human rights?

Feekee · #1 12-27-2006, 02:41 PM

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.

bobman0330 · #2 12-27-2006, 03:54 PM

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.

Feekee · #3 12-27-2006, 04:23 PM

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

bobman0330 · #4 12-27-2006, 04:35 PM

[ 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?

Feekee · #5 12-27-2006, 04:45 PM

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)

bobman0330 · #6 12-27-2006, 04:57 PM

[ 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.

WillMagic · #7 12-27-2006, 05:55 PM

[ 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.

Feekee · #8 12-27-2006, 06:21 PM

"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]

Bobbo539 · #9 12-27-2006, 07:50 PM

[ 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.

BPA234 · #10 12-28-2006, 08:10 AM

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.