Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's ugly in Zimbabwe. It was ugly in Iraq, too, in 2003. The world is full of ugly places. But let's hope the coolest of cool heads prevail before any sort of outside intervention is planned in that unfortunate nation.
If anyone has any good ideas about how to help Zimbabwe, I'd like to hear them. Military interention is obviously a nonstarter. Tougher economic sanctions probably won't do much, except worsen the plight of the Zimbabwe people and tribes not favored by President Robert Mugabe. Yes, he's murdering and torturing members of the opposition. So what's your plan? Mine is pretty much: do nothing.
The editor of the Economic Times of India points out one aspect of the hypocritical handwringing about Mugabe, in a Post column:
The vast majority of 20th century world rulers were bloody autocrats, and the shift to democracy in the 21st century has so far been partial and unconvincing. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are autocracies. Does anybody suggest UN action to topple them? All the Central Asian republics are autocracies. Does anybody suggest toppling them? No, because they are generally pro-Western autocracies, and that apparently expiates their sins. Of Mugabe's many crimes, the one that is apparently unforgivable is that he has confiscated the land of white farmers, killed some and driven out others. In earlier times, when he accommodated whites, the West hailed him as a great freedom fighter. Britain even knighted him. These encomiums were poured on him despite his killing 10,000 to 20,000 members of the rival Matabele tribe during an uprising. Nobody called him a bloody criminal at the time. Only when he turned viciously against whites did the western media and political class suddenly find in him despicable qualities that had somehow escaped them earlier.This white bias is well understood in Africa--and Asia--and explains why other African rulers have been slow to join Western condemnation of him. Some have finally condemned him now, but none of them wants military action to topple Mugabe.
Condemning Mugabe is one thing, as everyone from George W. Bush to Nelson Mandela has done. But doing something about it is another thing. Lots of people want to blame Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, for not cutting off Zimbabwe's electric supply, shutting down the border, and otherwise taking aggressive actions to isolate Mugabe. To my mind, Mbeki argues convincingly that (a) those measures won't work and (b) they would boomerang to hurt South Africa and the region.
Maybe Mbeki did his best, as the regional African mediator for Zimbabwe, to broker fair elections, and maybe he didn't. The elections were, in fact, held, and the opposition won control of Zimbabwe's parliament. Could Mbeki have done any more, given Mugabe's determination to stay in power? I don't know. But clearly Mbeki isn't lining up behind forcible "regime change."
Even Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader who took refuge in the Dutch embassy and dropped out of the election held today, isn't calling for armed intervention, though members of this party are.
Of course, the Queen of England did strip Mugabe of the honorary knighthood he received back when he was in favor.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
one question: they got oil?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2008 @ 10:44am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/27/2008 @ 1:36pm
Actually John, that's always been the position of the left...do nothing. Happens everyday.
Posted by ACook at 06/27/2008 @ 1:59pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 11:44am
You want to invade Zimbabwe, LL?
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2008 @ 6:19pm
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree (to a certain extent) with Jomamma. I do not think we have any business intervening in Zimbabwe, certainly not a military intervention. But I thought that about Iraq too. Revolutions only really work when them come from within. Only a nation's citizens know what they need, and the change that they need.
If a country--even Iraq--had come to us en masse (not a couple ex-pats with the president's ear), I would have been far more willing to support this debacle--hey, it may even have worked!
Posted by juls1975 at 06/27/2008 @ 7:40pm
Though the article here is interesting, it faces at least three serious problems, in addition to the absence of any real arguments:
1) The argument isn't even remotely valid. The fact that Robert Dreyfuss is unable to come up with a plan to deal with Zimbabwe doesn't even remotely prove that one doesn't exist. It's also telling that Mr. Dreyfuss doesn't even attempt to make any real arguments. He just lines up a series of assertions and hopes they'll be persuasive.
2) This argument (to the extent that there is an argument here) also isn't generalizable. The fact that Zimbabwe in particular isn't all that amenable to regime change doesn't prove that others aren't.
3) His approach, broadly speaking, is EXTREMELY destructive. Part of the reason for military intervention in cases like these is to deter future dictators, not only from committing human rights abuses in their country, but also in allowing those abuses to spread past their own borders (a particular problem in Africa). If you adopt his approach, you remove that deterrent, and that's awful.
So, tragically, this is the second Nation article in a few days that makes lots of assertions and doesn't make real arguments. I hope this doesn't continue to be the case.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2008 @ 7:50pm
Apart from being the world's most vicious racists, Zimbabwe's white farmers were busy and happy growing tobacco, not food, pretending to be Zimbabweans while (illegally) keeping a British passport just in case. During the 1992 draught crisis they were feeding their cattle with white corn -preferred for the preparation of sadza, the local diet's main staple- while the Government was forced to import yellow corn (disliked by most Zimbabweans) from Argentina. Had Britain and Mugabe honoured their independence agreements, things would likely be different. There is no plan for Zimbabwe, nobody has a plan from Zimbabwe other than getting back to the old racist order.
Posted by Svil at 06/28/2008 @ 03:26am
I just love the way every nasty dictator in the world is used to justify the disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation, with the US suddenly anointed as the world's policeman.
yeah right.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 08:19am
Thrawn
you seem to subscribe to the colossal arrogance of the US deciding which nations need regime change.
I strongly suggest you examine this premise. in most cases US meddling has made things far worse.
this premise leads to permanent war.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 09:50am
HOSTAGE TO MUGABE
Hmmm. Do nothing? Mr. Mugabe is Catholic. Why doesn't the pope excommunicate him? Or is excommunicating so out with brutal dictators (witness Adolf Hitler) but not pro-choice politicians. Armed intervention is a no-no? How about Americanizing the opposition and give 'em training in self defense 2nd amendment style. I think our Supremes are on board or is the presumptive US president Obama against black nationalism, too?!
Posted by Sander_Fred at 06/28/2008 @ 10:13am
Luvvy, Jomamma and Acook all managed to get swipes in at "the left" (isn't that a Christian tenet?) but took the same path as Dreyfuus, offering no solutions other than to revert to the Old Ways of White Rule with Mugabe' remaining in power, or military intervention which ignores that basic fact that the US has no spare troops for even our own 2 failed wars.
even Thrawn misses the point of the article, that Dreyfuss admits he has no answers, he is asking for some help. why attack the guy if you can't read the title?
Svil is right, even though the White Power may have been a better capitalist paradigm, they were corrupt to the core and severely abused the majority of citizens. Mugabe's ham handed attempt to fix the problem did make it worse, but that does not mean that a fantasy return to the status quo would fix anything, and it will not happen, Mugabe' is not going to change his mind and let them back onto their farms.
We saw a month or so ago how the S. African dockworkers refused to allow a ship load of Chinese weapons to land and unload forcing the arms to go away. Economic sanctions do hurt the commoners, but there is no other stick to use. The UN needs to cut off Mugabes money flow by siezing his out-country bank accounts. We need to strengthen sanctions and extend them to countries that do business with Mugabe' and other tyrants in Africa., such as Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria.
ooohhh the cons will howl about poor Chevron having sanctions imposed for supporting Nigerias dictator at the same time they call for "freedoms" in Iraq and Iran. If it is worth starting two wars in the ME, surely it is worth sanctioning comparable dictators in Africa.
This is going to mean a serious discussion about what to do about the other countries that support these dictators, Communist China and totalitarian Russia. i mean really, how much damage does China have to do before they get their MFN status revoked; they torture their own people, keep their currency artificially low, they support the genocide in Sudan, they support Burma, N. Korea.
and we have to look in the mirror and decide whether it is OK that these dictators get to thrive because we want cheap oil, natural gas, diamonds, platinum and other products they produce with slave labor. Reading many comment here by the likes of Luvv, aasch and ACook, I come to the conclusion that they are comfortable with this situation, as long as "the left" is kept out.
Maybe Chimpy McCflightsuit could call up his friend Prince Bandar ( Bush) and ask the Haus Saud to accept Mugabe' as they did that other nasty character, Idi Amin?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2008 @ 10:56am
Actually John, that's always been the position of the left...do nothing. Happens everyday.
Posted by ACook at 06/27/2008 @ 1:59pm
Ignorance is bliss and you must be approaching nirvana. You need to make up your mind, is the left a threat because they want to change everything, or are they a bunch of do-nothings like the repubs in congress?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2008 @ 11:07am
This "on the one hand on the other" formula for apathy won't do. The left in the US has a disgraceful record of ignoring Mugabe's corruption and murderous policies (by the way, it's the Ndebele, not the Matabele, which is the colonial corruption). That needs to change now or in fact we will be playing into the right wing's hands. Re Mbeki, he's a disgrace on Zimbabwe, as virtually everyone in SA recognizes. Let's hope Jacob Zuma will do better.
So, imperialist military intervention is not on, but we must speak out. During the 1970s the liberation support movement (of which I was a part) was encouraged to speak out about democracy in Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans. The only ones saying we shouldn't interfere with the business of the country was the white minority regime and its supporters. We need to support Zimbabweans on the ground fighting for democracy and economic justice, not wash our hands of the whole business.
Posted by cokorinos at 06/28/2008 @ 11:22am
We need to support Zimbabweans on the ground fighting for democracy and economic justice, not wash our hands of the whole business.
Posted by cokorinos
HOW?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:35am
1) By supporting civil society organizations in Zimbabwe. Check out what's going on in the UK re solidarity: look at Wilf Mbanga's website for resources:
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/
See also COSATU's views on how democracy can be supported in Zimbabwe:
http://www.cosatu.org.za/press/2008/jun/press46.htm
2) By weighing in with American politicians to get them to finally come through on their commitments to land reform and economic development for Zimbabwe.
3) By facing up to, learning from and explaining the history of how Zimbabwe got to the situation it's in, rather than making excuses for Mugabe or the policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan that produced the aituation in the first place.
Posted by cokorinos at 06/28/2008 @ 11:51am
Your history needs to begin a little earlier, with the massive land thefts from Africans in Zimbabwe, and needs to take into account the fact that, among many others, your Republican guru Kissinger promised $200 million to help begin to fix the land problem and didn't deliver. This was part of the Lancaster House process, and is more relevant than ignorant reverse racist arguments because it recognizes the role the West played in propping up a racist order, and understands that the West has a responsibility to help. Putting it all on Mugabe is just as silly as putting it all on the West.
Posted by cokorinos at 06/28/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by cokorinos at 06/28/2008 @ 1:30pm
Kissinger was THIRTY-FIVE years ago...
what Mugabe is doing...is today.
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2008 @ 1:53pm
The comparison with Iraq is disingenuous to say the least. Intervention in Iraq was corrupt to begin with, with Cheney's cronies counting the dollars that would line their pockets before that invasion even began.
I happen to agree that military intervention would be a terrible idea. But let's not confuse the issue by comparing a hypothetical humanitarian intervention in Zimbabwe with the naked power grab that was Iraq.
Posted by canaro71 at 06/28/2008 @ 1:54pm
Have you been to Africa Crabwalk?
Well I have and the people deserve better.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/28/2008 @ 12:28pm
no,
what makes you think I don't know they deserve better treatment than Muagbe'? Have you seen any comments by me that would suggest support of the current situation?
Jomama, the question is: as Americans what can we do? Very few comments here are "blaming America". Maybe you are projecting your desires of what you want the left to be, again. But, as one of the Super Powers in the world, and an alleged savior of the un-free, don't you think that we could attempt to lead the way, or do you prefer our normal course of supporting the power structure that supplies labor/goods with no regard to the welfare of the people that populate a country? I do believe one of your mantras about Iraq was: we made the problem, it is up to us to fix it. Is that "blame America"?
And of course you continue to act as if America has never supported dictators before, that this is some sort of fantasy of "the left". Or maybe the past 200 hundred years of actions by Europeans really has been of little influence on the continent. I am not saying that Africa has not created it's own problems, but when they started from less than scratch due slave trade, colonial imprisonment, strong men supported by western guv't and corporations and willful ignorance by the west, it is no big surprise that things are f'ed up.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2008 @ 4:16pm
Lets see some debate here:
[After all, we're just talking about Blacks, so why bother? Right Mr Dreyfuss?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 11:44am]
and this guy, who is writing about the Whites, clearly the only wise race:
[If I remember, the place used to export food...since the Mugabe rule and his government run corruption the entire nation has fallen into a hole of its own making...maybe they should invite some of the capitalists back, invite some of the farmers they drove out back and perhaps invite some of the people who knew how to run a government back...]-JOMAMMA
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2008 @ 4:20pm
If military intervention were taken, it would have to be by the Africans--but they probably don't have the resources to do it. South Africa has to be tougher. Jacob Zuma and his wing of the ANC should force Mbeki out now.
Posted by scottbp at 06/28/2008 @ 4:23pm
<i>Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2008 @ 10:56am </i>
If all Dreyfuss were saying was: "I don't really have a plan, maybe someone should try and think of something," I don't think I would have a huge problem with that. But that wasn't at all what he said:
<<It's ugly in Zimbabwe. It was ugly in Iraq, too, in 2003. The world is full of ugly places. But let's hope the coolest of cool heads prevail before any sort of outside intervention is planned in that unfortunate nation.
If anyone has any good ideas about how to help Zimbabwe, I'd like to hear them. Military interention is obviously a nonstarter. Tougher economic sanctions probably won't do much, except worsen the plight of the Zimbabwe people and tribes not favored by President Robert Mugabe. Yes, he's murdering and torturing members of the opposition. So what's your plan? Mine is pretty much: do nothing.>>
This seems pretty clear to me. Instead of admitting his fallibility, as you were suggesting, he's instead dismissing altogether the prospect of any intervention whatsoever. Not only is this the opposite of the kind of intellectual humility you ascribe, it's utterly unsupported by any arguments whatosever, and THAT's what I object to the most here.
That's not to say I couldn't be led to reach his specific conclusion on Zimbabwe; maybe there are no easy answers that can be imposed from outside. I don't think, however, that Dreyfuss has done the analytical work to justify that conclusion.
Similarly, the paradigm that rejects all intervention as imperialist and arrogant (a sense I get both from Dreyfuss and from Emile) is problematic. Here's Emile on the subject:
<<Thrawn
you seem to subscribe to the colossal arrogance of the US deciding which nations need regime change.
I strongly suggest you examine this premise. in most cases US meddling has made things far worse.
this premise leads to permanent war.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 09:50am>>
I don't think that's the case at all. First, I think your position runs into a serious problem, because you have to either reject intervention altogether or say who should be the arbiter of "regime change." If you want to defend absolutely no regime change, I would be impressed, but I don't think that the position is ultimately tenable. Insofar as we believe that human beings possess a kind of equal moral worth, it seems very difficult to justify simply ignoring vast human rights atrocities. Though solving them may be difficult, that's not sufficient reason not to even try and come up with a way. If we don't, fine, but we shouldn't refuse to even make the effort.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to say that someone can be a justified arbiter here...who? I doubt you'd argue for NATO, so it seems like you're left with just the UN. That's a huge problem, especially for any case like Darfur, because you've got China's constant veto on any effort to deal with the genocide that's taking place. Moreover, the Genocide Convention (which I believe was ratified by the UN) obligates or at least allows intervention in cases of genocide, so I think we have a crystal-clear justification for intervention against anything of that level.
In short...if the US doesn't get to decide this at all, who does? If no one, I think you have a pretty difficult stance to defend.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/28/2008 @ 8:31pm
In short...if the US doesn't get to decide this at all, who does? If no one, I think you have a pretty difficult stance to defend.
Posted by Thrawn
you are drunk with power. these affairs have to be addressed by coalition of neighbor countries, a pan african solution. he US gets to decide nothing. we don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, to quote "The Godfather"
your premise is all or nothing. that is not how the world works.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 8:48pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 8:48pm </i>
Man, a few days ago I was a flunky working for "overlords," and now I'm drunk with power. Wow. (It should be noted, by the way, that my "drunk with power" attitude doesn't take even a single step beyond the Genocide Convention itself.)
If my argument were that the US should go after each and every case, you could make that claim, because that would be an insane overextension of the US' power, unquestionably.
That's not what I'm defending, however. I'm reacting to your claim that the US has no business effecting regime change. In other words, I'm willing to defend a very limited extent of actual intervention; what I'm CRITICIZING is the CATEGORICAL rejection of regime change that you appear to be defending (and correct me if I'm wrong). So, the key thing to consider in the rest of my argument is this: I'm responding to your claim that rejects regime change across the board.
So that said, on to your alternatives. You clearly seem to reject the UN as the only legitimate arbiter. Your defense of a pan-African solution/coalition of neighboring countries is problematic on a couple of levels. First, given the general ineffectiveness of pan-African solutions (at least from everything I've read), why can't the US even consider intervention? Pan-African action certainly hasn't come even remotely close to solving Darfur.
Second, your criterion appears to be arbitrary. Why is it that only neighboring countries, and not the US, have input into this? Put another way, why is the US effectively free of any obligation to do anything against vast human rights abuses unless they're occurring right by our own doorstep?
Your perspective seems to effectively remove the US from moral agency over pretty severe human rights violations, and this seems problematic from any meaningful moral framework. Our ability to act is obviously limited, but why wouldn't we have an obligation to act within those abilities that we do have?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/28/2008 @ 10:04pm
look at the history of unilateral intervention and then come back to me. don't be such an imperialist. that time has passed. the US cannot impose its will, as Iraq and Afghanistan are proving every day.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 10:45pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 10:45pm </i>
I don't understand your position here. On a practical level, I admit that whatever intervention the US did would have to be limited. Naturally, Iraq and Afghanistan have showed the danger of hubris (and I think many of the failings we've encountered there are because that same hubris motivated the specific strategic and tactical choices that we made).
What I have trouble understanding is the deeper philosophical claim that you seem to be making, namely that for the US to undertake any intervention alone would by definition be imperialist. Under this framework, who IS justified in acting? Only those countries nearby? Only those who have a kinship? What you keep ignoring is the flip side of your position: that vast human rights abuses can happen all over the world, and so long as they're not happening right in our own backyard, we have no moral responsibility whatsoever to even contemplate doing anything about them.
OK, so consider the following scenario, but imagine that all the troops are home from Iraq and Iraq is at least somewhat stable (just assume this for the purpose of argument):
There is genocide occurring somewhere in Africa, perhaps on a smaller scale than is currently taking place in Darfur. All other countries have refused to intervene. Would you actually suggest that the US should not even CONSIDER making efforts to stop the genocide alone?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/28/2008 @ 11:04pm
who am I arguing with here? Cecil Rhodes?
the reason the immediate neighbors are better than an enfeebled superpower from far away, is that they know the lay of the land, and it is they who have to live with the consequences. after meddling America retreats blithely to its shores. or not as Iraq demonstrates.
it's easy to get it, with muddled motives. now we have conflicting motives, finding that our puppet is also Iran's puppet, whose protegees they are. and vietnam too. it was perfectly clear how it was going to end up, but Nixon continued the air war for years more.
we are the the first empire, with over reaching ambitions and egg on its face. systematic srudy of British and French imperial pretensions,and I'm sure you won't be so pat and sanguine about american interventionism around the globe.
and don't come with the genocide thingamagigg. where was it when the US supported Saddam killing hundred thousand Kurds? it is a dead letter, and it was certainly not invoked in the Iraq aggression.
the one intervention in recent time that WAS a reasonable success was gulf one with its broad coalition, AND NO REGIME CHANGE, and everyone agreed on the scope and extent, kick Saddam outa Kuwait. the regional neighbors played a great part, not least of which was to help pay for it.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:10pm
we are NOT the first empire...
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:19pm
"All other countries have refused to intervene. Would you actually suggest that the US should not even CONSIDER making efforts to stop the genocide alone?"
another all or nothing construct.you're trying to load your argument. as one might do with dice.
let's look at the record of the regime change. like Iran, or Diem, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama,Dominican repub lic , Haiti. the line forms on right, to quote Brecht.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:26pm
Would you actually suggest that the US should not even CONSIDER making efforts to stop the genocide alone?
they did not do so.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 12:14am
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:10pm</i>
Cecil Rhodes? Seriously. Where do you get these?
Here's the position I'm defending: I'm willing to defend intervention, even to the level of regime change, to prevent/undermine massive human rights violations. To show this, I've tried to lay out two basic premises:
1) Massive human rights violations are evils that capable actors have an obligation to confront. This seems pretty intuitive and accords with established tradition such as the Genocide Convention.
2) The US is a capable actor. This, I think, is where the real clash is happening. When you defend neighbors acting, for instance, the reason you cite is that they are better able to act. I think that's fair, and where possible and effective, I would certainly prefer those neighbors to act. My question to you is this: what if they don't?
This doesn't mean that we undertake some kind of messianic campaign to stop all evil existing in the world; frankly, I think that's what you're afraid my advocacy is becoming (that, or some kind of "benevolent imperialism). Not at all. I think it is critically important to temper ideals with a very careful realism, to understand just what we're capable of and what we're not, and what our actions will mean for the people that our government has sworn to protect. Whatever we're considering should be analyzed very carefully, in light of the hubris our government has suffered from in the past.
Has the US government often failed to act against genocide? Absolutely. But I don't think that's good enough reason to continue neglecting genocides. For us to simply ignore them, or to pray that someone else will always do the work for us, seems incredibly irresponsible. THAT, I think, is the true imperialism; a desire to benefit from other countries without caring one whit for the suffering of human beings within them.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/29/2008 @ 02:18am
Doing nothing is not a bad idea sometimes. Heed the Hippocratic oath to physicians: "Do no harm".
The west is trigger happy, this includes both right and the so called left. Sending the military, bombing residential neighborhoods, using helicopter gunships, assassination by drones will not solve any problems except kill innocent people and turn the population against us.
For those of you who really want to help, I urge that you help the Egyptians from Mubarak's autocracy. Take the pig out by either a drone or a helicopter gunship. After that deal with Saudis, Jordanians etc. That is my plan for those who want to do something for the world. Too bad I have to be polite. Solve your own problems first before you solve problems of the blacks and browns and yellows. Okay?
Posted by rnagisetty at 06/29/2008 @ 07:56am
pray that someone else will always do the work for us
your premise remains that this is the work of america and americans.
during Cecil Rhodes' time this was known as the white man's burden.
the US has never effected regime change to stop human rights violations. they have however done it for many other more disreputable reasons. both of these facts go unaddressed by you.
you deal in idealistic generalities while I deal in historical fact. I presume you get some comfort from the idea of america the benevolent giant, again Rhodes. it is a false comfort.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 09:42am
How about we elect an African American that just might get a different look from the non-white majority of the rest of the world?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2008 @ 10:38am
<i>Posted by rnagisetty at 06/29/2008 @ 07:56am </i>
I think, unfortunately, that you may have gotten the mistaken impression that I'm only interested in Africa. Not at all. I tend to think, frankly, that oppression is oppression and should consistently be fought. How and when that happens will obviously be influenced by the hard facts of the situation, but I think that at the very least, we should try to combat oppression where we are capable of doing so.
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 09:42am </i>
As much as you want to paint me into the "white man's burden" corner, it won't work. My argument has nothing to do with a "white man's burden"; instead, it has to do with the basic nature of a moral actor. For clarity, moral actor in this context doesn't mean "good person/institution," it means "rational actor bound by moral obligations."
What I'm saying is this: If oppression is taking place, moral actors with the capacity to do so have a prima facie obligation to act against it. I say "prima facie" because no one moral actor (or perhaps, even, combination of moral actors) will be able to solve every instance of oppression either. That doesn't, however, absolve them of the responsibility to at least make an effort when they can.
A lot of your analysis is an entirely fair critique of overextension and the US' sense (at times) that it can solve everything. However, as I've tried to make clear before, that's NOT what I'm defending. I'm saying that, within the limits of practicality, the US cannot simply wash its hands of horrible abuses and pretend that it has no responsibility to even consider lifting a finger. THAT attitude, the attitude I'm sensing from this article, is what I find so morally repugnant.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/29/2008 @ 10:16pm
Thrawn
you have changed your argument, though it's still all or nothing.
yes by all means the US should act. but within the frame work that I suggested, in as broad coalition with the regional "actors".
before you were pushing regime change, prompted by the all knowing and all powerful US.
I never said the US should do nothing.that is a strawman of your own invention.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/30/2008 @ 08:23am
one of the greatest human rights violations occurred in Pol Pot's Cambodia. this happened in full view of the entire world. I recall no invocations of the Genocide charter. the US did nothing. that cruel, genocidal regime was finally brought down by a neighboring country's army.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/30/2008 @ 09:36am
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/30/2008 @ 08:23am </i>
I mean, I don't think my argument's really changed at all, except possibly to become more clear. From earlier:
<<I don't understand your position here. On a practical level, I admit that whatever intervention the US did would have to be limited. Naturally, Iraq and Afghanistan have showed the danger of hubris (and I think many of the failings we've encountered there are because that same hubris motivated the specific strategic and tactical choices that we made). What I have trouble understanding is the deeper philosophical claim that you seem to be making, namely that for the US to undertake any intervention alone would by definition be imperialist. >>
From the very beginning, I've been defending a much more limited perspective than what you've attempted to box me into. Simultaneously, I'm confused by your claim of strawman. As my quoted response above conveys, you seem to argue that any actions by the US to stop genocide (or at the very least, any SOLO actions) would be by their nature imperialist because it isn't our place to dictate what system others live under. If that isn't the position you're defending, what exactly IS your position?
<<one of the greatest human rights violations occurred in Pol Pot's Cambodia. this happened in full view of the entire world. I recall no invocations of the Genocide charter. the US did nothing. that cruel, genocidal regime was finally brought down by a neighboring country's army.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/30/2008 @ 09:36am>>
Absolutely. And our failure to in any way respond or even really acknowledge that terrible things were happening was wrong. Like I said, the US hasn't always acted according to the paradigm that I'm defending. My argument there is simply that when the US ignores these human rights abuses, as it has sometimes done, it is wrong.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 2:18pm
Far be it from me to question the Financial Times of India - or its invocation of than iconic bugaboo, racism - but Zimbabwe's semi-official ethnic cleansing of white farmers reached its apex long ago, in 1998-2000, and the sanctimonious court of world opinion said very little about it. In this country's politically correct media, it was barely mentioned. It became a story only when the plan to redistribute the confiscated farms to African "war veterans" resulted in a near-famine. As awful as it is to admit, the whites really <i>could</i> grow food.
Posted by SanFernandoCurt at 06/30/2008 @ 4:33pm