NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it morally and legally right for Western Democracies to undertake humanitarian interventions against nations that have committed massive human rights abuses, are controlled by dictators, or controlled by military regimes?

No, no, and no. Countries are, by definition, primarily responsible for the well-being of their own citizenry. A country should be left to solve its own problems unless it breaches the border to another with armed troops.

Generally, humanitarian missions didn't end well in the long run, at least in the 21st century. I'm sure there have been a few exceptions, but for the most part we only make things worse if we stick our noses into everyone else's business. People have been killing each other ever since we first wrapped our fingers around a large stick, and I suspect that's the way it will be either until we die off, or aliens come and try to take us over, in which event racial/political solidarity will be more or less forced, at least until the threat ends [or we do].

No, no, and no. Countries are, by definition, primarily responsible for the well-being of their own citizenry. A country should be left to solve its own problems unless it breaches the border to another with armed troops.

Generally, humanitarian missions didn't end well in the long run, at least in the 21st century. I'm sure there have been a few exceptions, but for the most part we only make things worse if we stick our noses into everyone else's business. People have been killing each other ever since we first wrapped our fingers around a large stick, and I suspect that's the way it will be either until we die off, or aliens come and try to take us over, in which event racial/political solidarity will be more or less forced, at least until the threat ends [or we do].

Under your logic, why should we care if one nation breaches the border to another, so long as it doesn't involve our country?

If the country is ruled by a dictator who isn't really doing anything except stacking elections and feeding their supporters, then no, humanitarian intervention isn't called for (insert snarky comment about intervention being needed multiple times in US history here).

The point at which intervention is called for is mass murder and genocide. Thus, the UN was right to intervene in Serbia and wrong to ignore the bloodshed in Rwanda.

I believe that, if done properly, for the right reasons, and with the right support, we should end oppressive governments.

It's a matter of helping others help themselves though. Genocides, pointless wars and the like should be ended, if absolutely necessary by military force.

But never by a single nation, always as a multilateral thing (whether through the UN or NATO is an open question) and never by relying on exile groups and the like. They lie.

I believe that, if done properly, for the right reasons, and with the right support, we should end oppressive governments.

It's a matter of helping others help themselves though. Genocides, pointless wars and the like should be ended, if absolutely necessary by military force.

But never by a single nation, always as a multilateral thing (whether through the UN or NATO is an open question) and never by relying on exile groups and the like. They lie.
*points*

What he said.

Under your logic, why should we care if one nation breaches the border to another, so long as it doesn't involve our country?
Because any aggressor [since they obviously have no problem violating sovereign rights] are likely to force an involvement at some point in the future. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to shovel people into gas chambers so long as you don't invade Poland, but that more often than not it's useless to waste resources on trying to stop Bad Things [tm] at every turn because they will probably continue for the remainder of human history.

Because any aggressor [since they obviously have no problem violating sovereign rights] are likely to force an involvement at some point in the future. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to shovel people into gas chambers so long as you don't invade Poland, but that more often than not it's useless to waste resources on trying to stop Bad Things [tm] at every turn because they will probably continue for the remainder of human history.

By that logic, car companies shouldn't place safety features in their cars, because people will die in traffic accidents anyway.

Certainly, horrific abuses will happen anyway. However, I think the international community has a responsibility to stop the worst of these abuses, such as the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the pogrom in Rwanda, and the current situation in the Darfur. We may not save every life threatened by hatred an megalomania, but we can do the best we can and save as many of them as possible.

Why intervention in other nations and not Cuba?

Why do most nations and people in those nations excuse and defend non intervention and non interferance in Cuba
after 47 years and counting of dictatorship government
that will not change out of the goodness of its heart?

Why intervention in other nations and not Cuba?

Why do most nations and people in those nations excuse and defend non intervention and non interferance in Cuba
after 47 years and counting of dictatorship government
that will not change out of the goodness of its heart?

Again, simply being an unelected ruler is not grounds for intervention. There seems to have been a minimum of murders under his rule, along the lines of executing political opponents; while a grave violation of human rights, I don't think this merits full international intervention like the millions of hatred-driven murders in the Darfur.

Again, simply being an unelected ruler is not grounds for intervention. There seems to have been a minimum of murders under his rule, along the lines of executing political opponents; while a grave violation of human rights, I don't think this merits full international intervention like the millions of hatred-driven murders in the Darfur.

So a minimum of murders in the thousands some say at least ten thousand, political prisoners, government organized mobs against people with diffrent economic, political and social points of views dont count, and the world dosent care about that.

47 years of dictatorship and counting.

What a nice world we all live on isnt it?

Thus, the UN was right to intervene in Serbia

Contrary to some popular notions, Serbia as a whole is not responsible. Only a small, rogue group of Serbs committed the atrocities. One source, in regards to Serbia's former leader, says "the [Hague] prosecutor became very concerned about the lack of witnesses to testify about Milosevic’s alleged involvement." (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew48.php) Compare this to Kosovo itself, which is a proven training ground for terrorists. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37677) It turns out that the UN was actually supporting terrorist groups, and bombing the Serbs, who were fighting against them! In fact, it went so far that "the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic - the government that was supported by the Clinton administration - issued a passport to Osama bin Laden which he used to visit Bosnia and Kosovo on several occasions." (http://www.serbianna.com/columns/jatras/004.shtml) The majority isn't always right...

An observation, reading most of the posts on this thread, I really am convinced that Cubans really are alone against a dictatorship government of 47 years and counting and most people of the world dont care.

That is why those crazy Cuban Americans like myself
think the world hates them and dont care, that is why
they think and feel the way they do.

So a minimum of murders in the thousands some say at least ten thousand, political prisoners, government organized mobs against people with diffrent economic, political and social points of views dont count, and the world dosent care about that.

47 years of dictatorship and counting.

What a nice world we all live on isnt it?

There are far too many countries with that level of dictatorship to liberate them all- one of the complaints I have with claims that the war in Iraq was meant to depose Hussein. There are much more demented targets we can and should hit first; the only reason so many focus on Cuba is that it's right next door (that, and the fact that Fidel Castro has been in power longer than any other current head of government).

Why intervention in other nations and not Cuba?

Why do most nations and people in those nations excuse and defend non intervention and non interferance in Cuba
after 47 years and counting of dictatorship government
that will not change out of the goodness of its heart?

Because this thread is entirely dependant upon the naive belief that politicians actually care about 'humanitarian interventions', and that they don't simply involve themselves in such things for ulterior motives. If they did care, there are several dictators which would have been removed loooong before anybody focused on Saddam Hussein.

What a nice world we all live on isnt it?
You're an exile, aren't you? ;)

Is it morally and legally right for Western Democracies to undertake humanitarian interventions against nations that have committed massive human rights abuses, are controlled by dictators, or controlled by military regimes?

The very notion of wars being legal or illegal is a joke.

No, no, and no. Countries are, by definition, primarily responsible for the well-being of their own citizenry. A country should be left to solve its own problems unless it breaches the border to another with armed troops.
Countries, by definition, are collections of citizens, and if the majority of citizens is prevented from speaking out or deciding on their collective fate, then it's not the "country" which is solving or not solving it's problems - it's an oppressive handful of individuals.

The problem with humanitarian missions is that humanitarianism is being used as a justification for actions which are actually being undertaken for other reasons, primarily the self-interest of those in charge of the countries undertaking the missions.

In Iraq, for example, regime change for humanitarian reasons was an excuse invented after the fact, when it became impossible to hide the fact that the original excuses (WMDs and terrorism) were a sham. If humanitarianism was the driving force behind western policies, the US would never have armed and supported Saddam Hussein while he was carrying out some of his worst atrocities, and it would be vigrously opposing the state-sponsored terrorism of Israel and oppression of Saudi Arabia, to mention just two cases of many.

The mportant thing here is the Law of Consequences. If a nation does something that a bigger, tougher nation doesn't like, Bad Things (TM) happen to the smaller nation.

Morality and Legality have nothing to do with it. The only things that matter are 1) who has the power and 2) are they offended.

Idi Amin managed to avoid offending anybody for a long time. Saddam managed to offend everybody...

Idi Amin managed to avoid offending anybody for a long time. Saddam managed to offend everybody...
Actually, Saddam managed to avoid offending many for quite a long time; including the USA and its friends, who supported and armed him through the 1980s.

No, no, and no. Countries are, by definition, primarily responsible for the well-being of their own citizenry. A country should be left to solve its own problems unless it breaches the border to another with armed troops.

Generally, humanitarian missions didn't end well in the long run, at least in the 21st century. I'm sure there have been a few exceptions, but for the most part we only make things worse if we stick our noses into everyone else's business. People have been killing each other ever since we first wrapped our fingers around a large stick, and I suspect that's the way it will be either until we die off, or aliens come and try to take us over, in which event racial/political solidarity will be more or less forced, at least until the threat ends [or we do].

Well put.

Actually, Saddam managed to avoid offending many for quite a long time; including the USA and its friends, who supported and armed him through the 1980s.

Only when he attacked one of our oil well nations did we care.

Against it. See the Ron Paul quote in my sig for an elaboration.

Is it morally and legally right for Western Democracies to undertake humanitarian interventions against nations that have committed massive human rights abuses, are controlled by dictators, or controlled by military regimes?
Only if your citizens or your allies are being directly threatened, or have a good potential of being threatened in the near future.

If people want "humanitarian intervention," why don't they put their money where their mouth is, get a gun, and go to [insert country here] to stop the genocide, overthrow the dictator, or whatever?

If people want "humanitarian intervention," why don't they put their money where their mouth is, get a gun, and go to [insert country here] to stop the genocide, overthrow the dictator, or whatever?

Because going Rambo isn't humanitarian intervention. It's stupid and suicidal.

Is it morally and legally right for Western Democracies to undertake humanitarian interventions against nations that have committed massive human rights abuses, are controlled by dictators, or controlled by military regimes?

Morally? Arguably yes. To stop massive human rights abuses, genocide and serious suffering I think it a humanitarian intervention might be morally acceptable. Simply the fact that a nation is controlled by dictators or military regimes would not be sufficient to warrant an intervetion.

Legally? That's a bit more difficult, considering the principle of non-intervention and the ban on use of force by states that exists under international law.

Certainly some conditions must be met before such an intervention could be possible. If the UN Security Council (UNSC) authorizes action to enforce international peace and security, an intervention would be legal. But that would require that the UNSC actually deemed the current situation to be a threat to international peace and security.

Without the authorization of the UNSC, then it is more uncertain. Some argue that to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe and under exceptional circumstances, humanitarian intervention would be legal under international customary law. (See the lack of condemnation of NATOs military actions in Kosovo)
Personally, I'm inclined to support the position that there might be some circumstances that would warrant an intervention.

By the way, in my opinion the american invasion of Iraq clearly does not meet the criteria to be called a humanitarian intervention.

There are several factors to consider about humanitarian intervention.

Firstly, humanitarian interventions are generally taken for reasons selfish to the interests of the intervening state. Reasons of humanitarianism are generally pretexts for other actions. This is why for example the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979 not to stop Pol Pot's genocide but to create a secure region for Vietnam and to annoy the Chinese. This is also why no government has any tangible reason to provide assistance to the refugees in Darfur. In our realist world, nations are generally nice for selfish reasons.

Secondly, there is the possibility that an intervention for humanitarian reasons may in fact exascerbate an already messy situation. Why turn an already problematic area into a warzone? Iraq could be seen as a credible example of this as there can be little dispute that the Iraq project has destabilised the entire region; terrorism is not only alive but kicking also while Iran is growing more and more paranoid with each passing day. Not to mention the fact that basic humanitarian resources are still poor by western standards.

Only if your citizens or your allies are being directly threatened, or have a good potential of being threatened in the near future.

That's not humanitarian intervention, but self-defence. So you support pre-emptive self-defence to a large extent, I gather?

That's not humanitarian intervention, but self-defence. So you support pre-emptive self-defence to a large extent, I gather?
Why wait to be attacked?

Why wait to be attacked?

Because its morally controversial. A state while considering its survival physically must also consider its survival politically. Can it be trully considered moral by the civilian population to punish another nation for an act it has yet to commit?

Maybe with good PR but there will always be opposition and oppositions have a tendency to grow louder...

By that logic, car companies shouldn't place safety features in their cars, because people will die in traffic accidents anyway.
What's practical for car companies and what's practical for nations are two different things. They can't be judged by the same standard: in fact, this comparison is pretty ridiculous.

Certainly, horrific abuses will happen anyway. However, I think the international community has a responsibility to stop the worst of these abuses, such as the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the pogrom in Rwanda, and the current situation in the Darfur. We may not save every life threatened by hatred an megalomania, but we can do the best we can and save as many of them as possible.
Ehhhh.... sorry, but no. If its a cause you'd like to rally behind that's fine; I haven't got a problem with that and I'd encourage you--but suggesting that I have a moral obligation to people I've never interacted with is a bit of a stretch. Again, I'm not saying I think these things are right or justified, just that the onus is not on me to fix it. By putting my wages to use by funding humanitarian interventions, the government is proposing that it is. I'm sorry, but I don't think I buy that.

Besides, what kind of shit is this "responsibility to stop the worst of these abuses?" Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to kill 50 people? 500? 5,000?

Obviously, proponents of humanitarian interventions can't get away with suggesting we stop them all, on the previously mentioned grounds of it being more or less impossible. To counter this, they often suggest [as you have] that only the "worst of them" are worth bothering with, but the criteria never seems to be consistent: no matter what or where they always suggest we involve ourselves in a new one once the papers start reporting it. For all the suggestions I keep hearing that we should only bother with the big ones, I've never seen a humanitarian opt out of any such interventions.

Obviously, proponents of humanitarian interventions can't get away with suggesting we stop them all, on the previously mentioned grounds of it being more or less impossible.

Not impossible, just stupid.

Some proponents have admitted that such a course would throw what little world order there may be (or if you are a realist, the balance of power and terror) out of the window and that would leave an even bigger mess to clean up....

Why wait to be attacked?

You're not required to wait if an attack is imminent. The problem is if an attack is more uncertain - See Iraq. And you said that it would be OK if it was "a good potential of being threatened in the near future", so you go much further. You would accept a pre-emptive attack even when it's only a potential threat?

You're not required to wait if an attack is imminent. The problem is if an attack is more uncertain - See Iraq. And you said that it would be OK if it was "a good potential of being threatened in the near future", so you go much further. You would accept a pre-emptive attack even when it's only a potential threat?
Well, you have to use your better judgement. You can't just attack someone without any evidence, but you also can't wait till you get a bomb dropped on your head.

Because its morally controversial. A state while considering its survival physically must also consider its survival politically. Can it be trully considered moral by the civilian population to punish another nation for an act it has yet to commit?

Maybe with good PR but there will always be opposition and oppositions have a tendency to grow louder...
If the bombs start falling, they wont be alive to oppose

Well, you have to use your better judgement. You can't just attack someone without any evidence, but you also can't wait till you get a bomb dropped on your head.

No, if you should attack someone without clear evidence, you might be labeled as the agressor and have the world rally around your enemies.

But I think I understand what you mean, and I might even agree with you to some extent, but your original statement described a situation in which a pre-emptive attack would not be justified.

Anyway, this is about humanitarian intervention, so...

No, if you should attack someone without clear evidence, you might be labeled as the agressor and have the world rally around your enemies.

But I think I understand what you mean, and I might even agree with you to some extent, but your original statement described a situation in which a pre-emptive attack would not be justified.

Anyway, this is about humanitarian intervention, so...
I think that pretty much sums it up...