Balkinization: Slavery and humanitarian intervention

Slavery and humanitarian intervention

Sandy Levinson

[Note: The following has been edited to correct a couple of typos and word omissions, beginning with correcting my misspelling of Alan Gilbert's first name, for which I apologize.]

I hope that Alan Gilbert will forgive me for addressing one aspect of his thoughtful response to my prior posting in this brand new posting. But it involves the issue of humanitarian intervention. I agree that the Bush Administration has never actually used the phrase, but the political logic of at least one of their arguments--when they focus on Saddam Hussein's vicious regime and, in effect, ask those of us who opposed the war if we'd be happier if he were still in power torturing his political opponents--certainly has affinities with logic of humanitarian intervention.

But I'm more interested in exploring the defense of the Civil War (or the suppression of Southern secession) as a legitimate exercise of humanitarian intervention. It is very interesting that Alan compares slavery with "genocide," for the following reason: When, at a conference in Germany three years ago, I raised the humanitarian intervention issue with regard to both Iraq and the American South, I was told by a world-famous human-rights specialist that such arguments didn't apply in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was no longer threatening Kurds with genocide (unlike 1988 or so, when this person said he supported armed intervention in Iraq). That is, he argued, only threats of genocide would support armed intervention (as against, presumably, "mere" sanctions and the like). So what about the South? There I was told that slavery, however concededly awful, didn't justify armed intervention either, because it wasn't genocidal. I make no comment about his responses per se. But they underscore some of the dilemmas created by the modern international human rights movement inasmuch as it has adopted (and encouraged) notions of armed "humanitarian intervention" but also, and properly, wants to limit their completely opportunistic use by given political regimes.

This could be an occasion for seguing into a question about what is the proper response of the US in Darfur. Everytime I read Nicholas Kristoff's columns (some of which have complimented Bush for his awareness of the problem there), I feel we should send troops in ASAP. Then I read David Rieff, and believe that it would ultimately compound the present disaster that is US foreign policy. How ought we think about such issues? Do we first have to be convinced that genocide is occurring, since nothing less would suffice to justify intervention? (Kristoff, of course, argues that that test is easily passed.) Do we have to be convinced that such intervention would in fact be efficacious in some calculable cost-benefit sense?

Posted 4:49 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Well I don’t anything about human nature, but, if you ask me how many reasonably well educated North Africans will be believe that a US military force ahead of the African Union is there for humanitarian reason, I’d say next to nil. And for good reason.

As Ambassador Pringle, we’re in North Africa to kidnap angry muslims:

"In formulating its policy on Mali’s northern unrest, the United States has displayed a certain degree of inconsistency. Washington welcomes and praises Malian democratization. But when it comes to the north, the U.S. government would like Mali to forget about due process and get tough with suspected terrorists, in the manner of neighboring Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania, none of which is exactly democratic."

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=178661

How ought we think about such issues?

Very much in terms of what reasonable (and unreasonable) interpretations locals will have about our actions.

The long term success hinges on their alliance.

And as Alan Gilbert said on the Lincoln thread,

"For the United States to speak believably of humanitarian interevention would take a dramatic and basic shift in course which is not - outside of Johnson who was far inside the Establishment - being suggested by anyone now prominent in Congress and the media."

In short, we lack the moral authority to pull it off.

And after a hundred years of this we'll-save-you type policies that end up getting taken advantage of by our administrators on the ground (see 1989 Res. as the beginning), it’s time for Liberal Democrats, who know that we've bankrupt our moral authority, to admit it.

The rest of the world isn’t buying our Human Rights wedge anymore. For god’s sake, Putin just wrote a 300 milllion dollar check to the communist in Cuba. For what? To spit in the face of our HR arguments! (way to go Condi!)

But if we admit that our moral authority is spent, then, perhaps, we won’t get dupe once again into what will amount to a cynical cover for the Cronies geopolitical rampage.

# posted by

redwood : 11:09 PM

Actually there are two legitimate and viable ways to get things done when the Government does not have the time, manpower or funding to expand itself into conflicts.

What we have to do is lower our sights on what government *should* do to what it *can* do and then, when it can't do everything, is rely upon Ourselves to get it done. If you are wailing and gnashing teeth and bemoaning the lack of resolve of the government then there is one thing left: use your rights, follow the established Foreign Policy and do it yourself.

In the modern era that can be done in two ways: 1) hire mercenaries to solve the problem, 2) organize with like minded people, get yourself trained and ship out on your own to do it as *you* obviously know how to do these things and have the spirit to get them *done*. Of course either of these requires putting time, effort and initiative out to improve the world with like-minded people, involvement in understanding not only the problem but the solution space, and, then, realizing that to get a government of unlimited means also gets us one able to do unlimited things to us, that when its lawful means fail the final backstop is *not* more government but We the People. If you think this should be the responsibility of the United States, see that government lacks means to carry out such policies to back those responsibilities and *really* want it done... then do remember that You are responsible for getting it done by other legitimate means when government fails You.

And if you take the honorable route to train and do it yourself I will support you! Kick in a bit of cash to the kitty. Send the complete works of George Orwell with special note on 'Homage to Catalonia' which is *must* reading in these circumstances. I will do these things because those individuals who join together to get this done actually realize and accept the awful responsibilities that we laid upon *ourselves* in 1787 and that those remain with us to this very day.

I really do wish that people would stop looking at government as the *solution* as Our responsibilities and rights are the ultimate *solvent*.

# posted by

A Jacksonian : 8:30 AM

"But this reminds me of the slogan in the movement against the first Gulf War - what if they grew broccoli in Iraq? "

Assume that is translated as "What if Iraq only grew broccoli?"

hmm.. good point:
"What if Kuwait only grew carrots?!"

BTW: The Marsh Arabs were a tribe, not a crop.

# posted by

pettyfog : 10:53 AM