Display:
Humanitarian Intervention is a strange beast, often talked about but never seen.
Do you have any examples of Humanitarian Warfare?

The plural of anecdote is bullshit.
by generic on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 07:00:52 AM EST
I think it's hard to justify. There have been many occasions when I would have like to see armed interventions, then we go into Iraq and you realise that nobody is prepared to do these things out of the goodness of their heart.

It's too expensive. Unless, like Bush/cheney,they are driven by psychotic tendencies that would be best dealt with by heavy psycho-active drugs and a rubber room.

They need a profit motive else it's never gonna happen

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
Actually I meant "warfare" ironically, but quotes don't show up properly in diary titles.

There is much discussion right now about delivering aid to Burma without the consent or participation of the ruling junta. Both British and French officials have hinted at such action.

As for real intervention, the situation in Rwanda remains the biggest blot on the humanitarian record of the past several decades. Darfur is getting some aid, mostly despite the fake cooperation of the central government.

Then there is Clinton's (called NATO's as a face-saving measure) intervention when Serbia's crazed leaders went too far. I think most observers who don't have a stake in the outcome think this worked out better for most people.

We shouldn't let the mixed motives, poor planning and excessive militarism used in Iraq deter us from discussing better ways to deal with oppressive regimes in the future. Just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. There are lots of smart people in the world and sometimes one of them comes up with a novel idea.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh without doubt it's hard. But the locals will always have numerical supremacy and if the local govt decides they're not welcome things could get messy.

Our modern military supremacy is very good at destroying cities but as we've found in Iraq, not so good at targetting militias hidden amongst populations. It's a more level playing field, the americans couldn't achieve anything in somalia because of that.

Peacekeeping means there has to be a peace to keep. We might as well suggest that NATO goes in to enforce the '67 border in Palestine, ain't gonna happen.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would add a zeroth clause:

There should be a better than even chance that the measure will work, and the worsening of conditions in the worst-case scenario should not outmatch the potential improvement.

In other words: If you are going to gamble with other people's lives, make sure that you are going to win, and make sure that even if you lose you won't lose catastrophically.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:28:13 AM EST
Who decides when your criteria are met, and how?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:14:10 AM EST

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Aug 7

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Aug 3