended in the death of 19 U.S. soldiers and around 1000! somalis.

Re: human rights?
 

I think the idea that lives are equally valuable is bunk. Sacrificing the lives of one's own countrymen (who volunteered to protect their home country) for the sake of those of other nations caught in their own conflicts is reprehensible.

Re: human rights?
 

The United States is responsible for the weakening of the authority of world organisations, such as the United Nations or war crimes' courts. The reason is simple and obvious: US power is so great, as things stand, that the country is able to assert its authority over the globe without fear of military retaliation from anyone; accordingly, the U.S. does not want those organisations to be anything more than instruments for legitimizing American actions.

To answer your question, interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea -- but it must be applied with consistency, i.e. the same principles must be held for one and all. Otherwise, the invocation of those principles is phony and becomes again purely legitimizing. In other words, whatever we must do for Rwanda or Somalia, we must do for Israel or the Palestinians.

Trust me on this, everybody knows what we mean when we talk about human right and civil rights; we won't disagree when it comes to define them.

So the moral course, if the U.S. were to follow one, is to (a) use military power with restraint (look up the statistics of how many times on average per decade the U.S. engages in military actions abroad), and (b) strengthen the authority of world organisations (you can hear from afar the neo-cons' screams about "surrendering national sovereignty to third-wodl bureacrats").

More diplomacy, co-ordination, dialogue, and common sense; less militarism.

Mickey Brausch

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think the government has any place to intervine where moral principles are concerned for the simple reason that they are then forcing the morality of one group onto another. I don't find that justifiable.

Even CS Lewis said that "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Now I will grant that this is a slightly different situation from most where morality is concerned so I may be off track, but I still believe each country should be able to run itself the way it sees fit whereas it does not interfere with the US.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think the government has any place to intervine where moral principles are concerned for the simple reason that they are then forcing the morality of one group onto another. I don't find that justifiable.

Even CS Lewis said that "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Now I will grant that this is a slightly different situation from most where morality is concerned so I may be off track, but I still believe each country should be able to run itself the way it sees fit whereas it does not interfere with the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any arguments in favor of your belief? On the one hand, we have millions of innocent people brutally and preventably murdered, and on the other, we have a quote from CS Lewis, and you don't feel it's justified. I don't feel persuaded.

Re: human rights?
 

It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any arguments in favor of your belief? On the one hand, we have millions of innocent people brutally and preventably murdered, and on the other, we have a quote from CS Lewis, and you don't feel it's justified. I don't feel persuaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the one hand, you have innocent foreigners murdered. On the other you have the lives of your own countrymen (who volunteered to protect you, not them) traded for said foreigners. Doesn't sound moral to me.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt, but i havent seen any instance where our government has done that.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

She,

I actually don't think the government has any moral obligations except to carry out its duties under the constitution, laws, and treaties. But I do think that we as citizens have a moral obligation to make our government deal with some of the grossest abuses out there. Obviously, we can't fix every problem, and most of the time people won't agree about whether there is a problem or not, but there are clear and outrageous cases where a small amount of expense and bloodshed could prevent enormous humanitarian calamities.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no specific knowledge, but I cannot believe that it would take more than two weeks to create a sizeable presence in Rwanda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it takes a lot longer than that for foreign governments and the international community to react to developments. And by the time they do, it's often too late for them to do anything but make the situation worse.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt, but i havent seen any instance where our government has done that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure you haven't. i guess that's because there is no human rights for you? democracy? it's just 'their' rights and it is 'our' rights, right?

"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum

"If they do it it's terrorism, if we do it, it's fighting for freedom. "
a U.S. Ambassador in Central America in the 1980s, asked to explain how such U.S. actions as the mining of Nicaragua's harbors and bombing of airports differed from the acts of terrorism that the U.S. condemned around the world

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who pays the bill

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this is the question that matters most. Are we talking about whether the ends justifies the means of the brutal, tyrannical theft we call taxation or are we ignoring that entirely? :P

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The United States is responsible for the weakening of the authority of world organisations, such as the United Nations or war crimes' courts. The reason is simple and obvious: US power is so great, as things stand, that the country is able to assert its authority over the globe without fear of military retaliation from anyone; accordingly, the U.S. does not want those organisations to be anything more than instruments for legitimizing American actions.

To answer your question, interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea -- but it must be applied with consistency, i.e. the same principles must be held for one and all. Otherwise, the invocation of those principles is phony and becomes again purely legitimizing. In other words, whatever we must do for Rwanda or Somalia, we must do for Israel or the Palestinians.

Trust me on this, everybody knows what we mean when we talk about human right and civil rights; we won't disagree when it comes to define them.

So the moral course, if the U.S. were to follow one, is to (a) use military power with restraint (look up the statistics of how many times on average per decade the U.S. engages in military actions abroad), and (b) strengthen the authority of world organisations (you can hear from afar the neo-cons' screams about "surrendering national sovereignty to third-wodl bureacrats").

More diplomacy, co-ordination, dialogue, and common sense; less militarism.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Mickey, have you read Wilson's Ghost by Robert McNamara? He makes some of the same suggestions.

Re: human rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously there are a lot of details, but genocides don't just happen. Even if the populations hate each other, it's invariably instigated and organized by the government. Therefore, any government that doesn't organize genocides should be a marked improvement. Since there are so few genocides in the world, it stands to reason that any new government will likely be a non-genocide one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not enough to just pick a form of government at random at hope for the best based on likelihoods. The right kind of government must be deliberately constructed.