Of all age-groups, First Globals are the most likely to say that the US has an obligation to intervene militarily in foreign countries to protect basic human rights, with 49% expressing this view and 31% disagreeing. For comparison, just 29% of those over 65 endorse this view and 51% disagree with it.
Defenders of this view usually argue that there are some violations of human rights that are so clear-cut and egregious that they demand that national sovereignty be violated for the greater good. Others believe that simplistic narratives of good vs. evil are likely to be manufactured by warring factions in order to have major powers intervene on their behalf. In your view, were there any justified military humanitarian interventions in the past few decades? What were they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
One example is when Sudan allowed a heavily armed U.N. force and African peacekeepers in Darfur to reinforce the African Union force that was struggling to prevent the murder of hundreds and thousands of people. The government backed militia, known as the Janjaweed, pushed people out of there homes and country, committing genocide.
was that an example of success or failure?
Military humanitarian intervention is oxymoron, who thinks it's not is simply moron.
that would make a lot of people morons.
"For comparison, just 29% of those over 65 endorse this view and 51% disagree with it" (...unless there is something in it for them). That's my feeling, anyway, the US interventionists come in two flavors - the do-gooders and the imperialists. Of these, I think far worse of the first kind. Mind your own business, oh, if you could just learn to mind your own business (and not make the "Planet" your business). "Making the world safe for democracy", "making the world safe for capitalism", oh how it is easy to despise that and deservedly so. The worst part is the stigma it gives to democracy and capitalism.
Anytime a human's life is saved, is a success, not a failure.
that would make a lot of people morons.
We agree on that.
Darfur: the dangers of celebrity imperialism, nice article on the subject. I like this paragraph most: Some activists are so distraught at the lack of Western military action in Darfur that they seem to have lost touch with reality altogether. In August this year, for example, celebrity campaigner Mia Farrow held a meeting with the private security firm Blackwater to explore the possibility of a freelance mission to beef up the African Union force in Darfur.
yeah, i read that one some time ago. spiked!'s writers (tara mccormack and brendan o'neill in particular) have a very good understanding of the complexities of foreign inverventionism.
Post a Comment