Unicorn
23rd June 2008, 09:56
Humanitarian intervention refers to armed interference in one state by another state(s) with the stated objective of ending or reducing suffering within the first state.
Should leftists be generally for or against them?
Humanitarian interventions by capitalist states can be instruments of imperialism. However, in Western countries it is usually the case that center-left supports them whereas the far-right opposes them. The center-left is committed to a liberal understanding of human rights and wants to spread them around the world while the far-right could not care less if brown or black people suffer under tyranny. Dictatorial governments in the Third World are not capable of reducing the exploitation of the people by global capitalism and actually just deny the people the meager benefits which globalization has. It would be better if they were gone and replaced by something even slightly better.
For that reason I offer critical support to some humanitarian interventions if they improve the welfare of the working class in the country.
Should leftists be generally for or against them?
Humanitarian interventions by capitalist states can be instruments of imperialism. However, in Western countries it is usually the case that center-left supports them whereas the far-right opposes them. The center-left is committed to a liberal understanding of human rights and wants to spread them around the world while the far-right could not care less if brown or black people suffer under tyranny. Dictatorial governments in the Third World are not capable of reducing the exploitation of the people by global capitalism and actually just deny the people the meager benefits which globalization has. It would be better if they were gone and replaced by something even slightly better.
For that reason I offer critical support to some humanitarian interventions if they improve the welfare of the working class in the country.