Validity of Humanitarian intervention? - Page 2

What calls for humanitarian intervention??

@Lalalee

Originally posted by: lalalee

Legal is what you make of it. It is a human construct.

To add to that who defines legal?

The war on Iraq was not sanctioned by UN, but did USA did so and claimed humanitarian intervention?

If Indo/Pak, Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine have disputes and tensions who decides if they can wage war? The two parties involved or a third party claiming humanitarian intervention?

Humanitarian intervention is good in theory but difficult in practice. Instead of genuine understanding of issues involved and peaceful resolution it has become political ploys of the nations who have power. Dictators/Governments are disposed/installed as needed in the name of human rights? US aided overthrow of dictators like Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi to what end?

Perhaps we need to let events run their course rather than dictate the course for them.

Originally posted by: lalalee

I doubt member countries were unaware that R2P was going to be misused one day. Bigger powers must have known. Smaller ones might have been idealistic.

I think the imbalance of power was known to everyone . Considering how this would always need security council clearance. The purpose was to derail World war like situation for that moment.

Countries that want to export weapons will do so at any cost to fulfill personal agenda. They might flout rules openly or covertly - Iran/Hezbollah. Why would anyone mess with an aggressive country home to abundant natural gas and nuclear strength? What happens when countries at the top of the UN ladder want to supply arms and ammunition? If Russia quits exporting arms to Syria, its trade would be adversely affected. Why would it self-destruct? Jewish lobbies with financial clout press the US to support Israel with weaponry. Why would the US disagree? Why would countries not sell weapons to Pakistan, when balancing power in the region is a primary motivation? More importantly, there will always be black market transactions.

My argument was more for powerful country vs another powerful nation. Russia's economic ties with Germany et al which split the western Europe on Ukraine. If Un was made more legally binding - could this sort of economic blockage influence a powerful country to retract it's steps. Economic Isolation in all sorts of form. The fear of self-destruct due to lack of trade, won't also make powerful nations from keeping their unwanted nose out of other's business.

US has a substantial Jew population and people working at top echlons of power, it would always take Israel;s side but by economic restriction on any outside help postulated by mandatory UN regulations can atleast keep it superficially out of the picture.

To stop supply of weapons temporarily , UN would need majority approval and also consider the prevailing situation. Only act when the troubled region holds immediate threat to another state's sovereignty.

I don't understand what you mean by Hitler like situation. If you mean dictators can rise to power through a democratic process and govern like Hitler, it is very possible (I wonder if China is evolving into a Hitler like country). If you are talking about a dictator trying to wipe out a community, such things are happening (Hutus vs. Tutsis, Bhutanese vs. Nepalese in Bhutan), though not on a large scale or of equal atrociousness, and are ignored or downplayed.

The spurting of dictators across Africa but they are restricted to a particular region , they cannot afford to go on a nation capturing spree outside their immediate region. Take the case of North Korea, isolated and empty words. China is communist and might internally have unilateral power core but it would never go Hitler way swimply because it is still economically dependent on many countries . It sits on a very region which has other nations equipped with Nuclear power.

A world government is a hypothetical construct. Regulations would be legally binding, unlike those of the UN. No nation would be sovereign. They would resemble state governments. Power could be centralized or decentralized, unlike the UN that was founded on decentralized cooperation. If power is centralized, the world government could become totalitarian. If power is decentralized and the institution is democratic and just, the Earth might become a better place to live on. Wealth and resources would be proportionately distributed. Economy could be capitalist, socialist or mixed. Culturally speaking, a policy of either accommodation or assimilation would be adopted. The government might make efforts to homogenize people. Minority groups might be treated as specimens in a museum. If the government becomes dictatorial and imposes unfair laws in a region, humanitarian intervention for humanitarian reasons may not happen. In short, it can go both ways.

Sounds Utopian . Might just be the case of too much decentralization. The pyramid of power would have always have top composed of powerful, economically rich countries . Huge gap of communication between different nations, people and region. it would be very difficult to simplify abstract and subjective sentiments like religion for a singular power point. Economic disparity might create a permanent divide between rich and poor nations. Rich would influence policies for their gain. Pretty risky proposition. I relate more to the cons than the pros here.

There are too many conflicts to cripple economically. Decision makers would financially suffer if they go around genuinely trying to cripple all conflicts. Besides, there's underground economy to sustain bloody aggression. For instance: Al Qaeda is funded through drug money.

But Al Qaeda was initially created by US as part of it's Humanitarian Interventions. Underground economy should have to be stopped but then it does help governments in many other ways.

Some conflicting nations choose not to fight bloody battles. When Chinese maps laid claim on Indian territories (Cartographic aggression challenging India's territorial integrity), India released a statement. The US appeasement of Iran has endowed Iran with nuclear capabilities. Appeasement, today, is because of weak global economy. High interdependence and connectivity have made the world a smaller place. (Burmese nuke = South East Asia in trouble.

An unstable Burma serves more purpose than a full bloodied battle . But a ban on political interference atleast superficially would keep China away for some time. I understand the underhand maneuvering but if a genuine threat of economic restrictions is served, it might make such nations cautious and passive in some cases.

A conflict in China will cause tremendous destabilization). Democracy, post Bush administration, has made it difficult for governments to militarily intervene anywhere/anytime/anyhow, if not impossible. Many countries are stuck with their own problems and are least interested in putting up a fight against an external agency. No country really is non-aligned and most have a Big Brother.

NAM was a farce even then.

Hades: What you wrote about "war being a means to peace" applies only to "battles" in a secluded ground or a no-man's-land along the border(Indo-Pak wars for e.g.). Not WAR in the all-enveloping-destruction sense it is used in and seen today. And as Genie put it so aptly, in today's world, war bleeds both the agressor and the agressed upon, and is the breeding ground for insurgency and civil conflict. Iraq is the most potent and contemporary example. And as Germany post-WW1 has illustrated, defeat and utter obliteration in war can have far-reaching consequences.

On the topic of humanitarian intervention, its true that such "resolutions" are never drafted or agreed upon in the UN unless one of the Big Brothers benefit from it economically. And this, unfortunately, does not stand to change. Any "changes" in the UN Charter attempted to stop the main intervener from extracting its pound of flesh is going to be vetoed. A classic case of the fence grazing into the field.

There's no easy answer to the questions this issue raises. While one cannot stand by idly while people are butchered in a genocide, no nation on the planet (read 'powerful' nations) is a saint who would go in without the aim of installing a puppet government or capturing a market for its MNCs.

This is a grey area. Somewhat like Communism itself. Attractive, utopian in suggestion, but is unable to be implemented in its true intentions, owing to the downsides of human nature.

Btw Lalalee, speaking of a World Government, what do you feel about a EU-like institution for the world? One for every continent? Or maybe for regions with an underlying basic homogenity of culture or religion? E.g., one for the Middle East, another for South, East and Central Asia, another for Africa and so on? Would it be possible to obliterate the possibilities of any major warfare or State atrocities by making the nations economically interdependant and intoducing a Charter of Fundamental Rights (like in Europe) ? Or would the presence of an upcoming hegemon China render these efforts futile in Asia?

There are EU-like institutions. Examples: GCC in the Middle East (homogeneity of religion and culture), ASEAN in South East Asia.

But still it has been comparatively smoother compared to these other institutions. Ever since 1993, the overall living standard has got much better across Europe.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

Hades: What you wrote about "war being a means to peace" applies only to "battles" in a secluded ground or a no-man's-land along the border(Indo-Pak wars for e.g.). Not WAR in the all-enveloping-destruction sense it is used in and seen today.

Why does war in the all-enveloping sense exist today? Because we have decried war as a means to resolve conflict.

A few centuries ago if X and Y had a conflict they would battle it out. Allies would pick sides and join in. But ultimately one side would emerge decisively victorious and establish stability until the next conflict.

Today X and Y have a conflict and skirmish, but then the UN comes and establishes cease fire. Dissidents in X and/or Y set up fringe organizations to continue the conflict. Z thinks they need to setup camp in the conflict zone because X and Y cannot be trusted to be big kids. Meanwhile A and B sympathize with X leading to tensions with C and D who sympathize with Y. E tries to play peacemaker and settle things but miscommunications put E in deeper than they expected. Somehow by this time F and G are also involved and before we know it we have this clusterfcuk of destruction around us - terrorist groups, military occupations, deposed dictators, installed dictators and the whole nine yards.

Why did the UN feel the need for ceasefire? Because apparently the "skirmish" isn't such. It went beyond that and had civilian casualties, especially where the contest was an uneven one. (Israel-Palestine)

And uninterrupted wars with no intervention and a "decisive" end also failed to provide any long-standing solution to the main boil. (Indo-Pak wars)

And you've totally ignored the pre-emptive or "invasive" warfare motivated by finance capitalistic intetests.