Humanitarian intervention has
become a popular topic for debate as of resent with discussion of intervention
in the different aspects of the Arab Spring. Most of the debate is centered on when it is appropriate
for the United States to engage in humanitarian interventions. Here I want to
take a step backward and make a general argument that humanitarian interventions
are not to be done at all, by focusing on the relationship of the citizens and
their state and the relationship between states.
First, it can be argued that it is
not the place of the federal government to insure the protection of another
country’s citizens because it should be using its resource to protect and
provide for its own citizens. While this point can appear cold hearted it is necessary
to get a clear and unbiased view of the situation. The citizens have a social
contract with their government if that contract is not being fulfilled by a
government it is not the responsibility for another government to fix it
because it has no social contract the people under that government. While individuals can act to the benefit of
the people in need of intervention it is not the responsibility of the federal
government so therefor it should not take place.
Second, the citizens in the government
have a responsibility to themselves to be their own facilitators. If the
government not fulfilling the social contract mention above it is up to the
citizen of that state. If you look at the current situation in Iraq it is clear
no matter how strong the nation building effort, if it the citizens are not
invested in creating the new government, all the effort put in by the intervening
party is meaningless. This is why it is important for the citizens be directly responsible
for the change themselves that way they are invested no matter what and that
results in long lasting and meaning full change in the government.
Third, bad things happen and it is
not the job of one group or individual organization to fix them all. If everyone
does there part to fight for the world that we as the human race want to see, instead
one nation applying its ideals to every other, it will result in a better more
meaning full future for everyone.
You make a good point when you say, "it is clear no matter how strong the nation building effort, if it the citizens are not invested in creating the new government, all the effort put in by the intervening party is meaningless." The citizens should be on board with whatever decisions the government is making. If they are not, clearly fighting will occur. I recently wrote about how our humanitarian programs should be centered around communities instead of trying to negotiate with irrational leaders. The children in communities will one day grow up to be the leaders of the country and if the U.S. leaves a positive mark in their minds, peace will be easier in the future. I hope that makes sense!! Also, I agree with the fact that the entire human race is needed to make a change, not just one nation (usually the U.S.).
ReplyDeleteI agree with several aspects of your argument. First, I think primary responsibility for general wrong-doings falls on the citizens of the state, like you suggested. If the government is not holding up their end of the bargain, the citizens are obligated to fix this. That being said, I think this is incredibly easy to believe in theory, but very hard to put into practice. In the case of genocide in Rwanda, it is very hard to believe that outside states should not have been involved. I consider the quote "if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have taken the side of the oppressor", and I think it's very true. It's hard to remain uninvolved, yet fundamentally believe that the situation is wrong. It's a difficult balance though, and definitely should be considered on a case by case basis.
ReplyDelete