First off, since these sort of humanitarian problems often as not come about from civil war, would not a decisive intervention on one side or the other, followed by a traditional humanitarian operation in cooperation with the now-friendly government make more sense? Sure, taking sides is a violation of sovereignty, but since that's already on the table, might as well think about the BEST violation of sovereignty.
Putting sovereignty aside, one should also think about partition. In many parts of the world, current borders are ridiculous post-colonial artifices that have proven unworkable. If a nation is prone to constant civil war between two regional/ethnic factions, shouldn't the two just be separated?
These are rather heavy handed tactics that reek of imperialism. No - they are a form of imperialism. But this is a discussion to have, I suppose - is the imperialistic suppression of dysfunctional elites preferable to the humanitarian catastrophe that results when those same dysfunctional elites decide to fight it out over crumbs?
Finally, let's think this through in a historical context. If the global community has a responsibility to intervene in cases of a states abdication of its duty to protect its own citizens, then should Europe have intervened to stop Stalinism? Or Maoism? The reasons why Europe didn't are obvious, but it's worth thinking through them in this context.
The other side of the imperialist coin is that in order to be recognized as a member of the international system, it is reasonable to expect that you don't commit mass atrocities on your own citizens because you want the oil beneath the ground they live on.
We are a long, long way from "imperialism" here. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
That being said, there is an element of fighting the last war here. Certainly Kofi Anan was moved to start this whole debate as a direct result of his experience with Rwanda. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
The intervention in Sudan is an attempt, I believe deiberate by some, to mitigate a conflict through purely diplomatic means. So, I hope the CPA succeeds in the end, though I think it's a hundred-year project. The CPA is a monster of an agreement. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
Lincoln would object. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
I would venture a yes, but the world wasn't so high minded in those days. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
The Cyprus solution? How many divisions would that have required?
And how would the intervening powers know that what they were getting was a Cyprus, not a Lebanon?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
That might work. Of course, it would also have presented rather serious issues for Britain and France given their... less than savoury behaviour in their colonies.
