Thoughtcrime - 23 Feb 2013

If humanitarian intervention is a valid goal of foreign policy and should be practiced, what is the justification for applying it some times and not others?  Why intervene in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, while ignoring genocide in places such as Rwanda, East Timor, and Myanmar?

And if any state can intervene in humanitarian crises, who will be allowed to intervene to save those withering away without food or shelter on the streets of Anglo-American cities?  Could some benevolent entity have come to the rescue when the American government showed how little it cared for its people after Hurricane Katrina (and later, Sandy)?

Furthermore, if its intentions are as noble as claimed, will any nation ever be invaded to force better working conditions on its populace, and to save those dying in sweatshops or other overcrowded spaces?

Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

No comments:

Post a Comment