h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was speaking to someone in the park earlier today over a game of chess (as I tend to do) and we ended up discussing iraq. I took my usual pose of 'it was the right war for the wrong reasons' and he made a very interesting point. He noted that first world countires social structures had evolved into what it was by the will of the people, relvolutions, civil wars etc. He argued that if we step in and try to force a country to jump straight from whatever state its in into a democracy (that looks suspiciously like a republic) then it will not adapt properly and that we have seen this problem before.

Also that by making this shortcut we are robbing ourselves of the possiblity that they will develop some culture that we have not conceived, something we could learn from. I'm not sure though, if you have a country in which rape is effectively legal then can we really turn a blind eye to it in the name of international responsibility?

Any thoughts?

Certainly in the case of Iraq, the whole reason behind the problem was that it was messed up by us (England and America) in the first place. Had we not done this then it would have been a very different picture.

To leave a country to naturally evolve may or may not prove a good way. The problem being at what point was the natural evolution stopped and intervention started?

If you look at the Native American Indians and go much much further back in their history then you will see that the fossil record would suggest that they migrated across from Russia and wiped out the indigenous inhabitants who were probably much like aboriginals.

If you look at England, at what point was it only populated by idigenous peoples. Eg The Scots were a tribe who originated in Ireland and virtually wiped out the Picts and claimed the land to be theirs, calling it Scotland.

Right or wrong, Intervention is an inevitable process and often used when a country poses a threat to people or resources. War is never fair and only benefits the victors. The Iraqi people have seen little benefit of the latest war and now the way is open to western building contractors and oil barons to make even more money, most of which I doubt the Iraqi people will see.

The only fair war is called a discussion.

I think that depends upon who is doing the discussing :P

Saying that intervention is inevitable is one thing. I see the political and economical justifycation. The question I was asking is can intervention in another countries affairs be morally justifiable or is it always wrong to meddle even if the (at least short term) effect on that country is posative.

Also just because we took to invading land when we wanted its rescorces previously is no justifycation to do it in the future. We never used to treat women as equals we do now (or at least treat them less unequally) we used to see war as a glorious thing, we don't anymore. There is no reason we can't change our views on international intervention as well.

Are we allowed to talk about iraq without being moderated these days?

I can't think of an example where intervention in this way has ever helped. Can you? I know it is supposed to help but I think that the motives are never clear. In the Iraq case, if we invaded on humanitarian grounds, then why all the BS about weapons of mass destruction?

Yes attitudes in some countries are greatly improving, but in others, just the opposite. War is called upon for holy or justice reasons. It's still war though. I'm sure that if American forces wanted to take out a government then they could do this "surgically" rather than flatten countries. They have the special forces to do this (Delta Force etc).

I think that we are ok to talk about Iraq now. Let me just check...

... IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ ...

Yes that's fine.

The UN called on the world community some time ago to come up with a policy on humanitarian interventions. The Canadian Government stepped up to the plate and put together an international commision. Here's the Commission's report:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp

I think this might be relevant to the discussion. It's long, but worthwhile.

I can't help feeling that you can't give people freedom - they have to find it for themselves, else its valueless, possibly that only comes from raising children.

On the subject of freedom, and in line with Acid's chess partner:

There's lots of different freedoms. There's freedom to (do things) there's freedom from (various things), for example. Different "free" societies already decide on different mixes of the various freedoms. Th U. S. seems fond of the freedom to keep and bear arms, for example. Many nations prefer the freedom from the danger inherent in having a lot of guns around. Some want the freedom to find a job of their choice (maybe), choose a doctor to pay for medical services, etc. while others want to put up with a certain level of taxation in order to have a certain degree of services provided by the governement. It truly is ridiculous to imagine that imposing "freedom" on a people would ever be a workable plan. Every people will choose a different balance of freedoms, and a nation's chosen balance will shift over time.

Which tells us we don't have the right to impose our current set of freedoms on a people regardless.

Unfortunately this is an arguement to allow Rwanda, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, etc to massacre there own peoples. Do we want to enforce the freedoms of, say, Saudi Arabia on people ?

The Paper you linked to talks of the UN being the only body suitable to decide when force should be applied, but the 5 permanent members of the security panel, bring there own baggage to that discussion.

The point of the intervention report is that it is the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of its citizens and that it is the responsibility of the international community to protect those rights when the state is unable or unwilling to do so. The UN is seen as the obvious body to oversee such interventions as it already exists and it would be more practical to use it than to formulate a new assembly.

It also calls on the Permanent Five to set aside their vetos when it comes to the matter of humanitarian interventions. Not likely to happen, I know.

If the vetos were set aside (is there a Utopian Society thread around here?), then perhaps interventions in Rwanda and Sierra Leone and Liberia might have been expedited. And maybe an intervention in Iraq would have happened earlier and for more honest reasons. And in Afghanistan.

I can't help feeling that even putting vetos aside certain practicalities are going to intervene.

I know I have a certain resentment towards Saudi Arabia (Now where was Idi Amin living ?) So I'll choose a different example.

Is China protecting the rights of its citizens ?

Hmm, too much collaberation and you end up with a body that can't act (see League of Nations) but too few and you have a dictatorship.

Intervention can take many forms, sending across aid in the form of food and drugs (medicinical) consists an intervention. Is it posative to make another country dependant upon you for these basics? Debatable, but seen as a posative intervention nonetheless.

While there are a lot of freedoms in contradiction surely there are some we can all agree on. For example the freedom to be safe from murder is more important than the freedom to murder whomever you choose. Is it worth intervening if we see a society in which people are being killed arbitarily?

Sorry McKay, I meant to put Saudi Arabia into the list in my last post (although the ramifications of intervening in the state that hosts Mecca and Medina are rather disturbing).

I'm not going to lay out all of the details of "The Responsibility to Protect" (the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty). It's a document well worth taking the time to read (as is the companion volume of background material which is twice as big [and there's that CD-ROM that comes with the report as well!]) They really did try to make it a workable plan for protecting fundamental human rights, as recognized by the UN (and, one presumes, by member states) when conditions in a state prevent the state from protecting those rights.

It's worth a read.

I've been scanning it between posts, and I'm not looking to criticise it. In an imperfect world we have to start somewhere, however I'm honest enough to know that I'm way too prejudiced to make the judgement calls necessary.

For example we make a big thing about democracy - ~I know its better than the other options, but tell that to the pensioners in Birmingham that are being targetted by muggers, tell that to the parents of a little girl in Coventry who came in from the back garden holding a blood-stained syringe. Local democracy would hold some summary executions and expulsions - national democracy says we can't.

I agree that there should be a body that oversees the behaviour of States towards their citizens, but somehow I feel they would spend all their time debating minor infringements.

Maybe. But the Security Council is already there and they don't spend all their time debating minor infringements. They spend all there time debating major infringements (and usually none of their time doing anything about them.)

I am assuming you know what Sir Winston said about democracy. . .

I assume he's the source of the "Not perfect, but better than the alternatives" I was alluding to above.

Intervention should be a responce to a plea for help and the level of intervention should match the plea.

Yes, McKay, in a way. There have been many versions of Churchill's statement, but basically, democracy is the worst possible system of government -- next to all the others.

I hope the international community actually sits down with the report I've linked to and tries to really hammer out a policy and even a treaty, like the landmine treaty and the ICC treaty that countries could sign onto and say, "alright, here are the conditions under which we will intervene and here are the levels of escalation we will allow ourselves." And countries that don't sign on -- like those who haven't signed onto the other treaties -- will just further push themselves away from the community of civilized nations.

But any written treaties can be so easily undermined. Take cluster bombs for instance - act as a landmine in every way except for that they are deployed differently. Don't count as landmines so its okay to use them.

Its down to us. YOU AND ME.

We have to think about who we invest with and who the banks that hold our money invest with.

Who we work for.

Who we vote for and the products we buy.

It takes alot of protesting to change government policy on foreign affairs. Just look at the US involvement in Vietnam a huge high profile show of disagreemnet globally. To what effect?

Has any goverment then or since pulled back from a war because of people saying no invarious ways?

We hold the reigns of power but it will take a change of attitude, a change of tactics and little effort for us to actually make any effective use of them.

British taxes financed the decmation of the population in East Timor. Through various aid packages and export gurantees (paid for out of taxes generated by the labout of UK citizens) real weapons were produced, shipped out and supplied to a foreign government to commit acts of genocide. See anyone who says we dont intervene is talking nonsense.

British taxes are paying for arms that are fueling the ongoing tribal warfare in Congo. When you get your payslip look at the deductions, some of that amount is used to finance the murders of men, women and children you have never met before in towns and villages you have never heard of.

To intervene through the UN would be costly, Tony Blair will tell us again and again. To intervene unilaterally will be undiplomatic and threaten stability, Jack Straw will tell us. Yet to intervene in the way that the UK does at present by financing and supporting arms sales make bloody good business sense. So thats OK.

So we will support the likes of Saddam while it serves US an UK interest to do so. Our government will support them regardless of human rights violations or infringements of soverignty. Yet when the leaders of countries like Iraq choose policies that threaten UK or US commercial interest things change rapidly. You and I and the media are wrong and unpatriotic to protest the war in Iraq, but it is ok for Tony Blair to risk the lives of British service men and women supporting the economic global domination of the US.

Intervention like charity begins at home. By all menas we should petition politicians to act more resposibly but it really is time we thought and did more ourselves.

A rousing speech, but the combined purchasing&voting&complaining power of the two of us won't even register. You and Me can't effect any change by ourselves. To make a difference you need a lot of people, if you can get a body of people acting in consert (as the editor of a tabloid can) or if you can be a part of a body which reperesnents people of a certian view (such as a trade union) then you can make a difference. People have power, but in general a person does not.