Humanitarian Interventionism

[Genivaria]

Yes thats right, I'm at it again. Remember to please keep things civil and not get my thread locked ok?

Now I'm sure some of you, well many of you actually, already know I happen to be an Interventionist.
Now unlike what some believe I am NOT an Imperialist, at all.
I do not seek new land or resources, nor do I have a desire to 'spread the faith' or 'fight communism'.

What I want, is the protection of human life and the alleviation of human suffering.
Now of course there is foreign aid and giving money to charity but lets be honest, what does that accomplish?
Does it stabilize the region? Does it end the fighting? The ethnic cleansing? Of course not.

What it does it put a bandage on a broken leg, it is all spent within a few weeks, that is of course assuming that the money even gets to the people's hands and the corrupt government doesn't just horde it.

This is why I believe that the use of hard force is necessary to make this world more peaceful, which is why I am an Interventionist.

Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that a series of well-intentioned wars would only turn the world against us and cripple our already bleeding economy.
Which is why I personally believe that any Interventionism should be done collectively through Intergovernmental alliances such as NATO, CSTO, SADC, and the PSC. Through them multiple nations can work together stabilize regions by each contributing a small percentage of their national budgets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_a ... ve_defense

And one last thing, to all those less sympathetic Generalites among you, there is of course a more pragmatic reason for going into regions and stabilizing them.
Stability leads to prosperity, prosperity leads to trade, trade leads to profit for all.

So then, I am well aware this is a controversial topic to say the least and that there will likely be some heated responses but I ask again that we keep this thread civil.

Now then, what do you think my fellow Generalites?

[Meryuma]

It's never been humanitarian in practice.

[New Rogernomics]

I would argue against interventionism (in regards to food aid), but I haven't had my breakfast yet.

[Genivaria]

It's never been humanitarian in practice.

Never? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_inter ... erzegovina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_milit ... n_in_Libya

Don't be so absolute, despite the cluterfuck that was the Iraq war the fact is that the history of interventionism is not riddled with failure.

[Occupied Deutschland]

While I am tempted by the idea, I do find it hard to justify as non-imperialism. It seems that in some cases (can't think of an example off the top of my head, perhaps Iran) the majority of people in the country approve of the drastic breaches in the Western idea of 'human rights' that are committed by the government. In such a case it seems like military intervention would likely only lead to further extremism on the part of those doing the breaches and be a clear case of outside forces trying to impose the "right" kind of system on that nation (as justified or correct they may be from a logical perspective it still is imperialism).

I'd also worry greatly about it becoming too easily abused as perception on what qualified as a 'human right' by the members in this interventionist alliance drifted and thus caused a perpetual cycle of interventions in whatever part of the world was infringing on the most recently agreed upon human right.

Edit: Falling in a bit with the above, I'd worry about it becoming a smoke-screen justification for the removal of governments that aren't friendly towards those doing the intervening ALA how the invasion of Iraq was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and done to give them democracy and freedom (admittedly, in that case it happened following the war, but the principle seems to be the same)

[The Taryegeans]

It's a paper shield for imperialism.

[Genivaria]

It's a paper shield for imperialism.

How? Explain yourself.

[Genivaria]

While I am tempted by the idea, I do find it hard to justify as non-imperialism. It seems that in some cases (can't think of an example off the top of my head, perhaps Iran) the majority of people in the country approve of the drastic breaches in the Western idea of 'human rights' that are committed by the government. In such a case it seems like military intervention would likely only lead to further extremism on the part of those doing the breaches and be a clear case of outside forces trying to impose the "right" kind of system on that nation (as justified or correct they may be from a logical perspective it still is imperialism).

I'd also worry greatly about it becoming too easily abused as perception on what qualified as a 'human right' by the members in this interventionist alliance drifted and thus caused a perpetual cycle of interventions in whatever part of the world was infringing on the most recently agreed upon human right.

I think that most basic human rights are the ones that would qualify.
Genocide and slavery require intervention. Not having your government pay for healthcare doesn't.
An extension of that in required, only have 'first generation rights' protected via intervention.

First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion and voting rights. They were pioneered by the United States Bill of Rights and in France by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in the 18th century, although the right to due process goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Rights of Englishmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_gene ... man_rights

[The Taryegeans]

It's a paper shield for imperialism.

How?

Becuause it's just a different name for the same thing. "Humanitarian" reasons were the same reasons that the Soviet Union marched in and claimed half of Poland during the Second World War. That was imperialism. Have you eve heard of the white man's burden? That was "humanitarian" at the time, and is almost universally called imperialism now.

It doesn't matter what you call it, but it's still imperialism.

[Genivaria]

How?

Becuause it's just a different name for the same thing. "Humanitarian" reasons were the same reasons that the Soviet Union marched in and claimed half of Poland during the Second World War. That was imperialism. Have you eve heard of the white man's burden? That was "humanitarian" at the time, and is almost universally called imperialism now.

It doesn't matter what you call it, but it's still imperialism.

Actually no its not. You know why? Because we're not STAYING.
We're not claiming anything, we're not taking land or resources to send back 'The Motherland'.
And its certainly not anything to do with 'White Man's Burden'.
Your misusing the word Imperialism. But then thats rather common nowadays.

[The Taryegeans]

Becuause it's just a different name for the same thing. "Humanitarian" reasons were the same reasons that the Soviet Union marched in and claimed half of Poland during the Second World War. That was imperialism. Have you eve heard of the white man's burden? That was "humanitarian" at the time, and is almost universally called imperialism now.

It doesn't matter what you call it, but it's still imperialism.

Actually no its not. You know why? Because we're not STAYING.
We're not claiming anything, we're not taking land or resources to send back 'The Motherland'.
And its certainly not anything to do with 'White Man's Burden'.
Your misusing the word Imperialism. But then thats rather common nowadays.

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

[Occupied Deutschland]

While I am tempted by the idea, I do find it hard to justify as non-imperialism. It seems that in some cases (can't think of an example off the top of my head, perhaps Iran) the majority of people in the country approve of the drastic breaches in the Western idea of 'human rights' that are committed by the government. In such a case it seems like military intervention would likely only lead to further extremism on the part of those doing the breaches and be a clear case of outside forces trying to impose the "right" kind of system on that nation (as justified or correct they may be from a logical perspective it still is imperialism).

I'd also worry greatly about it becoming too easily abused as perception on what qualified as a 'human right' by the members in this interventionist alliance drifted and thus caused a perpetual cycle of interventions in whatever part of the world was infringing on the most recently agreed upon human right.

I think that most basic human rights are the ones that would qualify.
Genocide and slavery require intervention. Not having your government pay for healthcare doesn't.
An extension of that in required, only have 'first generation rights' protected via intervention.

First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion and voting rights. They were pioneered by the United States Bill of Rights and in France by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in the 18th century, although the right to due process goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Rights of Englishmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_gene ... man_rights

I see the point here, but even if it was limited to such 'first generation rights' those are all a distinctly western cultural concept. I mean, personally I find them quite laudable, but in other cultures they may not be (Russia, for example, doesn't seem to be a big fan of this whole 'democracy' thing) and forcing such things on them because we know/view them as being the bee's-knees just seems antithetical to the point of them in the first place.

To summarize via picture:

[Genivaria]

Actually no its not. You know why? Because we're not STAYING.
We're not claiming anything, we're not taking land or resources to send back 'The Motherland'.
And its certainly not anything to do with 'White Man's Burden'.
Your misusing the word Imperialism. But then thats rather common nowadays.

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

[The Taryegeans]

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

Except that's exactly what 'humanitarian interventionism' does in practice.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

If I may be so bold as to get in on this:
Wouldn't the intervening countries establishing a more "free/fair/et. al" government be a subordination of that country's culture (which may lean towards dictatorship and human rights abuses) to the "more developed/free/just/et. al." culture that the intervening countries are establishing/have themselves?

Edit: Spelling error

[Genivaria]

I think that most basic human rights are the ones that would qualify.
Genocide and slavery require intervention. Not having your government pay for healthcare doesn't.
An extension of that in required, only have 'first generation rights' protected via intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_gene ... man_rights

I see the point here, but even if it was limited to such 'first generation rights' those are all a distinctly western cultural concept. I mean, personally I find them quite laudable, but in other cultures they may not be (Russia, for example, doesn't seem to be a big fan of this whole 'democracy' thing) and forcing such things on them because we know/view them as being the bee's-knees just seems antithetical to the point of them in the first place.

To summarize via picture:

Let me ask you this. If the 'liberation' is done effectively, the objectives are accomplished, and civilians causalities were minimal would you still be opposed to it?
I just want to make sure that our recent clusterfuck in Iraq has not created a bias against ANY Interventionism, our technology is getting better at allowing us to distinguish between enemy and civilian.

[Mavorpen]

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

Except that's exactly what 'humanitarian interventionism' does in practice.

I didn't know Gen wanted to build an empire.

Gen, can I be king of Norway!?

[Genivaria]

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

If I may be so bold as to get in on this:
Wouldn't the intervening countries establishing a more "free/fair/et. al" government be a subordination of that country's culture (which may lean towards dictatorship and human rights abuses) to the "more developed/free/just/et. al." culture that the intervening countries are establishing/have themselves?

Edit: Spelling error

Perhaps, but if the very culture of a nation is what supports violation of the most basic human rights then thats no excuse.
As I said in that other thread: Protecting Human Rights > Respecting people's cultures.

[Laerod]

[Xenjin]

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

I actually agree with Tarysomethingsomething, interventionism=nation-building, nation-building is little more than CREATING a state that follows similar ideals to the one that intervened, therefor in CERTAIN CASES it can be deemed imperialism. Note: I said certain cases, sometimes it isn't about creating a domination but sometimes it is. Just ask Donald Trump

[Genivaria]

Except that's exactly what 'humanitarian interventionism' does in practice.

I didn't know Gen wanted to build an empire.

Gen, can I be king of Norway!?

No. I'm not an Imperialist.....or a Monarchist for that matter.*shiver*
CM would have my head if I ever became a bloody Royalist.

[Sovdepiya]

Imperialism - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.

You don't have to stay for it to be Imperialism.

Awesome, so definitely not Imperialism. Thanks for that.

Your quote has been edited for truth.

Even the most innocent-seeming aid programs like food aid or donated clothing have dramatic and very often negative impacts on the recipient country. When the market gets flooded with inexpensive or free food produced overseas, it undercuts local growers. This puts some growers out of business, while others are only able to scrape by, limiting the overall rate of growth in the industry. This in turn makes the aid recipient more dependent on food aid in the future, creating a vicious cycle. Aid programs save lives in the short term, and make slaves out of peoples in the long term.

[Luctoria]

I agree with you, Genivaria, for the most part. For example, If a genocide is being conducted or if a military coup has occured in an otherwise stable democracy.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I see the point here, but even if it was limited to such 'first generation rights' those are all a distinctly western cultural concept. I mean, personally I find them quite laudable, but in other cultures they may not be (Russia, for example, doesn't seem to be a big fan of this whole 'democracy' thing) and forcing such things on them because we know/view them as being the bee's-knees just seems antithetical to the point of them in the first place.

To summarize via picture:

(Image)

Let me ask you this. If the 'liberation' is done effectively, the objectives are accomplished, and civilians causalities were minimal would you still be opposed to it?
I just want to make sure that our recent clusterfuck in Iraq has not created a bias against ANY Interventionism, our technology is getting better at allowing us to distinguish between enemy and civilian.

I actually don't know. I have no idea whether I'd support it even if I knew beforehand it wouldn't be a clusterfuck.

I see both arguments and don't know where to come down between them. One one hand I don't feel very good arguing AGAINST any intervention because I'm an American born and raised WASP (well, close enough) who hasn't had to deal with a real oppressive government (all rhetoric aside) killing my friends & family and otherwise oppressing me. Not trying to fight for the same rights and privileges I have almost feels like the 'I got mine fuck you guys' attitude that, as much as it may seem my politics express, really isn't something I'm comfortable thinking. Plus, it's pretty damn hypocritical. I mean, I like the idea of everyone having just governments and political systems and not facing oppression for their beliefs or ideas. That is a damn good social order and one I'd like to see implemented the world over.

On the other hand, I'm an American born and raised WASP and advocating FOR intervention seems like I'm trying to expand my own culture's views on government-social relations to all the unenlightened people out there that aren't good/smart enough to garner it themselves (even though they aren't able to because of the very government that is oppressing them) and I'm uncomfortable doing such a thing in principle because that kind of "we've got the best system" idea is what got a lot of places into such screwed-up situations in the first place and even if I KNEW something similar wouldn't happen in the modern-era, simply knowing the thought process was the same between me and the British in India or any other number of oppressed colonial areas around the world throughout history makes me damn uncomfortable.

I think, in the end, I would support a humanitarian intervention if I knew shit wouldn't go wrong and it wouldn't turn into a mess.
But I would never KNOW that, and that's where it gets problematic for me. Deposing a dictator sounds great and is great, but the side-effects could be worse for the people in the country than the dictator was (and THAT is a thought that really bugs me 'dictators are a necessary evil'? What kind'a messed up thought is that!)

So I can answer with a resounding "I have no idea".

Edit: Voted in the middle on the poll, though it may reflect a stronger anti-intervention attitude than I really do have.

[Genivaria]

I agree with you, Genivaria, for the most part. For example, If a genocide is being conducted or if a military coup has occured in an otherwise stable democracy.

Thank you. Glad to know I'm not alone at least.