|
June 14, 2003
Genocide and America Gary Farber is doing his best to draw attention to the ongoing slaughter taking place in the Congo. Moreover, he's pushing for an American intervention (OK, he's talking about the UN, but let's be honest here, without American support there will almost certainly be no intervention). This leads to a very difficult dilemna. On the one hand, what's happening in the Congo is absolutely horrible, and it's hard not to want to do whatever you can to stop it and save as many people as possible. On the other hand, where do we draw the line? Should America step in whenever people are being slaughtered? Only in the case of genocide? Or not at all? I don't know the right answer to this. Like Gary, I very much want to see the killing stop. But I'm not as convinced that America is the one to do it. We don't even know if we can create functioning states in Afghanistan or Iraq yet, and the early evidence isn't encouraging. Trying to rebuild the shattered societies of central Africa might well be biting off more than we can chew. And while Gary says we can easily afford it, and a tiny fraction of 1% of GDP, I'm not as willing as he is to spend other people's money on such an attempt. Is this hypocritical? It may seem so, but I think this position is defensible. America went into Afghanistan and Iraq to remove threats (or perceived threats) to its security. As soon as we can, we'll get out of both countries, because imperialism isn't our style. Yet imperialism might be precisely what is needed in central Africa for states like the Congo. I just can't see that as a compelling national interest. As cruel as this sounds, it is not the responsibility of the American government to address the failings of the rest of the world. The American government was originally established as a minimalist government dedicated to executing only those tasks the states were incapable of performing. While we've come a long way from that original intent, I cannot endorse moving even further from that ideal, especially at a time when our military assets are already stretched nearly to their limits. This is a terrible thing to say. What's happening in the Congo is absolutely horrifying, and a part of me would very much like to go over there and put a stop to it. But when it comes to what the government should do, I just can't see this as an appropriate mission for the United States government. Posted at 10:12 PM | Philosophy | TrackBack (0) Comments
If the United States is responsible, and I don't mean just the government, in any way for helping to create the chaos that now abounds in the Congo, then we need to step in. Already, Ashcroft is moving to block possible legal action against an american corporation charged with aiding and abedding slavery in Africa. Since I am not up on the situation with the Congo, I have no idea if this move by Ashcroft to reverse decades legal presidence is tied into the situation, but it has me concerned. I'm not sure how the United States as a whole could be responsible if the government isn't involved, but I'll agree that if we bear some responsibility for the problem, we certainly should then attempt to resolve it. However, in the absence of such evidence, I still believe we should probably stay out of it. Remember, once we've jumped into the fray, it's impossible for us to jump out. Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at June 15, 1903 07:10 AMI agree with Andrew that we have our hands full at the moment and should never interject ourselves in foreign crises without great hesitancy and deliberation. But where our nation's founders didn't envision a policy role in world affairs, providence has determined one. As Andrew admits, w/o American support for intervention in the Congo not much will ever happen to end the genocide. It's not an easy calculation to make, I know, and it's wrought with trouble, but it's a possibility that I think we are morally obliged to consider irrespective of our economic interests in the region. I know mine isn't a particularly popular view, and I respect differing opinions (they may be right in this case), but we can't turn away from such evil events just because there's nothing in it for us. By the way, I was wondering if somehow the genocide in Congo was America's fault. Thanks Rook! What will Ashcroft do next, eh?! Posted by: Haws at June 15, 1903 05:25 PMIn any case, the U.N. has already sent troops, with or without our support. French U.N. troops landed in the Congo a week or more ago and are already fighting. Posted by: Anne at June 16, 1903 11:38 AMOn this one, I think, were we not in Iraq, we should help. We did the same in Bosnia/Kosovo, and so far, that's been pretty successful. The situation in the Congo is one of the worst the world has seen in 50 years. Something should be done. Also, using the current rational that the Iraq war was good because we liberated the people of Iraq, it stands to reason that we should go and help the people of the Congo (or Burma, or Liberia, or Zimbabwe...). But with roughly half of our army deployed overseas already, I just don't see it as being possible to send troops there. I think one should, when considering Iraq, consider that we could have sent those same troops to Libera or the Congo and, potentially, done more good. Iraq wasn't the biggest problem in the world at the time, and our focus there is going to hurt our ability to affect problems elsewhere. If America is going to take on the mantle of helping the victims of brutal dictators, we shouldn't focus just on the victims who happen to live in countries with massive oil reserves...it makes us look hypocritcal, and gives some weight to the "It was just about oil" argument. Posted by: JoeF at June 19, 1903 04:27 AMPost a comment
|
