P
Philip_P
Guest
Among the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq, and our continuing presence there, is the humanitarian argument. In a nutshell, Saddam’s regime constituted an ongoing humanitarian crisis, and we acted to prevent it. The question on this thread is not only how legitimate this specific argument is, but what role humanitarian considerations should play in determining questions of going to war generally. It’s a debate that really came into its own in the 90s, with interventions such as Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans, and judging from the current debate over Iraq, is still going strong.
I think it’s a question worth asking, hence this thread. I’ll start things off with my thoughts. Basically, I’m concerned about limits. Two points from CCC 2309 seem most relevant:
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
No country, not even the U.S., is all powerful. It’s not enough to say “there’s a problem,” we must also ask “can we solve it.” Based on the this recognition, I support large scale intervention for humanitarian reasons, but only when the mission is limited and strictly defined. Under this criterion, stopping the Serbs from massacring the Kosovars could be justified, for instance, but launching an invasion, occupation of Sarajevo, and installing a new regime, would not be. In other words, I think we can and should intervene to stabilize active, flagrant crises such as mass starvation, or an ethnic cleansing campaign, but I have severe doubts regarding anything as ambitious as regime change.
Why? First, it undermines the principle of sovereignty, the basis for a stable international order. Unless we wish to create a world government, either a third party (such as a UN on steroids) or a de facto American Empire, I think the current system of sovereign, independent nation states is our best bet. Stabilizing features such as international trade treaties (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, IMF, etc), international legal protocols, international norms (eg, Geneva Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and international security arrangements (NATO) all rely on the concept of agreements between sovereign states. I’m not saying sovereignty can never be violated, but very strict criteria should be articulated for doing so. The term “humanitarian intervention” as currently used is much too broad. In cases of civil war, such as the Balkan, you could plausibly argue that sovereignty is being contested. In Iraq, the case for intervention would have been immeasurable strengthened had Saddam’s regime being delegitimized by the international community (e.g. moving to kick Iraq out of the UN).
Second, we just don’t have a very good record at nation building. Look at the 90s – the most powerful country in the world is able to stabilize poor situations, but all our military might is woefully incapable of the hard work of building local institutions. Under the just war point that “the prospects for success must be realistic,” in most cases, nation building seems to fail.
Well this should be enough to get us started.
I think it’s a question worth asking, hence this thread. I’ll start things off with my thoughts. Basically, I’m concerned about limits. Two points from CCC 2309 seem most relevant:
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
No country, not even the U.S., is all powerful. It’s not enough to say “there’s a problem,” we must also ask “can we solve it.” Based on the this recognition, I support large scale intervention for humanitarian reasons, but only when the mission is limited and strictly defined. Under this criterion, stopping the Serbs from massacring the Kosovars could be justified, for instance, but launching an invasion, occupation of Sarajevo, and installing a new regime, would not be. In other words, I think we can and should intervene to stabilize active, flagrant crises such as mass starvation, or an ethnic cleansing campaign, but I have severe doubts regarding anything as ambitious as regime change.
Why? First, it undermines the principle of sovereignty, the basis for a stable international order. Unless we wish to create a world government, either a third party (such as a UN on steroids) or a de facto American Empire, I think the current system of sovereign, independent nation states is our best bet. Stabilizing features such as international trade treaties (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, IMF, etc), international legal protocols, international norms (eg, Geneva Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and international security arrangements (NATO) all rely on the concept of agreements between sovereign states. I’m not saying sovereignty can never be violated, but very strict criteria should be articulated for doing so. The term “humanitarian intervention” as currently used is much too broad. In cases of civil war, such as the Balkan, you could plausibly argue that sovereignty is being contested. In Iraq, the case for intervention would have been immeasurable strengthened had Saddam’s regime being delegitimized by the international community (e.g. moving to kick Iraq out of the UN).
Second, we just don’t have a very good record at nation building. Look at the 90s – the most powerful country in the world is able to stabilize poor situations, but all our military might is woefully incapable of the hard work of building local institutions. Under the just war point that “the prospects for success must be realistic,” in most cases, nation building seems to fail.
Well this should be enough to get us started.