 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| sherrife wrote: | I'm happy to list examples of where a sincere effort at humanitarian assistance (if it were even theoretically possible in this system) SHOULD happen, and explain you why they can't and haven't happened.
Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Kenya, Congo, Myanmar, Egypt, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on. |
Because, in the end, you can't help everyone in the world. Sure, if we all got rid of our TVs and new cars our government might be able to contribute a bit more to a few more countries, but human greed would never allow that to happen. So, I suppose it makes sense that governments such as ours' focus our humanitarian efforts on countries that have strategic importance or important resources. Why would there be any more altruism in international relations than we ourselves display in daily life (i.e., nil)?
I think we need to encourage any humanitarian assistance to other countries, regardless of what the motives are. Because they're always going to be selfish ones - so why not make the most of that, and see any actual assistance as a good thing?
Omar, everytime we have discussions like these in the VPT, I think of the movie 'The Edukators'. I guess you've probably seen it, but I couldn't recommend it more highly - it analyses a lot of these kinds of issues.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | In the tradition of socialism from below that I am a part of, there are no non-capitalist states, nor have there ever been (apart from important but all too brief historical incidents such as the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and Russia for a short period after the October Revolution). Does that clear my perspective up? 
Now, there has never been a humanitarian intervention actually motivated by primarily humanitarian reasons in the history of this system, you seem like you agree with that. |
Well no, im not sure i 100% agree with that. But mostly because of the rigid, absolute manner of the wording. Im not familiar enough with the intricate structure of every "humanitarian" intervention every made, so making such a broad statement would be slightly ridiculous.
I do not believe there would be any PURELY humanitarian interventions, purely because there are simply too many people involved in influencing the decision to make such an intervention for it all to be for one reason, and one reason ONLY. (thats not to say there wasnt, just that it seems to me unlikely)
Im not however prepared to write off the existence of a PRIMARILY humanitarian intervention. Without putting too much thought into the suggestion...Kosovo perhaps? There are probably some better examples however.
| Quote: |
But I challenge you to think of an example where it COULD happen. Because I'm happy to list examples of where a sincere effort at humanitarian assistance (if it were even theoretically possible in this system) SHOULD happen, and explain you why they can't and haven't happened.
Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Kenya, Congo, Myanmar, Egypt, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on. |
As for these examples, i simply reiterate my previous assertion that the main objective is that aid be delivered, regardless of the motivation. If i lived in one of those countries, or in Rwanda during the genocide and some foreign nation sent one of its soldiers to stand (figuratively) between me and those who would see me buried in a mass grave...i would like to think that i would be thanking whatever deity i happened to worship, rather than being outraged that they were only helping me cos they wanted to stabilize the region so they could profit from trade.
Its basic Game Theory...theres no reason why there can't be something gained by both parties. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, but it's not quite as simple as you make out Omar, or to put it in terms that you might find more acceptable, you need to look at intervention dialectically. When first Britain and France and later the USA and the USSR opposed Hitler in WWII none of them were motivated by pure humanitarian reasons yet objectively they were producing an outcome that was good for humanity. In fact, despite allied attrocities like Dresden, the allies were fulfilling a humanitarian role.
No state intervenes for purely humanitarian reasons, but objectively the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia in 1979 which removed Pol Pot was a humanitarian outcome and the fact that the State Capitalist regime that the Vietnamese installed has negative features doesn't undermine that. I could name other relatively recent examples. The Indians removing the Pakistanis from East Bengal in 1971 and supporting the creation of Bangladesh for one.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
