"World Police" and Ethics

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Do you think that the U.S. or U.K. (let's even add Russia and China for argument sake) should ever intervene militarily in foreign affairs?

Now by foreign military affairs I mean situations where said country deploys a military presence into another country, except in the cases where war was already initiated by the other country, whereupon it becomes national defense (just causes or what qualifies as "initiation" is quite debatable, but that is a completely different debate.)

This would qualify preemptive strikes and peacekeeping forces as foreign affairs while international warfare in response to war an internal affair (and therefore excluded from this particular debate.)

I believe it is safe to say that few (if any) people on this forum support the current situation in Iraq, but there are other cases where military action may have or currently may be a viable, and ethical option (even in Iraq, under different pretenses).
Cases of genocide are a popular example.

Some examples (current and 20th century) where "proper" foreign military intervention (whether actually carried out or not) may have been appropriate include:
-The Darfur region of Sudan
- Burma
- Rwanda
- Bosnia
- South Africa (Apartheid)
- El Salvador (honestly, I think here the U.S. did more then enough. . .)
- East Timor (Indonesian occupation)
- Cambodia
- Equatorial Guiana
- Burundi
- Bangladesh
- Guatemala
- Armenia (Ottoman Empire)

The question is whether these powerful countries (U.S., U.K., Russia, China) ethically should have the right to act as "world police" or whether they should mind their own damn business.

On one hand, these countries have four of the greatest armies the world has ever known, so do they have not only a right, but an obligation to protect other peoples (such as when the U.S. intervened when some Serbs were attempting to wipe out the Croats and Bosniaks in Bosnia)?

On the other hand, perhaps not only do these four countries have no right to intervene, perhaps these four countries have no right to sustain such large forces. Additionally, attempting to intervene could make the whole situation much worse.

There are many stances to take, and I hope this debate doesn't become as one-sided (or as hostile) as many on rev-left do.
Now discuss!

[ckaihatsu]

The countries you listed are mostly colonial has-beens -- they're at the bottom of the heap of Third World countries -- they don't even have oil to exploit, like in Congo and Nigeria. The imperialists wouldn't even bother....

(And be careful with that anti-Serb stuff -- that's the U.S. line, remember....)




Do you think that the U.S. or U.K. (let's even add Russia and China for argument sake) should ever intervene militarily in foreign affairs?

Now by foreign military affairs I mean situations where said country deploys a military presence into another country, except in the cases where war was already initiated by the other country, whereupon it becomes national defense (just causes or what qualifies as "initiation" is quite debatable, but that is a completely different debate.)

This would qualify preemptive strikes and peacekeeping forces as foreign affairs while international warfare in response to war an internal affair (and therefore excluded from this particular debate.)

I believe it is safe to say that few (if any) people on this forum support the current situation in Iraq, but there are other cases where military action may have or currently may be a viable, and ethical option (even in Iraq, under different pretenses).
Cases of genocide are a popular example.

Some examples (current and 20th century) where "proper" foreign military intervention (whether actually carried out or not) may have been appropriate include:
-The Darfur region of Sudan
- Burma
- Rwanda
- Bosnia
- South Africa (Apartheid)
- El Salvador (honestly, I think here the U.S. did more then enough. . .)
- East Timor (Indonesian occupation)
- Cambodia
- Equatorial Guiana
- Burundi
- Bangladesh
- Guatemala
- Armenia (Ottoman Empire)

The question is whether these powerful countries (U.S., U.K., Russia, China) ethically should have the right to act as "world police" or whether they should mind their own damn business.

On one hand, these countries have four of the greatest armies the world has ever known, so do they have not only a right, but an obligation to protect other peoples (such as when the U.S. intervened when some Serbs were attempting to wipe out the Croats and Bosniaks in Bosnia)?

On the other hand, perhaps not only do these four countries have no right to intervene, perhaps these four countries have no right to sustain such large forces. Additionally, attempting to intervene could make the whole situation much worse.

There are many stances to take, and I hope this debate doesn't become as one-sided (or as hostile) as many on rev-left do.
Now discuss!

[Hiero]

On one hand, these countries have four of the greatest armies the world has ever known, so do they have not only a right, but an obligation to protect other peoples (such as when the U.S. intervened when some Serbs were attempting to wipe out the Croats and Bosniaks in Bosnia)?

You mean when they bombed the fuck out of Serbia? Check out some of Parenti's or Chomsky's stuff on Serbia. If you type Parenti in google and go to his website check out his essays. It isn't as simple as the Serbs wanted to wipe everyone else out of Yugaslavia and the Nato-US lead intervention was a direct response to that.

All thoose exampled you posted have their roots in imperialism. The US and the UK are imperialist nations. More imperialism is not the answer. If we as socialist believe socialism is the answer, then we can't possible believe that the largest capitalist economies intervening can be another answer.

The error you have made is that there can neutrality in world politics. There is always class behaviour. Even in the case East Timor where the Australian government "helped" the national movement there, the imperialist nature of Australia took over. The reason the Australian imperialists supported the indepence move was because using the Indonesian state as a comprador state was no longer feasible, balkanisation is the the new strategy. So they backed the independence movement, but have for ever been meddling in the politics there and are trying to steal the Timorese natural gas.

So it wasn't as it appeared. Even if the Australian government did have good intentions at the begining, their imperialist drive to secure new resources took over. It should also be noted that the Australian government can be viewed as being dragged into the conflict by world poppular support for Timor Leste.

[F9]

no,if we give to this powerfull countries the right to believe that they are the world police,they will invade everywhere they want and no one could say something because they will say that they protect that country by invading.We must stop the power that this countries have and they exploit other small countries,not give them more power!

Fuserg9:star:

[Bastable]

As already mentioned the imperialist powers wouldn't want to "help" because, in many of those cases, they have nothing to gain. the whole "world police" thing where the western powers are "saving the world" is just a smoke screen for bourgeois exploitation.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I went to great effort to play devil's advocate (and I will continue to do so). I simply started the argument (for both sides, if you noticed) and cited possible examples.

In addition I didn't ask "would these powers ever intervene?' in these situations, but "should they ever intervene?"
I started this thread to pose a hypothetical ethical question, not a practical one.

As for Bosnia, I suggest glancing through "Safe Area Gorazde" by Joe Sacco. If one has happened to read "Palestine" by the same author, I do not see how one can argue that he has a bias to western powers (he doesn't make Israel look bad; he let's Israel make itself look bad).

[redSHARP]

"military intervention" to me is imperialism in sheeps clothing. The US intervention policy is very racist, short sighted, and always has their interests involved. of course Somalia does not fit into that mold (unless there was oil found in the area). if the peacekeeping forces of the UN were stronger and better equipped, then Rwanda and even parts of the Balkans crisis could have been avoided.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

When imperialist countries intervene militarily in another country, it is always with their imperialist interests at heart. They will never intervene on behalf of the toilers of the world. It is against their very nature.

Campaigns that call for imperialist and/or imperialist troops to intervene anywhere (even the often well-meaning liberal ones) serve the capitalist rulers.

Our job is not to advise "our" rulers how to best pursue their interests, but to overthrow them! Regime change begins at home.

Check out: No Imperialist Intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)