So, here’s a problem that I’ve been wrestling with a lot lately: Does a nation ever have a moral imperative to intervene in a situation where another country’s government is clearly violating the human rights of their population and maintaining power through force and intimidation?

When I was younger, I used to think that there were a lot of shades of grey in here, and I still do. However, I recently finished The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns, and their description of Taliban rule in Afghanistan is just brutal: hardcore, oppressive, military-state, incredibly violent, SS-style shit. A description of governance like that, if accurate, drains a lot of the grey away in my eyes.

In a situation like that, if a country has the power to intervene on behalf of the people of a country who are subject to those type of conditions (living conditions which we can hardly imagine being in), shouldn’t they? Also, accepting that resources are ultimately limited, wouldn’t it make the most sense for that country to intervene in nations like that where it also had something to gain by doing so? Oil and military interests, for example.

You can also argue that there are non-military responses to situations like that, but sometimes those aren’t nearly as effective (at either ending the situation or establishing the interests you set out to achieve). In many cases, the only (or best) answer to force is overwhelming force. This, of course, has its own problems… T.H. White’s Once and Future King explores this issue pretty thoroughly from a mid-20th century perspective, and I’ve always found it really interesting.

But the bottom line is this: If you have the resources and ability to make things better for people living in an oppressive hell, are you morally obligated to do so? I think my answer to that after some consideration might have to be, “Yes.” Given that conclusion, and given the fact that their are many areas in the global arena in which you could focus your efforts, wouldn’t it be irresponsible to do anything but allocate your resources to changing the regimes where you could 1) have the most direct impact, and 2) stand to benefit the most from your intervention?

Here are a number of cases:

1. North Korea in the 1990s

2. Rwanda in 1994

3. Kosovo in 1998

4. Zimbabwe currently

5. Russia currently

6. Sudan currently

In which cases would you support a military intervention by the US? Why or why not? Is this a consistent response?

I don’t want to go through each of the specifics of those cases at the moment… but I do have some time this week. Hmm.

Why is consistency important, though? Are you suggesting that if we don’t always intervene, that we should never intervene? Or rather that our intervention should adhere to similar guidelines every time? In which case, why?

Regarding any of the current cases, we clearly have our hands tied at the moment. We’re already embroiled in Iraq. I think it’s perfectly logical to tackle one thing at a time.

I seem to remember Clinton mentioning that he deeply regretted not intervening in Rwanda.

North Korea and Kosovo both require some more research on my part (embarrassingly).

Naw, most people would have to think about it.

I don’t mean to say that to be consistent you’d have to invade all of these countries or none of them – a rule (invade if conditions X, Y, Z are met; otherwise do not) that produces results you like would do.

I should also say that not only did Clinton not intervene in Rwanda, he was a total pig-fucker about it. I’m not even kidding. He did his best to obfuscate the situation until bodies started floating downstream across the border; once word got out about what was happening in the country, his press secretary denied that a genocide was occuring, only allowing the existence of “acts of genocide.” Here’s a clip to make you scream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68XlAMy0k-s

Post updated by sam on 2008/09/10 17:21

Well, that’s what I mean. I don’t think you can boil it down to a rule. There’s a lot to consider.

I think if you believed that you DID have a moral imperative to attempt to assist oppressed people, a rule you could use might go something like this:

“IF we have available military resources, IF it’s unlikely that intervention would expose America to credible threats by any powerful allies of the oppressed nation, and IF we have verified reports of humanitarian violations in our target nations, THEN we should allocate those military resources to intervening with targeted nations in the order that is MOST LIKELY to directly benefit us as a country.”

In other words, if it’s relatively easy to kick the crap out of a regime that we believe is violating human rights and it’s unlikely that significant political or military repercussions would occur, we should do so. I’m not saying that this is necessarily what I believe (at all)—just illustrating a potential rule.

Of course, this exposes us to the eternal problem of using force to meet force. If we use violent means to force our world view on another country, are we necessarily any better than they are? Also, aren’t we then succumbing to a notion of morality wherein whoever is strongest decides what is moral? In answer to that, we would already have to assume superior morality to decide to intervene in the first place, therefore being “better than them” is never in question. For the second part, isn’t that how the world works on a very basic level anyway?

Ultimately, whoever is strongest DOES make the rules. In which case, isn’t there even more of a moral imperative to get others thinking like us if we truly believe that the way we live is the right one? Don’t most enduring societies think that way?

I think that, when you consider international politics, the first place to start is the philosophy behind The Prince where politics and morality are diservered.

Well, that’s not quite true. I’m very tired, I will think about this more tomorrow?

Don’t most enduring societies think that way?

I mean a lot of enduring societies just killed everyone else.

Also ideas tend to spread not because they’re morally correct but because they are useful (see the Dawkins definition of a meme as a self-replicating idea)

“I mean a lot of enduring societies just killed everyone else.”

Yes, that’s what I meant by “that way.” IE, superior force defining morality and imposition of their world view.

More on this tomorrow when I have time.

I have a lot to say on this matter, but it’s late and I’m very tired. I’ll try to look up some sources tomorrow, I’ve read lots about this.