Talk:Humanitarian intervention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do agree that the humanitarian cause can very easily become simply another pretext for the intervention into the domestic affairs of developing nations by more powerful countries such as the United States. I completely agree with that. I do not think there's really much of chance we will be invading Russia anytime soon. But as Russia is such powerful country, the actions of their government are much more vulnerable to global scrutiny. I am not saying this is really an effective deterrent. But given the development of the global stage, and the increasing attention being paid to human rights, etc., it is really in the interest of every government to at the very least maintain the appearance that their treatment of their citizens is at some very minimum level. The actions of China and Russia, while they might not ever induce humanitarian intervention, given their position in global affairs, do receive some limited attention. Meanwhile the abuses by the governments of less prominent nations can quite easily exist under the radar. I think that if in fact it is within our interests that some level of human rights are maintained everywhere, we need to both try to understand how the humanitarian cause is used as a pretext for the pursuit of other interest and also calling attention to areas where it should be used. I am really not calling for more military interventions by the United States or any other Western nation. But given the position we have as citizens of these powerful nations, we do have an opportunity to at least call for attention to these issues.

I don't think the article is accurate.. firstly the distinction between the 'right' and 'duty' to interfere is not a fair one to make. it can be argued, for instance, that one has a moral imperative to act in cases of humanitarian intervention and this alone gives the right to intervene. Legalists would argue differently; following the law, there are guidelines as to when intervention is justified (the 'right' to intervene) but absolutely no compelling to do so (or 'duty'). The next mistake is to say that when these concepts 'blur' together, it is hard to separate the humanitarian motives from the political motives. firstly, those two have nothing to do with the duty or right to intervene. secondly, it is well argued that disinterested parties will produce a worse outcome in humanitarian intervention, and even well argued that it is no bad thing for a state to be self interested when carrying out humanitarian missions. self-interest does not always prevent an action from being, morally, the right thing. Oh, an the 'right to interfere'? i've never heard of 'humanitarian interference' - i don't think its an accepted term. I may re-write in a few months.. just wondering whether anyone else has an interest in this page or the subject matter and has any views on it! (Mattimeus 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC))