Three years ago, U. N. Secretary General Kofi Annan asked, “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?” It was a good question. A year ago the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (9)Page 1 of 1 pagesIan Williams analysis and appraisal are must-reading for all on the left who are still wondering what the proper progressive response should have been to the Iraq situation. An excellent piece that should be widely read and deeply thought about.
Posted by Laurie King-Irani on Jul 28, 2003 at 9:51 PM Between individuals as well nations,
the rights to others respect meaning PEACE.Benito Juarez
Posted by silverio De la Mora on Jul 28, 2003 at 10:29 PM I agree. Commit murder and promote mayhem with extreme caution. It enables you to continue to do it longer.
Posted by Charles Jannuzi on Jul 29, 2003 at 6:53 PM My main problem with this piece is that it perpetuates the false dichotomy between military intervention and isolationism. The key question to ask is what a non-militarist, internationalist foreign policy would be. Individual Americans, for instance, “intervened” in Central America in the 1980’s by doing development and human rights work under the auspices of a variety of non-profits. Could the US or international community create a team of non-violent interveners to engage in organizing, in civil disobedience, in direct action?
It may sound nuts (it does a little to me, too), but recent non-violent liberation movements have succeeded in Indonesia, the Philippines, Eastern Europe, and South Africa, and of course before then in India. Armed overthrows, whether internal revolutions or external invasions, tend to leave in charge those who are best at doing the killing.
Before the Left buys into constant armed interventions, we should return to our internationalist, anti-militarist roots—ordinary people all over the world share many common goals and needs, regardless of the attitudes of their nation’s political leaders or elites (note the solidarity of the Fair Trade movement). Let’s try at least to develop mechanisms for building democracy non-violently before we accept the validity of a constant series of “corrective” invasions.
Posted by Nick on Jul 30, 2003 at 12:45 PM A Very Thought-Provoking article.
I hope to learn more about world affairs and have been studying on some subjects. With respect for humanitarian intervention, I Agree with the article that the Bush Administration is full of hypocrisies not only what this article states but in other ways. Thanks for the chance to speak.
Posted by Scott Cheuvront on Aug 1, 2003 at 12:09 PM Why do we always think in military terms? The best form of humanitarian intervention is economic! What we need is world wide support of various kinds of sanctions. And sanctions against those who ignore the sanctions.
I will admit that this may be impossible to bring off many times, and military intervdntion may be necesary. But we ought to try for unviersal sanctions.
If the Security Council was willing to impose sanctions on a country, then we would curtail trade or aid to those countries that refuse to abide by the sanctions. War ought to be the last resort, unles time is of the essence.
Posted by roy lechtreck on Aug 1, 2003 at 1:07 PM Noam Chomsky speaks about these issues. His insights have helped me understand why we’re in this situation and how many nations have been victims of our intervention.
He’s worth checking out. He’s definitely pulled me away from thinking along party lines.
Posted by neil on Aug 5, 2003 at 4:46 AM Ian Williams’ piece is thought-provoking, but ultimately flawed because of his reliance on the straw dog “some on the left.” “Some on the left,” in this case, can easily be expanded to mean “anyone who disagrees with me,” ending debate and making anyone who is suspicious of the use of military means to resolve conflict into a dupe for tyrants like Saddam Hussein. The problem is that we do not have a real, functioning international order—only one based on might and self-interest. Until we create one, “humanitarian intervention” will be little more than a mask for that self interest.
Posted by Hank Kalet on Aug 6, 2003 at 5:52 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ian Williams
- Bolton vs. United Nations
Bush's mad cop–bad cop ruse - Bushs War Against the Military
- Deserter at the Helm!
- The Sorrows of Dogma
- Re-United Nations
U.S. admits U.N. role necessary for laying the electoral groundwork in Iraq - Not So Special
Protests question Bush-Blair lovefest
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
