No I'm not talking about local historical issues, I'm talking about foreign wars. Those seeking a pull-out of Iraq frequently justify their position by stating the present situation there has become a "civil war" and is none of our business. Without debating that I must then ask why the civil war in Sudan is something we need to address? It wouldn't be so difficult to discuss this if it weren't largely the same people espousing these opinions.
The "genocide" in Sudan is certainly a shock to any decent person. What of the atrocities in Zimbabwe though? What of the genocide - using amnesty internationals criteria - of white farmers in South Africa? I don't want to turn this into a racial discussion since it seems too much here goes that way but a sensible person must ask why 3000+ mostly elderly, women and children South African citizens can be systematically murdered in their homes by black assailants who are rarely caught and there is no international outrage. Where is the international community's wrath when a psychotic despot sanctions the theft of virtually all productive land in "the breadbasket of Africa" by murdering the owners if necessary, and allowing that resource to lay idle while his country - black & white - goes from the largest exporter of food on the continent to not being able to import enough to feed it's own people. A country with one of the highest incidents of AIDS where the second highest official (interior minister) publicly states that it's of no consequence because we have too many people anyway! Where's the outrage?
I have my own opinions on all these issues (as you might suspect) but it amazes me how our battles are selected and sold to us. Countless Americans probably have no idea about how many incidents of "genocide" actually exist around the world. No idea because we're only fed the video and print reports on those where someone else has decided we need to "do something."
Full Version: When is civil war our business?
Why don't we leave Africa to the Africans? Is it because they have more than their share of despotic governments that scratch each others backs??
Great topic, Aldo! We covered this area in my political ethics class this semester. I even had to write a short paper on intervention! Are we as a nation bound to the same moral principles as individuals? (read Machiavelli!) At what point is it right to intervene in the affairs of another country? If we as humans would intervene in a murderous situation, shouldn't we do the same as a country?
Looking at Michael Walzer's Just War Theory, you could make some derivative rules to apply to the situation: All other channels have been attempted to rectify the situation, likelyhood of a positive outcome, support to reconstruct after country is stabilized. Proportionality of response may or may not apply here...I'd ahve to mull it over more. A bigger problem is discriminating between who is and isn't a combatant, and for which side. In some cases, both factions (tribal?) are equally guilty, so which do you choose to be the legitimate group to support? In fact, many of these tribes in power were only placed there by British colonials as a way to discriminate and cause class tension.
A utilitarian approach gives us the "greatest good for the greatest number" thing. But the greatest good is relevant to your position. If you are leading the genocide, then you are attaining property of power. If you are being killed, obviously, there's no good to be gained. As an outside nation, will intervening produce more happiness in your country via increased economic benefits or some other betterment to your people, or will it cause more injury to you economically and emotionally through the loss of lives and strain on your own country's budgets? Generally, I believe most politicians do feel for the plight of people in Africa, granted that we are so detached from the reality of civil war that the emotional impact misses us almost entirely. However, Machiavelli would say that leaders do have to act differently than individuals. In this way, politicians must act in the national interest. Unless the civil war/genocide seriously threatens to undermine our nation, we will not intervene. Look at how long it took us to intervene in WWII. Until Hitler became a true threat to our own national security, we were rather content to let him slaughter millions of people. Idly watching people die is not a moral action to us as individuals, but our leaders are foced to look at "the greater good" and weight all the + and -.
In general, it all sucks.
Looking at Michael Walzer's Just War Theory, you could make some derivative rules to apply to the situation: All other channels have been attempted to rectify the situation, likelyhood of a positive outcome, support to reconstruct after country is stabilized. Proportionality of response may or may not apply here...I'd ahve to mull it over more. A bigger problem is discriminating between who is and isn't a combatant, and for which side. In some cases, both factions (tribal?) are equally guilty, so which do you choose to be the legitimate group to support? In fact, many of these tribes in power were only placed there by British colonials as a way to discriminate and cause class tension.
A utilitarian approach gives us the "greatest good for the greatest number" thing. But the greatest good is relevant to your position. If you are leading the genocide, then you are attaining property of power. If you are being killed, obviously, there's no good to be gained. As an outside nation, will intervening produce more happiness in your country via increased economic benefits or some other betterment to your people, or will it cause more injury to you economically and emotionally through the loss of lives and strain on your own country's budgets? Generally, I believe most politicians do feel for the plight of people in Africa, granted that we are so detached from the reality of civil war that the emotional impact misses us almost entirely. However, Machiavelli would say that leaders do have to act differently than individuals. In this way, politicians must act in the national interest. Unless the civil war/genocide seriously threatens to undermine our nation, we will not intervene. Look at how long it took us to intervene in WWII. Until Hitler became a true threat to our own national security, we were rather content to let him slaughter millions of people. Idly watching people die is not a moral action to us as individuals, but our leaders are foced to look at "the greater good" and weight all the + and -.
In general, it all sucks.
We should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Once they're all done killing each other, we move in and take their land. I wonder how the world population would spread out of it were just Americans. Hmm.
Wow!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Honest!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Honest!
There are two major implications for the rest of us in the chaos in Africa. The humanitarian implications of allowing mass murder and gross inequality and the global significance of the natural resources found there.
While the original governments were put in place by the departing colonial powers, most of those original governments have been displaced by (largely) communist backed leaders resulting from a largely ignored side effect of the cold war. The USSR, Cuba and N. Korea were willing to invest in Africa during a period when we (the U.S.) were not.
In the 60's and 70's it would have been politically dangerous for white American politicians to voice support for anything but the indigenous black majority of Africa even if they were communists.
As a result the white minority governments - almost the only successful modern governments on the content - of Africa were allowed to be disposed by these communist financed, trained, influenced and equipped "freedom fighters." The communists however simply gave them the tools to accomplish the job and did little to direct the future of the regimes. The result was like a dog chasing a car, if he catches it what does he do next?
The last to fall was the one we as a nation know the most about - South Africa. The Afrikaans word "apartheid" is now a well known part of the English language. I am in no way defending minority rule anywhere and I hope this doesn't become a racial discussion, but the fact is the disenfranchised blacks of the first half of the 20th century were not prepared to "rule" when they finally attained the power to do so. Men like Charles Taylor in Liberia, Ida Ammin in Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the progression of "warlords" in Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere as well as the S.A. government still struggling to overcome corruption and mis-management could have benefited tremendously from a bit of mentoring in the process of change, majority rule and ensuing nation building.
Aside from the humanitarian aspects of "helping" these nations find a just path, the globally important economic impact of Africa is only beginning to emerge. The enormous reserves of oil, gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, etc... and the relative ease of their attainment in Africa (as opposed to say the Arctic regions) should be considered. In fact the Chinese are quietly going about making the same sort of alliances today that the Russians, Cubans, etc. did thirty years ago while we (U.S.) once again sit on our collective hands and debate the relevance of Africa!
In all of this there is also the ever-present racial aspects of Africa. In the furor of American outrage over apartheid in the 80's and 90's few realized that most true Boers could trace their ancestry on the continent as far or farther than most Americans can trace their's here! Are they less an "African" - or more specifically a South African, Rhodesian/Zimbabwean/Zambian, Namibian or Botswanian - because they are white? Do they deserve to be disposed by blacks because they were there first?
If you say yes then would you willingly relinquish your house, property and possessions if a descendant of a Catawba Indian showed up at your door and demanded it?
The "African dilemma" is not an easy one. It is one that demands our attention though! We don't have time to sit idly by and watch the continent slip farther into Chaos before eventually finding its self. The Chinese aren't and the implications of that are something we cannot ignore.
While the original governments were put in place by the departing colonial powers, most of those original governments have been displaced by (largely) communist backed leaders resulting from a largely ignored side effect of the cold war. The USSR, Cuba and N. Korea were willing to invest in Africa during a period when we (the U.S.) were not.
In the 60's and 70's it would have been politically dangerous for white American politicians to voice support for anything but the indigenous black majority of Africa even if they were communists.
As a result the white minority governments - almost the only successful modern governments on the content - of Africa were allowed to be disposed by these communist financed, trained, influenced and equipped "freedom fighters." The communists however simply gave them the tools to accomplish the job and did little to direct the future of the regimes. The result was like a dog chasing a car, if he catches it what does he do next?
The last to fall was the one we as a nation know the most about - South Africa. The Afrikaans word "apartheid" is now a well known part of the English language. I am in no way defending minority rule anywhere and I hope this doesn't become a racial discussion, but the fact is the disenfranchised blacks of the first half of the 20th century were not prepared to "rule" when they finally attained the power to do so. Men like Charles Taylor in Liberia, Ida Ammin in Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the progression of "warlords" in Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere as well as the S.A. government still struggling to overcome corruption and mis-management could have benefited tremendously from a bit of mentoring in the process of change, majority rule and ensuing nation building.
Aside from the humanitarian aspects of "helping" these nations find a just path, the globally important economic impact of Africa is only beginning to emerge. The enormous reserves of oil, gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, etc... and the relative ease of their attainment in Africa (as opposed to say the Arctic regions) should be considered. In fact the Chinese are quietly going about making the same sort of alliances today that the Russians, Cubans, etc. did thirty years ago while we (U.S.) once again sit on our collective hands and debate the relevance of Africa!
In all of this there is also the ever-present racial aspects of Africa. In the furor of American outrage over apartheid in the 80's and 90's few realized that most true Boers could trace their ancestry on the continent as far or farther than most Americans can trace their's here! Are they less an "African" - or more specifically a South African, Rhodesian/Zimbabwean/Zambian, Namibian or Botswanian - because they are white? Do they deserve to be disposed by blacks because they were there first?
If you say yes then would you willingly relinquish your house, property and possessions if a descendant of a Catawba Indian showed up at your door and demanded it?
The "African dilemma" is not an easy one. It is one that demands our attention though! We don't have time to sit idly by and watch the continent slip farther into Chaos before eventually finding its self. The Chinese aren't and the implications of that are something we cannot ignore.
Excellent article Idiot! Wish I'd seen it before the preceeding post.
Nice article, Id. Economist Jeffrey Sachs has been a great supporter of increased aid to Africa not only in medicine but also infrastructure. He dislikes the IMF and World Bank because, as your article noted, they are eseentially at the will of their largest donor-the US. And it is not US policy to give generously to Africa. Sachs sees Africa as an opportunity to make positive strides not only in the humanitarian realm (employment and education along with better health leads to lower birth rates and stops the cycle of hunger/poverty) but the unstable governments would also cease to support terrorists (plenty of Muslims in Africa!), which is certainly in the national interest, because the people would be smart enough to organize a functional government. However, if the US was truly interested in the oil, they would already be there...isn't that why we're in Iraq? Either our government is disinterested or our military is not strong enough to intervene, or the politicos are too flacid to face more of their coinstituents screaming "War for Oil!" Take your pick. My one criticism of Sachs is that he wants 0.6 of the US GDP (I think! It's been a while since I read it!) to go to the UN aid programs. As with most things with the UN, I would worry about them having the backbone to use it in those very distressed areas like Darfur. Though Sachs is right in that aid coming from one central location would eliminate duplication of services and cut the bureaucrary, I just worry that we would see too many Food for Oil debacles and the support for the efffective programs would dry up.
i think the way it works , if you want them to get 10 billion , you have to send 30 billion, by the time every one gets there share , not every one is honest, not even the higher ups.
I worry about the US going into any country to offer "aid".
Had to.
Had to.
QUOTE (coma @ May 30 2007, 03:00 PM) 
We should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Once they're all done killing each other, we move in and take their land. I wonder how the world population would spread out of it were just Americans. Hmm.
Sounds like the trailer park after they've all just paid their last trailer payment.
Way to think ahead, name-dropper. When is Olive Garden coming?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.