![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcWhat to do....what to do...
Sigh
I read an interesting piece somewhere yesterday on how some of the dissent in France (dissent meaning support for the US approach) is coming from the left. Even that scumbag extraordinaire Jean-Marie Le Pen is against the war. But some see the advent of regime change as the lesser evil to inaction. Knowing that the motivation of Bush/Blair/Howard is more about power than human rights.
If we think about Sarajevo (no intercession, massive slaughter), Rwanda (same), Kosovo (intercession that may/may not have saved lives), in each instance the question of an international military action was discussed. I’ve always thought that Rwanda Sarajevo--and the West’s inaction in each case--are great shames. So many lives could have been saved.
Was chatting at length with someone also new to Australia, from Europe in his case. Interesting guy, well-read, inquisitive, we chatted over an hour about all this stuff--and I wish I could cut and paste the conversation in here. For me, the question left unanswered was:
When is it OK to intervene, under what conditions and with whose assent?
If we toddle back a bit in history, most Europeans are hyper-critical about the US not getting involved in either World War until much later. US isolationism was not popular. In those same conflicts, many British colonies/former colonies sent thousands of their young men to death and disability; the nascent state of Newfoundland lost so many men (and expended so much of its GDP) on the WW I effort, it effectively went bankrupt and returned to being crown colony. Australian public memory largely acknowledges the slaughter of Gallipoli; so too the Canadians Vimy Ridge. Anger and pride, pride and anger. And the Americans stood by.
In theory, the UN serves as a way for our species to oversee itself. In reality, its very structure gives certain nations (US, France, China, Russia & Britain) the authority to veto anything that challenges their actions. Or values. While I happen to agree with Russia and France this time around, I cannot support the current UN structure and the concomitant hegemony inherent therein.
So, do countries go it alone, or must the UN sanction things? What is the moral authority, and on whose terms? What works (or will work) in the interests of
humanity?
Gawd I wish I knew. I do know that I’ll be sending some $$ toWar Child. One of those rare organizations that services those in need. As do Médecins sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders and CPAR, Canadian Physicians for AIDS & Relief.
Because whatever any of us thinks about this, the shitty situation in Iraq is gonna get worse before it possibly gets better.
Sigh
I read an interesting piece somewhere yesterday on how some of the dissent in France (dissent meaning support for the US approach) is coming from the left. Even that scumbag extraordinaire Jean-Marie Le Pen is against the war. But some see the advent of regime change as the lesser evil to inaction. Knowing that the motivation of Bush/Blair/Howard is more about power than human rights.
If we think about Sarajevo (no intercession, massive slaughter), Rwanda (same), Kosovo (intercession that may/may not have saved lives), in each instance the question of an international military action was discussed. I’ve always thought that Rwanda Sarajevo--and the West’s inaction in each case--are great shames. So many lives could have been saved.
Was chatting at length with someone also new to Australia, from Europe in his case. Interesting guy, well-read, inquisitive, we chatted over an hour about all this stuff--and I wish I could cut and paste the conversation in here. For me, the question left unanswered was:
When is it OK to intervene, under what conditions and with whose assent?
If we toddle back a bit in history, most Europeans are hyper-critical about the US not getting involved in either World War until much later. US isolationism was not popular. In those same conflicts, many British colonies/former colonies sent thousands of their young men to death and disability; the nascent state of Newfoundland lost so many men (and expended so much of its GDP) on the WW I effort, it effectively went bankrupt and returned to being crown colony. Australian public memory largely acknowledges the slaughter of Gallipoli; so too the Canadians Vimy Ridge. Anger and pride, pride and anger. And the Americans stood by.
In theory, the UN serves as a way for our species to oversee itself. In reality, its very structure gives certain nations (US, France, China, Russia & Britain) the authority to veto anything that challenges their actions. Or values. While I happen to agree with Russia and France this time around, I cannot support the current UN structure and the concomitant hegemony inherent therein.
So, do countries go it alone, or must the UN sanction things? What is the moral authority, and on whose terms? What works (or will work) in the interests of
humanity?
Gawd I wish I knew. I do know that I’ll be sending some $$ toWar Child. One of those rare organizations that services those in need. As do Médecins sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders and CPAR, Canadian Physicians for AIDS & Relief.
Because whatever any of us thinks about this, the shitty situation in Iraq is gonna get worse before it possibly gets better.
