global politics
10 Jun 2008
No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention
As Israel delivers its clearest warning yet that it will attack Iran, Antony Loewenstein ponders the West's insatiable appetite for military intervention
Last week's Australian withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq saw a flurry of establishment commentary on the rights and wrongs of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's decision.Former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer wrote that, "despite the problems" in the war-torn country, "Australians should be proud that our contribution to Iraq has made that long-suffering country just a little bit better and the lives of its people just a little bit brighter." The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan echoed his former master's voice.
Let's ignore for now last week's revelations by the US Senate Intelligence Committee that indicated Iran may have infiltrated the Pentagon and fed bogus intelligence to push for war against Iraq.
The insatiable appetite for the ongoing occupation of Iraq is unsurprising, as recent reports indicate US plans to maintain an indefinite presence in the country. Polling in the US, however, indicates a strong desire for American troops to return home within one year.
The profound disconnect between elite thinking and the views of those actually having to provide the troops for these missions is stark. Perhaps the imperial imperative isn't inherent in the American psyche, after all.
So, if the Iraq war is "won" and a "democracy" has emerged, according to Murdoch cheerleader Andrew Bolt, what's stopping the West conducting similarly violent interventions in the future against other despots? The fact that, according to Iraqi sources, over a million Iraqis have likely died since March 2003 is obviously a price worth paying.
"Humanitarian intervention" is a term that gained supposed credibility in the 1990s during the troubles in the former Yugoslavia. The fact that the atrocities by Serbian forces only accelerated after the illegal Western bombing appears to be forgotten. Noam Chomsky explained in 1999 the rationale behind the bombing of President Slobodan Milošević, allegedly to protect the Albanians:
"The threat of NATO bombing, predictably, led to a sharp escalation of atrocities by the Serbian Army and paramilitaries, and to the departure of international observers, which of course had the same effect. Commanding General Wesley Clark declared that it was ‘entirely predictable' that Serbian terror and violence would intensify after the NATO bombing, exactly as happened. The terror for the first time reached the capital city of Pristina, and there are credible reports of large-scale destruction of villages, assassinations, generation of an enormous refugee flow, perhaps an effort to expel a good part of the Albanian population - all an 'entirely predictable' consequence of the threat and then the use of force, as General Clark rightly observes."
The Western media blindly parroted the line that the Albanians were suffering "genocide" and Western assistance was essential to stop the worst ethnic cleansing since World War II. The International War Crimes Tribunal later discovered that less than 3000 people were discovered in "mass graves." Atrocities? Yes. Justification for massive bombing? No.
NATO bombed public transport, hospitals, schools, museums, media offices, churches, causing massive loss of life. In 2003, former UN commander in Bosnia, Major General Lewis MacKenzie, wrote:
"The Kosovar Albanians played us like a Stradivarius violin. We have subsidised and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure Kosovo. We have never blamed them for being the perpetrators of the violence in the early 1990s, and we continue to portray them as the designated victim today, in spite of evidence to the contrary."
Carla Del Ponte, the Swiss diplomat who became Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, wrote in a book this year how the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) abducted hundreds of Serbs in 1999 and took them to Kosovo's fellow Muslims in Albania where they were killed, their kidneys and other body parts removed and sold for transplant in other countries.
The Western media often ignores such uncomfortable details. Although Saddam Hussein's brutality is undeniable, his worst atrocities occurred when Washington supported and provided him with chemical weapons. The "humanitarian" arguments for invading Iraq - mostly made after weapons of mass destruction were never found - mirrored those in the late 1990s to "save" the Albanians. Despite the catastrophe in Iraq, both "liberals" and "conservatives" continue to agitate for the application of military force to unseat "bad" regimes.
Zimbabwe is a failed State run by a dictator. Robert Mugabe, in a desperate bid to maintain power in the run-off election in late June, is using violence against opponents and withholding food aid to the needy. International aid agency CARE and other international aid have been directed to suspend its operations after being accused of supporting the Opposition.
All these charges are impossible to verify and the MDC Opposition has clearly established bonds with foreign governments and institutions and leader Morgan Tsvangirai threatened violence against Mugabe in 2000. One Western diplomat said last week that a military coup had already occurred in Zimbabwe. A Human Rights Watch report is equally damning.
When I heard Tsvangirai speak in Sydney in August 2007 however, he appeared determined to democratically unseat Mugabe at the ballot box. But what if peaceful transition is impossible? How much support should the Western powers provide and what are the conditions on which this support is offered?
Take Burma. The military junta is brutal, corrupt and derelict in its duty to assist victims of Cyclone Nargis. There has been justifiable anger at the refusal of authorities to allow aid to reach the millions of displaced and starving refugees. Alexander Downer urged the use of military action to force aid into the country.
The US ordered a flotilla of naval vessels packed with emergency aid to leave last week after a month of trying fruitlessly to unload its payload. The country's state media said it feared a US invasion to seize oil deposits. Laura Bush's pronouncements didn't help and was not welcomed by Burmese exiles.
An invasion is not an unjustified concern as Western multinationals are already operating there and colluding with the regime. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Ky once said, when opposing military intervention: "What about all these who trade with the generals, who give them many millions of dollars that keep them going?" She was referring to oil and gas companies such as Chevron, Total and Halliburton that assisted in the building of a key pipeline.
If the West were really serious about supporting rational voices in the country, it would demand these firms cease operating within Burma, but of course its outrage is saved only for those regimes over which it has little influence. It is merely a scrap of meat to appease baying columnists and a concerned public.
David Rieff is an American author, son of the late Susan Sontag, supporter of intervention against Milošević in the 1990s and supreme misanthrope (I spent time with him at the recent Sydney Writer's Festival and was amazed by his ability to express contempt for seemingly everybody). In a recent column for the New York Times magazine, Rieff questions why Western nations so rarely intervene considering the UN-approved "responsibility to protect". He explains:
"After the Iraqi debacle, it is hardly surprising that we are hesitant to undertake interventions that may well involve regime change. And regime change - its moral legitimacy and political practicality - is the ghost at the banquet of humanitarian intervention. Use any euphemism you wish, but in the end these interventions have to be about regime change if they are to have any chance of accomplishing their stated goal. (That is why they are opposed in many parts of the formerly colonised world even as they are supported in the formerly colonising West.) After all, how can the people of Darfur ever be safe as long as the same regime that sanctioned their slaughter rules unrepentant in Khartoum? Or, for that matter, how can the Burmese Government be trusted to look after the slow business of reconstruction in the zones hit by the cyclone if it was unconcerned with the fate of Nargis's survivors from the beginning?"
While Iraq has undoubtedly changed the rules of the game, Rieff conveniently ignores the concept that Western nations, especially the United States and Britain, will never intervene in a nation merely for benevolent reasons. There is gross hypocrisy in even debating military intervention in war-torn countries when places such as Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq remain mired in Western-caused carnage.
Are the Burmese people suddenly more worthy of help than the Palestinians in Gaza? Should the people of Harare be "rescued" from Robert Mugabe but the citizens of Baghdad have to suffer years more of US-backed Shia militias? A true internationalist either believes in equal rights for all or nothing. Tragically, the "war on terror" has unleashed lashings of moral outrage from the political and media elite but little reflection on the effects of military action. While major reform of the UN and international systems of government are essential, a rush to arms is rarely the best course of action.
As leading Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji writes in his new book, The Road to Democracy in Iran:
"We must make it clear that we are against war, against foreign intervention in Iran and against solutions imposed by outsiders."
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
"…a rush to arms is rarely the best course of action," says Anthony.
This statement, no matter how true it might be, takes no account of the fact that we live in a world where war is, and has always been, a fact of life, where some people make lots of money from war, where imperialist countries like America and Israel invade and occupy to gain land and scarce resources, where politicians gain kudos from starting successful wars (Thatcher for example in the Falklands) or joining others in them (Howard in Iraq).
These unfortunate realities need to be included in your pondering, Antony.
I’m not against a nuclear plant in Iran being knocked out by any nation who chooses to do so. Iran has already made its intentions to destroy Israel quite clear.
And as far as regime change from one set of corrupt ‘bastards’ to another, it won’t make a skerek of difference who rules any nation that uses the Koran as its religious foundation.
The Koran implores Muslims to treat all non-Muslims as inferior beings, hence violence perpetuated on these inferior beings (Dhimmies) is acceptable.
And the Torah claims that Jews are God’s Chosen People and that all others are inferior, Denise. And Israel, deranged by its fanatical religion and egged on by America, carries out all manner of atrocities against the Palestinians.
Bit like the pot calling the kettle black!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Lest we forget, Denise, the Arabs protected their Jewish minorities while the Europeans repeatedly tried to wipe out theirs. And how were the Arabs rewarded for this humanitarian behaviour - the Europeans gave Arab land to the Jews. Like you, I just can’t understand why the Arabs aren’t grateful.
Good article Anthony. Isn’t it ironic that those who say they don’t mind a bit of military intervention would be absolutely horrified if another nation decided it was a good idea to use a bit of military intervention against Australia. Say for instance the Afghan and Iraqi resistance decided to hit back at their invaders and occupiers and attacked Australia in some way …. would that be okay? If not, why not, since it is okay for Israel to attack anyone it deems an enemy and the Americans to do the same.
perhaps Denise could explain how, in a world which sees violence as a problem solving mechanism, we work out a system whereby only some nations are allowed to use it. That would not be fair of course but then little in life is fair and it seems to be what the exponents of violence expect.
Human nature however, being what it is, is more likely to take the view that if one nation can use violence then so can another. One rule for all. Which is why it is so important that no nation uses violence of any kind. Otherwise, logically, any nation or group can bomb or attack anyone else anytime they perceive a need.
If Israel can bomb Iranian nuclear facilities then the Iranians have every right to bomb Israeli nuclear facilities. Logic.
Good article Anthony. Isn’t it ironic that those who say they don’t mind a bit of military intervention would be absolutely horrified if another nation decided it was a good idea to use a bit of military intervention against Australia. Say for instance the Afghan and Iraqi resistance decided to hit back at their invaders and occupiers and attacked Australia in some way …. would that be okay? If not, why not, since it is okay for Israel to attack anyone it deems an enemy and the Americans to do the same.
perhaps Denise could explain how, in a world which sees violence as a problem solving mechanism, we work out a system whereby only some nations are allowed to use it. That would not be fair of course but then little in life is fair and it seems to be what the exponents of violence expect.
Human nature however, being what it is, is more likely to take the view that if one nation can use violence then so can another. One rule for all. Which is why it is so important that no nation uses violence of any kind. Otherwise, logically, any nation or group can bomb or attack anyone else anytime they perceive a need.
If Israel can bomb Iranian nuclear facilities then the Iranians have every right to bomb Israeli nuclear facilities. Logic.
I don’t remember hearing the Israeli Prime Minister threaten the existence of Iran?
And as far as the Jews being God’s chosen people, I told you this is an ancient edict from Egyptian times and in those days nobody else believed in an invisible omnipotent God other than the Hebrew people.
The Old Testament more or less begins with the murder of Abel by his brother Cain.
Violence is a part of most animals (and that’s all we humans really are) lives, especially when their territory or livelihood is threatened. Forming a protective nation around people is supposed to negate violence through the hegemony of a well equiped defence force.
The threatening of a nation with a nuclear holocaust is obviously a last resort and a desperate plea for help from the offending nation.
I can’t see the Muslim nations (other than Indonesia and Malaysia) being easily disarmed and made to see reason where Israel is concerned (just like some of you) so in that case the situation may have to get worse before it gets better.
And then obviously there’s China, India and many other secular nations to bring a form of their own hegemonic political and economic power about these issues to the UN table of discourse.
On matters such as the Muslim jihadists and other rogue militias not acting in accordance to the rules of war, the UN has to rule according to its previous decisions and so the complete annhilation of Israel is NOT in accordance with their conventions and as such Iran is way out of line and asking for BIG trouble if you ask me.
Hi Denise,
I do remember Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister (Matan Vilnai) threaten Palestinians with a holocaust on 29 February this year (http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/3159/2008/01/29-110423-1.htm).
PS. Denis, Iranians aren’t Arabs.
PPS. And both Shamir and Begin were senior members of terrorist organisations. Lucky the world talks to some terrorists.
Ahem, I love all my beautiful kind intelligent gentle Arabic and Jewish brothers and sisters. Now that I’ve got that little bit of subversion in print …
…what I wanted to say is Gerard Henderson is as much a war monger as anyone with this choice quote yesterday SMH tucked right back where it won’t scare the sensibilities of fair minded people:
"The Iraq venture, while not over, is scaling down and there are reasonable prospects of a satisfactory outcome"
Well don’t that beat all? Easy to say in WASPish safety there eh Gerard? Bit different if you are part of the body count what? This quote alone reveals the truly ruthless nature of some very prominent people of influence in public life.
Oh and anther thing about Hendo’s column - he fails to acknowledge Simon Crean as ALP leader really carried the can for opposing the Iraq war invasion in 2002-03, giving the wrap to Kim Beazley (hardly), which Crean legacy boosted Rudd no end once WMD was proven to be false (too early for Latham to really capitalise on). That’s one hell of a judgment Simon or good fortune. Full credit I should say.
Beware the new reason for attacking Iran. They want us to so that they can commit ‘national suicide’.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bisharat9-2008jun09…
"Anew buzzword is arising from the network of Israeli think tanks and security-oriented academic departments bent on instigating a U.S. attack on Iran: "national suicide." The term describes a supposed Arab Muslim tradition of politically motivated suicide at the national, not just individual, level. Arab Muslim regimes have purportedly launched ruinous wars they could not have reasonably hoped to win, condemning their nations to destruction.
The notion of an "irrational" and thus untrustworthy Iranian regime has already been widely discussed in the U.S. It is regularly invoked by Sen. John McCain on the stump. The term "national suicide" advances the notion and gives it a patina of academic respectability."
Coming soon to/from a think tank in Australia.
Dear Denise - in your own fevered words "Violence is a part of … lives, especially when their territory or livelihood is threatened."
So where is the problem of Palestinians trying to protect their land (since time immemorial) from usurpers. And those usurpoers were only able to achieve their baneful ascension because of Euroid guilt over WWII. Great solution and typical of the West, salve its own conscience at someone else’s expense.
Well if I must, WW2 involved literally tens of millions dead in a hugely convulsed world. National boundaries were always going to be plastic in that dynamic.
We can’t judge those times with today’s eyes. That’s not being historically realistic.
And as I always say, it’s now an officially arid argument to argue over the zionist existence off Israel because they are nuclear armed, and very so. It may not be fashionable but the argument is actually so very over. Nuke weaponry does actually change everything. Israel will ALWAYS be part of an intact world from here on. That’s my dispassionate appraisal by the way, not barracking.
Unless of course there were voluntary nuke disarmament first which should at least be kept as a conceptual possibility in a world of John Lennon style peace. Gotta have a dream I reckon.
Hi Tom
I try hard to love my European brothers and sisters, but it would be easier if they admitted their errors. The UN-approved division of Palestine was possible because the decision-makers considered the Palestinian people to be a lower form of humanity. This was wrong in fact, and unjust in practice.
The decision was made, and something has to be built on the ruins, but there can be no reconciliation without truth.
Kevin Rudd proudly recalls Australia’s role in the creation of Israel. Now he should ashamedly acknowledge the racist attitudes that motivated the decisions that were taken. It shouldn’t be hard, its quite similar to the stolen generations in some ways. And then we can start talking compensation for the Palestinian people, for the past wrongs perpetrated in the name of the Australian people.
There’s something quite mad about people who can seriously discuss something as stupid as ‘national suicide’and something utterly unstable about anyone who takes it seriously.
In this crazy world of ours, where it is now always the victims fault when we go to war, unless of course they are Jewish, it is the victim who creates his own carnage and destruction. What a fantastic in every sense of the word, discussion paper for a psychology class.
The only nation at this point on a course of national suicide is Israel and that is because the ‘desire’is unconscious. You can be too much of a victim and the ultimate victim is dead.
Igniting the Middle East by attacking Iran will not destroy all Arabs nor the Muslim world but it has a very good chanced of destroying Israel and sadly, damaging the world for everyone if they are crazy enough to start unleashing nukes from Israel and the US.
By the way Denise - you appear to be convinced that Rafsanjani has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Israel. I can understand why you have this belief - it has been claimed in the mainstream media for some time. It is incorrect.
The original translation of Rafsanjani’s speech (2001) was made by an organisation called MEMRI - created by ex-Israeli intelligence officers. Anyway - here is the link to the original translation (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP32502) which has been widely misrepresented subsequently by the Israel lobby. It is quite clear that he is making the point that when the Islamic nations get the bomb, the balance of power changes.
Tom,
I don’t think anyone is arguing Israel is not a given. The only threat to Israel is from Israel’s actions and the support given to those actions by the US. Only Israel can destroy Israel. No Arab nation is capable of doing it. But, a conflagration in the Middle East, initiated by Israel, is going to see any sane Israelis leave and create such uproar in the world at large that support for Israel will cease. Without support Israel cannot survive. It is not self-sufficient and never has been.
The crazy thing is that the actions of the Americans and the international community are conducive to the destruction of Israel and not to the saving of Israel. Perhaps that is the plan.
Israel has created so many enemies in the middle east in particular and the world in general that it has bankrupted itself politically and morally. It’s hard to understand how the international community, if it really wants Israel to survive, has allowed this.
garnolda, there is clearly a plan, insane as it may be, to make Israel - in essence a US state - the hegemonic power in the region. That means there can be no other nuclear power to create balance. Although of course, if they attack Iran, everyone else will be hellbent on getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves so how it gains the goal is hard to see. There seems much insanity at work in the world at present.
Hi Rosros - I agree it is insane.
The situation is made even more complex by the fact that Pakistan already has the bomb and a delivery system, and that China relies on Iranian fuel and has therefore stated that it will interpret an attack on Iran as an attack on China. Deals will have to be done with both these countries if anyone wants to attack Iran.
The next danger point is the long-term agreement between the US and the Iraqi government due for signing by 31 July 2008 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html). If this (as expected) establishes (?semi-)permanent US military bases things are likely to get hot. If the usual pattern repeats, we might see pro-Iranian groups attacking US/Israeli interests/supporters in third countries (poor old Lebanon).
Hopefully the next Presidential elections will see the emergence of a less belligerent US, one which is willing to wield large carrots to get what it wants, and one which is not so determined to have troops in all 200 of the world’s nations.
"I try hard to love my European brothers and sisters, but it would be easier if they admitted their errors."
What type of heresy it this? The West admitting to error? Perish the thought! The West never makes errors, get it!
"Garnolda, there is clearly a plan, insane as it may be, to make Israel - in essence a US state - the hegemonic power in the region."
Surely America would not be capable of giving birth to such a Machiavellian thought? Not America where John Wayne and Ronald Reagan and Donald Duck came from to say nothing of the concept of democracy and freedom and human rights and the Beacon on the Hill (settle down, concept I said, not reality).
We in the West are being hoist on our own petard. Eat, drink and be merry…
www.dangerouscreation.com
Israel is no more an imperialist nation than Australia is:
Hopefully those Antisemites amongst us, and dissident Jews I might add, will wake up one day to a new world order (I know sounds hackneyed now) but Hebrew is not a perfect language, but there is no need to rush to the defence of the Ancient teachings and precepts.
Adam was not Jewish, but he and Eve blew it.
Noah was not Jewish, but his self centred approach lost out in the end too.
Abraham was impatient, he screwed up too.
It was’nt until Isaac, whose blindness stuffed up the succession,(Esau not Jacob was supposed to inherit the lot) that things got really messy.
Jacob who transcended his natural human form after wrestling with the "angel" then became Israel, Yes Israel, not a country but a people,so the descendents of the twelve tribes (12 sons and one daughter), are who Israel is.
So the Promised Land where Jews have lived for millenia is undisputed, charted and clearly the property of the Israelis, according to all records of historical authenticity. The Old Testament legitimises the New Testament. The latter cannot stand without giving this principle its due regard.
Unlike Greek and Roman mythology (It’s conquerors for a time), the Bible has withstood many hammers, which are now rusted in the ashes of the fire of evil.
Sorry to have to comment on the obvious.
Tzvi
There’s nothing like a large dose of unintelligible theo-babble to enlighten everyone, Revilo. What’s the new world order? A world run by America with Israel as its deputy? I think not!
I hope the new world order will have no religion in it. None. If we could get away from divisive, childish superstition and mountains of false promises we might have some chance of achieving peace after 10,000 years of ignorance, barbarity and slaughter.
But I won’t hold my breath!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Revilo,
The Bible, old or new, has no legitimacy in any court of law, other than for Christians to swear upon. the bible is not regarded as legal historical record but merely a collection of myths and stories and more often than not, fabrications.
There is in fact no archeological evidence for the Israel of which the Bible speaks and even after decades of digging Israeli archeologists have to admit this.
The early hebrews, according to verifiable evidence, were no more than another tribe among many which inhabitated this part of the world. Jerusalem was a village, a camp. What is now called historical jerusalem was built by Greeks, Romans, European invaders and Arabs.
The earliest Jews came out of Egypt as far as we know and again were a mixed bag of peoples from Mesopotamia, Egypt and other parts of the world, who became a part of a montheistic religion, probably the one established by the Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton.
Judaism is a religion, not a race. If people with religious affiliations had a right to Palestine because some of their ancestors once lived there briefly, then the Romans still have a right to Britain, which they settled for a time and since they founded London it should clearly be returned to them.
In short, there was and is no legal right for followers of Judaism to take the land of Palestine. This wrong, supported by the UN and international community is the source of all the bloodshed which has followed. But, like other colonising nations such as Australia, when Israelis apologise for the wrongs inherent in their foundation and make redress to the indigenous peoples they dispossessed they will have legitimacy.
Bi
I’m not quite sure what ‘humanitarian intervention’ has to do with Iran and if there is some tenuous connection between a US invasion and Iran, it may be difficult for the US invaders to ‘find’ an alternative who they can work with, given that the strongest opposition forces in Iran are far more left-wing (i.e. genuinely left-wing, not like the opportunists in Australia) than the government. In fact, I would have thought that, in the event of the ayatollahs being threatened with revolution, they would have been the natural allies of the Yanks and their puppets, all right-wing fundamentalists together, worshipping the same God.
But to get back to the topic of humanitarian intervention, where would Antony’s thesis leave a country like Zimbabwe ? As I understand it,
* the MDC won the elections in March and the current regime is illegal;
* it is about to launch another massacre of defenceless people, like it has done before, against both Matabele and Shona, but on a far bigger scale, thanks to Chinese weaponry coming through Angola;
* weak-as-piss Mbeki and many other African ‘leaders’ are going to back up their mate Mugabe.
So where does that leave the people of Zimbabwe ? When the massacres really get going, will we take many of the refugees ? Or should we leave it to the people to organise themselves and do their own fighting, to determine their own future, as I have heard one Left wanker here declare ?
I supported the US liberation of Kuwait and expulsion of the Iraqi invaders in 1991, the defence of the Bosnians by NATO in 1995, the intervention of NATO in Kosova in 1999 and the intervention of the Australians in East Timor later that year. If we can talk about ‘just’ wars, then these were ‘just’ invasions. No, the US attacks on Somalia in 1993-4 and on Iraq in 2003 were not justified. Many other potential ‘just’ invasions are not on the books only because the fascists and thugs in charge in those situations have strong military backers, such as China’s backing for Burma or Sudan. Internationalist or otherwise, an invasion of Burma or Sudan is thus not going to happen. That’s international politics, realpolitik. It’s not right, and certainly not just for the suffering people of those countries, but it’s practical.
Zimbabwe may be a different story: China may have abandoned it, and the only allies of the fascist clique there might be pussies like Mbeki. I think that an invasion of Zimbabwe by anybody would have the ordinary people cheering from one end of Africa to the other.
Eventually some country will have to. Perhaps even some of the African countries, Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique, for example. Or do we sit back and watch another Rwanda, in the full knowledge that it is coming ? Remember Rwanda ? Remember when people bitched and whinged why the Yanks didn’t invade the place ?
So there are my colours nailed to the mast: yes to humanitarian intervention in Zimbabwe (preferably African), no to intervention in Iraq or Iran. What you might call ‘practical internationalism’, Antony.
Joe
By all means fix Zimbabwe and Dafur/Sudan.
A new "Coalition of the Willing" even if led by Iran & Russia might just stir the West out of its indifference.
Surely appropriate "terms of engagement" can be developed in the context of the United Nations Charter and its principles. Who do we challenge to perform this service?
Revilo - nothing is perfect - only ideal. And I agree with Joe - only humanitarian intervention is justified by an outside power. Only if the population is threatened by its own regime (or another outside regime) should the UN intervene with the Allied forces.
I also believe that since installing democracy was used as one of the excuses for the War on Iraq, that this excuse (regime change) only be used for excessively violent regimes against its citizens and Sadam Hussein’s was definitely in that category.
However, if the violence to remove the dictator is potentially greater than that which would have been caused against the citizens had he remained, then obviously the case for war should have fallen on deaf ears.
As anyone who knows anything about this region should have realised prior to the invasion the dire consequences for the Iraqis, whose lives would be escalated into extreme violence, while their entire country’s infrastructure was blown wide apart, should the US invade prematurely.
So the Iraq war, by leaving a leadership vacuum, was surely a far worse outcome for the Iraqis than even the most brutal of dictators.
And Zimbabe is another borderline case as to whether the population would fare better under the brutal dictatorship of Mugwabe or be better off if outside forces intervened on behalf of them, fighting against Mugwabe forces with them for their democratic rights.
If violence can be avoided it should be - all diplomatic avenues must be pursued first before any direct intervention, which should only be at the behest of the UN who has exhausted all roads to peaceful negotiations, so war is entered into as a last resort to reduce potential carnage, not increase it.
Certainly war and invasion should be a last resort, but just suppose the situation in Zimbabwe does develop along the lines of Rwanda - does the world wait for the UN (with members with veto powers) to do something ? Like it didn’t do in Rwanda ?
Obviously, the only countries which would have the power to act would be the neighbouring African countries. But Tanzania intervened in Uganda in 1979 or so (and quite rightly) so there might be just a skerrick of hope for the people of Zimbabwe that some of their neighbours might intervene to rid their country of this bunch of criminals, in the spirit of Pan-Africanism, if it ever to mean anything.
Joe
Are you people mad? The cessation of war has very little to do with who is right. It certainly won’t be solved by superstitious bullshit. Someone will have to give in if these age old conflicts can ever be put behind us.
If we really want to make a humanitarian intervention we should be dropping Seven Eleven’s, computers and plasma televisions and maybe even schools in all wartorn countries. When everyone in the world has become fat and middle class they can slough off their beliefs and will be able to afford the sort of high-minded approach taken by most contributors to this article.
We can’t stop war, we can only stop making war ourselves. Let’s give it a go.
Yes, Dr Doggy, let’s put up impossible alternatives and then we can say we tried, can’t we ?
So there is Zimbabwe about to launch a war against its own people, with Chinese weapons via the Democratic (!) Republic (!) of the Congo - lo and behold, a real-world situation: what do we do about it ? More to the point, what do the weak-as-piss neighbouring countries do about it ? Or do they want the fleeing millions to fill their refugee camps ?
And as for your idea of dropping 711s, TVs, computers - who do you think would corner the lot, and then sell it to their own people at inflated prices ? Answer: the mob who is currently in power, who regard all public resources, all international aid, as their private property to do as they like with. Hence Mugabe’s $ 18 million mansion - how do you do that on a president’s salary ? Silly question.
Joe
A great article as usual Anthony.
On the same day your article appeared I read a short piece by Joachim Martillo published on the same day, here is the link:-
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/06/preparing-for-attack-on-iran.html
The frightening thing about all of this, of course, is how Zionist genocidalism is looking increasingly more like a part of the general political intellectual current in the English speaking nations, particularly the USA and Australia.
Will the world ever emerge on the other end of this appalling mess unscathed?
George Vickers
George,
I look forward to the day when you get your head out of your nether regions. Today, 18 June 2008, the critical question is: what should the world do about Zimbabwe ? Just look the other way and prattle about the evils of Zionism ? That may well be, but what about more pressing issues ? When Mugabe unleashes his attack dogs and paid thugs onto his own people, do we do a Mbeki and turn a blind eye ? Do we crap on about non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, etc., etc., or do we demand that governments stand up on their hind legs and defend human rights when a ‘government’ has abdicated its right to govern by attacking its own people ?
In other words, do we stick to formulas or do we have the courage to make judgments and expect our governments to do the same ?
Cheers,
Joe
rmg1859 I have to ask you what you think the result would be if we just stopped going to other countries and shooting bombing and otherwise putting the hurt on people. It doesn’t mean turning a blind eye. In fact if we want to have right to even comment on these matters that is the only course worth taking.
I challenge you to come up with even one scenario where you can say that military intervention in a country for humanitarian reasons has been a success, or has resulted in a better regime or permenant socio-economic change for the better.
Of course I don’t think that we literally drop these things from planes, but the amount of money that is spent on making war by Western nations would go a great distance in raising the standard of living to the point where people are empowered to take action within their own country.
The right of the oppressed to rise up and seize power from the oppressor is clear and practical. The right of folk like yourself to come from somewhere else as an uninvited ‘liberator’ is much less clear. Not that I suspect for a moment that you propose attending the conflict yourself.
Even if your motives were pure Joe, the governments whose resources you seem to be keen to marshall in your cause have been proven to be incapable of purely humanitarian action. In a practical sense it just doesn’t work.
And in terms of sticking to formulas I might remind you that to take a path of non violence is against the norm and shows far more courage. Imperial intervention has been around for a lot longer with observable results. But good luck with it.
Col
Even one scenario ?
1. East Timor
2. Kosova
3. Bosnia-Herzegovina
4. Uganda (i.e. to overthrow Idi Amin)
5. World War II: post-1944 - France, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Solomons, Papua, New Guinea, Phillipines, ……
Straw man arguments, Dog: I’m not intending to act as an uninvited ‘liberator’ - that’s up to governments such as South Africa’s, or those of Botswana, Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, Tanzania and Namibia. I don’t think there is any role in this situation for Britain or the US, or any other intervention which even remotely smells like ‘imperial’.
Or do we sit back and watch as Mugabe and his thugs butcher the people of Zimbabwe - that’s if there is nothing else on TV ?
Maybe you’re right - the people of Zimbabwe should take the courageous path of non-violence. Gosh, that might get results.
Alternatively, they might rise up against their oppressors with absolutely no intervention from outside. With what armed forces ? With what weapons which the Chinese and Russians aren’t supplying the fascist thugs in ‘charge’ ?
Joe
Early days in East Timor, Joe.
And don’t kid yourself that WW2 was a humanitarian conflict. Or that the results have been universally good. The post WW2 handling of the Jewish state and Palestine is a good example of well intentioned imperialism turning bad later.
I guess I can give you the others, although again if you consider those actions to be unemcumbered by imperial politics you are not as well informed or as smart as you seem.
And for you to call on the governments of African nations to do the work seems all too easy, except for the fact that you are writing on an Australian website mostly to Australians. Talk about straw man arguments. At least I am talking about what we as a state should do or not do.
Non violence worked for Gahndi and his mates and he developed his concepts in the neighbourhood of Zimbabwe. For you to disparage it means to me that you reject outright the possibility that humans can solve deep conflicts without guns. Is there no room in your philosophy for a better way?
If that’s where you are at we can all watch on TV while states continue to abuse either themselves or others, depending on their resources, inclination and sense of outrage.
Col
Tell the East Timorese that they shouldn’t have bothered, Dog. But stand well back. As for WW II, nothing is perfect: if you want perfect, get down on your knees and pray, that may be as close as you get.
Yes, I’ll disparage non-violent methods, particularly in this situation. Again, when we get the first waves of refugees from Zimbabwe, I suggest that you go down and tell them that the6y should have been non-violent. Go alone, and go in bright clothes with a sign on the back saying ‘Hit me’.
Would that there were a better way, but not when confronted with Mugabe’s well-paid brutal thugs. I sincerely hope that the Commonwealth (or whatever non-imperial title you care to use) can get its act together and either put non-violent pressure on thesouthern African states, or be prepared for more drastic action.
Joe
Well some of the East Timorese, 1859. And naturally I hope they would remain non violent when dealing with me as well.
I don’t think we are going to have a meeting of minds here Joe, you seem too keen to see a hit on Mugabe. I just hope that if it happens something better will arise in his place. Its a tricky business. I do hope we put on every possible pressure barring invasion.
Talk to you next time, I think we are the only two listening and I am sure there will be a new front for our discussion within days. Unfortunately there is plenty of this shit going down.
For the record I prefer Doctor if you’re going to shorten my name.
Cheers, Col.
Of course, Doctor, every non-violent effort should be made before the relevant parties turn to violence, but can you really imagine that Mugabe’s thugs will take the slightest notice of non-violent opposition ? Scum like that will quickly take advantage of the situation to beat and murder, as we shall see.
I sincerely and fervently hope that there are not just the two of us - surely there are more than two NM readers ?
What to do about trash like Mugabe ? Perhaps he and his cronies can be offered safe passage (with, let’s say, 10 % of their booty, that should keep them happy) to some friendly place like Libya or Malaysia. Anything to get them out of the country, if they do not wish to hold free and fair elections there.
But if they don’t want to give up their $ 18 million mansions and farms and other stolen assets, then an invasion from African nations with backbone may be the only answer. I’m assuming that weak-as-piss South Africa will not be amongst those nations.
Failing that, start getting the refugee camps ready for the survivors.
Joe
I see what you are saying Joe, and think its worth doing to avoid the inevitable bloodshed associated with any coup.
I have never understood myself how arseholes like Mugabe can’t see the writing on the wall and take that decision themselves, so a bit of strongarming might tip the balance.
If aid stations are to be set up along the borders for refugees I would like to see those refugees armed and trained, with an exile government running across the border with UN recognition.
If enough of the population left (and if they all left at once it would be hard for Mugabe or anyone else to do anything about it on a big scale) and then came back with guns and UN backing politically I think Mugabe might see that pissing off to some accomodating country could be the best option. And then the UN could nab him and try him for war crimes, which is where he belongs.
Wasn’t the coup in Fiji bloodless Doctor Dog?
And don’t you think that if Mugabe, who rather than being just ‘trash’ Joe, is a meglomaniac committing human rights violations against his own people, who should be prosecuted in The Hague (assuming law and order is re-established in Zimbabwe) for his crimes?
And you would also assume that the other democratic African nations would be more than a little concerned about the welfare of their fellow Zimbabwe Africans under the tyrrany of this brutal dictator Mugabe, who as a devout Catholic (has the Pope had a word with him about this situation?) appears to have no real concern for the people who support the Opposition, who he has physically assaulted in a desperate attempt to illegally use fear to retain his hold on political power.
As far as intervention, I would insist on a small UN force to go in to ensure the elections are peaceful and votes are counted independently of the ruling party.
1. Yes, Doctor, bloodshed should be avoided, but tell that to Mugabe.
2. Yes, Mugabe is not ‘just ‘trash”, Denise, or even ‘just’ a megalomaniac, he is the figurehead for a corrupt system which siphons off billions in public resources and foreign aid funds and misuses them for their own private purposes, paying for thugs, rewarding soldiers, distributing farms, etc. So of course, if they can get their hands on him, Mugabe should be tried for war crimes - so why do you think he wants to stay in power ?
3. Any UN proposal will be vetoed by China and Russia. Drop any action by the UN out of your calculations.
4. The key is action by neighbouring African countries, not the UN, the US, Britain or any other outside body. Only African countries. Angola and Tanzania have shown a bit more backbone than some others, like utter-piss South Africa under its utter-piss President Mbeki (his father would be bitterly ashamed of him). Hopefully, Mozambique and Botswana will also get up off their arses and at least make some appropriate noises. As an internationalist, I know that there is nothing we can do from Australia except moral campaigns and political pressure (good on Stephen Smith!), but the people of Zimbabwe are our brothers and sisters, our fellow human beings, entitled to their human rights as we are, and we can’t ignore their suffering any longer.
Joe
Mugabe is there because we put him there. Mbeki is there because we put him there. Both countries were Africa’s most economically successful and both nations provided it’s citizens with the highest standard of living in Africa and both nations produced enough to sustain the entire continent of Africa.
2008 saw South Africa become a net importer of food for the first time since the 16th century and Zimbabwe, previously the bread basket of Africa under the Smith government, which we could not tolerate, and which we replaced with a government of our own choice, led by Mugabe, has since turned Zimbabwe into Africa’s great basket case.
Similarly, South Africa’s apartheid laws have been abolished by the new regime which we aided into the seats of power but which almost immediately proceeded with a very under reported military strike on Africa’s smallest nation, Lesotho, which also removed the prior government’s efforts to protect one of humanity’s oldest communities to the extent that their existence is now under threat with less than 20% of it’s pre-apartheid era population still alive today, and which has enacted, in the stead of apartheid, some of the world’s worst race laws leading to the massive exodus of the nation’s educated population turning a once vibrant economy into yet another basket case just like it’s northern neighbour, Zimbabwe.
Africans, like the Iraqis and the Afghans, have noticed that the "benevolence" of the Western powers is as good as the "kiss of death" for any nation or community unfortunate enough to be "saved" by us.
George Vickers
So we are all-powerful, George ? So mighty ? So all-deciding ? ‘We’ control it all ? I don’t think so. Often people make their own decisions, and their own mistakes, and electing Mugabe was one of them, which I am sure most Zimbabweans regret bitterly.
No, George, we are not the giant killer sharks controlling all life and death across the ocean, and maybe we are not minnows and plankton either, but maybe we are no more important than minor players like puffer-fish.
South Africa elected a government in 1994, and whatever they did after that, they did it, nobody had a hand up their back or pulled their strings, they did it themselves.
An occasional full-stop would be handy, George, perhaps after every fifty words. Cheers,
Joe
So, no election in Zimbabwe. Fascism will rule. Power over the people certainly seems to grow out of the barrel of a gun. Fascism means war, Dimitrov wrote, and the first casualty of war in this case will be (has already been) the people.
So when are the neighbouring countries going to intervene and protect the people, now that Mugabe has abdicated from that responsibility ? Or are they going to take their lead from WaP Mbeki ? Angola and Tanzania and Zambia are making some noises but will they act ? Or are they afraid of how South Africa might react if they do ? Are they all WaP ?
This is weird: that ‘democratic’ South Africa and so many of the countries, whose liberation we marched for, can turn out to be so corrupt, ‘big men’ backing up each other like this, against their own people. Would we do it all again ? Not if we had known that it was going to turn out like this ?
Joe