Whatever’s good for you
Mbeki has been utterly unwilling to show any spine in dealing with Mugabe. On the contrary, he has exhibited a sinister solidarity with his fellow onetime liberation fighter…In April, South African stevedores refused to unload a shipment of seventy-seven tons of rockets, mortars, and other munitions from China destined for Zimbabwe—a cargo reminiscent of the deliveries to Rwanda before the genocide of 1994. And, in deliberate contrast to Mbeki’s obliging absence, the American Ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee, has been making his presence felt, leading his colleagues in the diplomatic community into the rural areas to investigate and report on the extent of the torture. On a recent excursion, he collected testimonies, notebooks, and photographs that document how Mugabe’s goons flay their victims and break their bones. McGee offered this evidence to Mbeki’s representatives; they declined to meet with him, and Mugabe threatened him with expulsion.
Meanwhile, in Burma, people go on dying miserable deaths while the USS Essex and four support ships steam away with all their relief supplies still on board. Mugabe tells international aid agencies to stop distributing food and Burma’s generals turn away relief – callous thugs are perfectly content to sacrifice thousands or millions of people for their own trivial self-interest. It gets you down. Hundreds of thousands of people suffering starvation, thirst, exposure, disease on the one hand, and a few people protecting themselves on the other. There’s a lack of proportionality there. Contemplating this doesn’t make one think well of human beings.
But, Ophelia, it’s not “trivial interest”, it’s “anti-imperialism”.
(“trivial self-interest”)
Conversely, the fact that some, if not most, people don’t like injustice makes one think well of people . . . it’s just a shame that those willing to perpetrate such injustices are the ones who rise to power. Power-hunger and callousness seem to go hand in hand. It’s all very Machiavellian I suppose.
“Outlaw” is more or less the status of the Gitmo inmates.
“State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).”
Should read: Starvation Persecution and Death of its Citizens.
Wow, it is mind-blowing to think that just eleven members of the junta can wield so much power over so many people.
Well, if they wouldn’t have to invent a lie & invade for exactly this reason, I am all for it. I would only counsel the use of brains to reflect on how they’re going to unbrainwash the brainwashed. I suggest to use money and entertainment, at least neither Birma nor Zimbabwe are at the moment a place of religious zeal (but brainlessly invading for the wrong reasons can change that in a jiffy).
uhhm,
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for intervension but against invasion.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Not to worry, Cass, I was not reacting to you. But I come out & admit it, the neo part of neocon attracts me. If you have governments which use sovereignty as a weapon combined with neutralizing all internal pressures, I do not think any non-invasion intervention can give relief. It’s all kinda Robin Hood what you propose but, will it be effective? I don´t think so: isolating those that are in power gives them a push to make even harsher measures against internal pressure and to instigate some form of amor patriae nostra lex. Better to get them out of the equation luring second in command with luxury in exchange for a smooth transition to luxury for all.
G.T.,
The invasion of Iraq was evidently botched, which probably entails stupidity, but “illegal” here is a specious term at best (I practice law), more an antiwar meme than any sort of coherent argument… I agree, however, that its fallout will be detrimental to international action for years to come.
Alain, you´re right, we should not go too flexible on these terms – neither legal nor illegal – can we settle for non-legal?
But this begs the question: shouldn´t there be a legal framework for things as crucial as invasion on humanitarian grounds?
In my view, creating the framework is probably a good way to avoid enforcing it, as with any good law.
There are some (international) laws and, by and large, western countries make some semblance of abiding by them. But in some frameworks (e.g. the UN Human Rights Council) the foxes are in charge of the henhouse…
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2267
… and are busy implementing foxes law.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2266
How about ‘extra-legal’ ?
Alain,
Why invoke memes in that example?
Western countries abide by international laws? As opposed to which countries that don’t??
As for Burma, there is international aid going in (A friend is there now) Just not US aid, in particular. No excuses for the callous and brutal Junta, but it very much appears that much of the Burma commentary bends the truth in pursuit of an agenda. One I happen to agree with, but not the process.
“Why invoke memes in that example? “
Because the “illegal war” meme is just that, a meme. It is a catchy phrase that people spread without understanding its content.
dirigible,
So memes are memes? or is that question begging…
Multilateral vs Unilateral intervention is a real brain-killing dilemma. What are the consequences of ignoring Westphalia? Will that lead to worse in the future? Why was unilateral(ish) intervention OK in Bosnia but not in Iraq? Why complete paralysis over Rwanda?
It is a rather trite position, but if you plan to intervene in a case such as Iraq (forget the Bollox WMD justification), then you should be justify your reluctance in other circumstances…Darfur anyone?
Again, to be trite and cynical, I guess it comes down to national interest. As is to be expected, sad but true.
There is international aid going in (I gather from news coverage, the Beeb mostly) but it’s a fraction of what’s needed and of what’s been offered. The US aid was refused because (the BBC reported) it was on warships. On the one hand that might seem faintly understandable, but on the other hand, the Burmese generals are as it were on warships themselves, and furthermore they probably know perfectly well that the aid was not a pretext for military invasion.
A little late, but, for whatever it’s worth (i.e., for fans of the UN), the presence of American and coalition troops in Iraq is currently “legal” according to the Security Council (and, just to be clear about things, I was against the Iraq invasion regardless of its putative legality or illegality; I thought it was ill-conceived, the wrong action and the wrong time by incompetent actors… though I’m hardly sorry to see the end of Baathism in Iraq).
The U.S. and coalition military presence, and use of force, have in fact been fully authorized by the UN Security Council since it adopted resolution No. 1511 on Oct. 16, 2003. That UN resolution “authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq…” Since then, on Dec. 18, 2007, the Security Council extended the mandate of those foreign forces until Dec. 31, 2008. After that, their presence will need to be on the basis of agreement with the government of Iraq.
So you are o.k with 25 million people living under the jack boot of a tyrant alain? because you cant realy be against the war but claim you are pleased that the tyrant is gone.
Yes you can Richard. Alain said he wasn’t ok with people living under the tyrant, and of course you can both be glad a tyrant is gone and think the war that got rid of him was a mistake. It’s a very large and very complicated subject, not a simple yes-no question, and it’s perfectly possible to have conflicting reactions to different aspects of the subject; possible and also reasonable.