humanitarianism & war
by john bourke on jul 6, 2003, 17:47
|
|
 |
| collateral damage? |
the existence of weapons of mass destruction in post-war iraq is obviously one of the most hotly debated issues on both sides of the atlantic ocean right now in both the us and the uk.
those opposed to the war (and indeed some who even supported it initially but now express reservations) point to the lack of actually finding any to support their view that this conflict was not justified in the first place.
on the pro side of those who supported military action are the assertions that weapons of mass destruction was only one of a number of major reasons for why the war was fought and that what we have discovered since then in terms of the injustices and atrocities of a brutal dictator has shown that it was a clearly justified action on humanitarian grounds alone if nothing else.
so goes this argument that the overthrowing of such a barbaric regime makes it worthwhile anyway and opinion polls in the us seem to indicate that americans support that viewpoint as well.
what remains unclear here however is that if we are to accept this logic of military intervention then it raises a question over why the same approach has not been taken so far in terms of bloody conflicts in other parts of the world which may well involve dictators guilty of similar degrees of butchery and crimes against humanity.
 |
| president charles taylor |
as we speak, war wages in liberia in western africa, for example, much of which involves a seemingly despotic leader in the form of president charles taylor who only last week was indicted for war crimes by the u.n. the accusations are that taylor funded and armed rebels forces in neighboring sierra leone in recent years in return for diamonds from their payment. these same rebels allegedly killed 30,000 people with many more thousands being mutilated with their arms, hands and legs being cut off.
to date, the bush administration's reaction in the us to this has been to call for president charles taylor to step down. in the meantime, calls from the u.n. and the u.k. for the us to lead an intervention force have failed to bear fruit yet.
admittedly, president charles taylor will probably never quite be in the same league of brutality and horror as saddam hussein but then that may just be because he hasn't quite had the same opportunities yet.
nevertheless, if humanitarian reasons were to be the justification for war against iraq then presumably our criteria in this regard does not simply get based on the number of people that one slaughter's.
why then has there been no freedom force dispatched to liberate the unfortunate people of that country?
further down south on the western african coast in dr congo, a population of some 600,000 native pygmies have appealed to the u.n. to set up a tribunal of investigation into claims that they are being murdered and eaten alive in acts of cannibalism they are being subjected to both sides in that country midst a civil war that has already taken the lives of possibly as many as over three million people.
is that a serious enough problem to be concerned about and act upon on humanitarian grounds?
of course some conservatives within us politics reject the notion of american involvement in anything, anywhere for any reason outside of it's own borders although that notion that we shouldn't bother with other people's problems seems to frequently have an unspoken addendum at the end which goes on to state the "unless it they are annoying us somehow but not doing what we want them to".
and maybe, ultimately, that's where the real moral question lies right there - how far does humanitarian concern really go?
 |
| sierra leone |
to proclaim justification for war on the basis of removing evil is morally right but how far does a nation's sense of righteousness go when it is losing its sons and daughters with a death per day as the us currently is in iraq?
indeed if we extend that humanitarian pro-war rational to maintaining military forces in liberia, dr congo, burma, north korea, zimbabwe, sudan and who knows how many others countries then, at the current rate of one us serviceman death per day, that's a total of almost 1300 families who will be suffer the loss of an offspring before this year is out alone.
inevitably of course this won't happen. maybe that is because nations choose their fights carefully. but it might also just be that we aren't really quite as caring as we would like to think we are. either way, time will tell.
i recall as a child being taken to church where a collection for money was taken up every sunday from the congregation present. a large wooden plate was passed around from row to row and the donations were made. some months later i was amused to notice how the open wooden plate had been replaced by a cloth back bag that concealed what each person donated. i remember thinking how everyone put their hand in but you could never actually tell how much any of us were really giving.
do you have an opinion on this issue?
please comment in the citizens forum
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| 
