• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

[political]Human Rights Violations and Military Intervention

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated in an interview: "Internal human rights violations cannot alone be a sufficient reason for a military intervention. All other peaceful means must be exhausted and a serious threat to peace and stability or the danger of genocide be present."
It might be just me, but it seems to me that such a position would be irresponsible at best, no matter who held it (I'm not picking on Germany). If one were to stand by such a decision, then it would seem to advocate standing by and doing nothing while some of history's greatest human tragedies occur. The deaths of millions of Cambodians under Pol Pot, as but one example, would not be enough cause for intervention.
Fischer is basically saying that it's okay if a leader murders millions of his people as long as he doesn't discriminate amongst his victims and as long as he keeps it within his borders. Such a blanket position seems wrong in the greatest sense to me somehow.
Granted that there may be factors which might make it imprudent to undertake military intervention even in the evnt of a catastrophic human rights crisis, but I would think might exist many cases in which military intervention into a human rights catastrophe is equally warranted. It seems Rwanda would have fit Fischer's own definition, yet using his logic the Bosnia intervention was only justified because it threatened the stability of the region, not because of widespread ethnic cleansing.
So is Fischer right, or are there cases under which human rights violations short of genocide (using Cambodia as a prime example) might be dealt with through military intervention?
 
"The Hood"
Posts: 8521
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Definitely a difficult line to draw.
It is very like child abuse. For the most part our authorities allow us to handle and discipline our children as we see fit. As long as we keep it in the home.
However there is a point when it becomes blatant abuse and then the authorities step in for the protection of the child.
It is extremely difficult to determine where the proper place to draw the line is without infringing on the right of the parents and still defending the safety of the child.
For the most part I agree that the people of a country should be able to run that country the way that they feel they should. However there comes a point when there is just TOO much abuse and SOMEONE should step in to insure the safety of the people.
I would hate to have to define that point though.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
That seems like a good analogy Cindy. We could probably all agree that, in the case of child abuse at least, the line is definitely crossed if the child is killed. It would seem that the line would also be crossed if the parents children have been beaten and are sick and starving as a direct result of the parents' actions.
I agree with you though that it would be very difficult to define such a line when we're looking at a country's abuse of its citizens. At the very least I would think there would be some things that we should all agree cross the bounds of acceptability. Unfortunately I think there are those that believe that in all cases a state's sovereignity should be protected above its citizens' human rights.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If one were to stand by such a decision, then it would seem to advocate standing by and doing nothing while some of history's greatest human tragedies occur. The deaths of millions of Cambodians under Pol Pot, as but one example, would not be enough cause for intervention.
I think, when Joschka Fischer said "internal human rights violations", he meant milder and relatively rare cases of abuse. "The deaths of millions" is under "or the danger of genocide be present" category and I do not think this is what he suggested to tolerate.
As Cindy said, the problem is where to put the line.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think, when Joschka Fischer said "internal human rights violations", he meant milder and relatively rare cases of abuse. "The deaths of millions" is under "or the danger of genocide be present" category and I do not think this is what he suggested to tolerate.
I'm not sure about that Map. Hussein was responsible for the deaths of well over a million people and a brutal program of ethnic cleansing, but this seems to be okay with Fischer since he was specifically referring to Iraq and in his eyes the threat to regional stability had been contained. As I was operating under that assumption, I was thinking that he might be operating by a strict definition of genocide similar to that which I linked to.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We should probably separate "theoretical" part (definition of what conditions are "a sufficient reason for a military intervention") from Joschka Fischer's vision of whether these conditions are met in case of Iraq. You made a good point about genocide, that "it's okay if a leader murders millions of his people as long as he doesn't discriminate amongst his victims". Somehow killing people of one chosen nation looks more atrocious that just some indiscriminate killing... So if "conditions sufficient for a military intervention" will only include "genocide", this will be too narrow definition.
Regarding genocide in Iraq, perhaps he meant that no immediate "danger of genocide" was present, in spite of the fact that it happened before. This begs another question, how do you decide if there is "danger of genocide" or not, until genocide actually happened?
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Regarding genocide in Iraq, perhaps he meant that no immediate "danger of genocide" was present, in spite of the fact that it happened before. This begs another question, how do you decide if there is "danger of genocide" or not, until genocide actually happened?


It sounds to me as if he is trying to find a way to justify intervention in Bosnia without jutifying it in Iraq.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I guess that Joschka Fischer wanted to highlight that if we would see human rights violations as a cause for just war, there will be allways war. There are simply too many countries with too little respect for human rights.
No time to go link-hunting, but AFAIK those ex-USSR provinces in the south like Kirgistan, Kasastan and the like have very bad human right problems and the US is has been getting better friend with them (military aid, military bases, humanitarian aid, etc).
... to the contrary of Jasons impression, Fischer has been very concerned with human rights in his political history. He fighted very hard against his own party (ecologists with very, very strong pacifistic roots) for a participation of Germany in the balcan war.
... and that's exactly the problem with the perception of US politics in Eurasia and Latin-America: it appears double tongued to a lot of people.
On the other hand one has to allways take into acount that this war/USA topic is the only topic the current government can use to contact emotionally with the people/voters. Big, big crisis. And we are like US a federalistic country, so there are allways elections. And the socialdemocrats, ecologists are loosing and loosing.
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So who is winning?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Aside from merely having such a policy, it seems terribly irresponsible to publicly state it. Words such as Fischer's could be interpreted by despots all over the world as a greenlight to go to town on their populations.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map: the conservatives are winning. They are moderate, no nationalists or extreme rights. Party of Kohl and Adenauer. A lot of the founders of the party were persecuted by nazis... and in the 50ties they employed ex-nazis, because of their eficiency and know-how in administration.
Jason: Find this an exageration. One could say that the US having suported guys like Somoza or Trujillo could be interpreted by...
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
if we would see human rights violations as a cause for just war, there will be allways war. There are simply too many countries with too little respect for human rights.
This is true of course, but I think that somewhere there must be a line. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. Terrible human rights record. On the other hand, if the West didn't support the Saudi government, an Islamic extremist regime would be in place quicker than you can say "Osama bin Laden". In some cases, it is a situation of what is the lesser evil.
I think though that in the grander scheme of things there is a point at which those who have the ability should attempt to remedy extreme circumstances of this type of behavior, with places like Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Iraq as recent examples where intervention for humanitarian reasons alone would seem justified. There was intervention in Bosnia and Iraq, but the humane reasons for doing so should have been enough reason to take action without having to use things such as regional stability and WMDs as the prime motivators.
Another way to look at it is that if all these petty despots were dealt with resolutely by all the world powers acting in agreement, and it became evident that the world would not tolerate such behavior, eventually these rulers would begin to get the clue that behaving in a certain way would do far more harm to them than anything else.
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Find this an exageration. One could say that the US having suported guys like Somoza or Trujillo could be interpreted by...
Not sure. Influenced by public statements made by some UN Security Council members, it seems that Hussein felt that he could get away with playing for time and continuing to thumb his nose at UN resolutions. That's just one obvious example of a dictator using public statements issued by governments as tacit permission to continue along certain courses of action.
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
JM: Terrible human rights record. On the other hand, if the West didn't support the Saudi government, an Islamic extremist regime would be in place quicker than you can say "Osama bin Laden". In some cases, it is a situation of what is the lesser evil.
AJ: Are you the enlighted USA or we the enlighted democratic west able to manage the future of those countries? Can we control them. I don�t think so. We won�t have control. We have influence. Big influence, but no control.

JM: I think though that in the grander scheme of things there is a point at which those who have the ability should attempt to remedy extreme circumstances of this type of behavior, with places like Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Iraq as recent examples where intervention for humanitarian reasons alone would seem justified.
AJ: Here I mostly agree. It is not easy. Seeing that "colateral damage" kids in hospital. But living under Saddam government surely had a huge price, too. Yes, there are humanitarian reasons. It is very difficult saying such things when having kid in mind. So I am whispering: yes.
JM: Another way to look at it, the opposite of what Fischer states as his government's position, if all these petty despots were dealt with resolutely by all the world powers, and it became evident that the world would not tolerate such behavior, eventually these rulers would begin to get the clue that behaving in a certain way would do far more harm to them than anything else.
AJ: People will get democracy, if they really want to. Like Germans in 50/60ties, or Spain and Portugal in 70ties, Chile in 90ties and maybe Russia in 0ties. This is very difficult process. If there is a big mayority who really, really believes in democracy than maybe. Often there is no mayority for democracy in society.
Can�t change the world. Better make me another bread with this great french cheese I bought with tomatoe. And plant some javax.swing.JTree.

But yes. There are some examples of dictators who pervert a whole country. And Saddam is one of them. I think. Might be wrong.
And Jason.
Who is going to take serious a Foreign Minister of some european country with economic problems talking about world politics?
Me not.
Without any bitterness: As long as there is no common european foreign policy they are not that relevant. No weapons. Not even money. O.k. Some economic power.
And don�t make him responsible for some evil to come. Fischer is just talking. And we have a free press.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
JM: Another way to look at it, the opposite of what Fischer states as his government's position, if all these petty despots were dealt with resolutely by all the world powers..
Hey no fair! I edited out the part mentioning Fischer soon after I posted!
Better make me another bread with this great french cheese I bought
Speaking of french cheese, I found this BBC article hilarious. Don't worry, it's not anti-French.

And Jason.
Who is going to take serious a Foreign Minister of some european country with economic problems talking about world politics?
Me not.
Without any bitterness: As long as there is no common european foreign policy they are not that relevant. No weapons. Not even money. O.k. Some economic power.
And don�t make him responsible for some evil to come. Fischer is just talking. And we have a free press.

Fischer just happened to be the one to say it, I'm not trying to demonize him. It could have been anyone from any number of countries. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there are many in the world who might agree with his statement. Germany is a major player in the world, as are many of the Western democracies, so words coming out of these governments often have impact far beyond intent.
And regarding a common EU foreign policy, as long as France tries to mold Europe in its Gallic image, defining its identity as a direct antagonist with the US, there will be no common EU foreign policy. But that's probably good for another topic.
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So is Fischer right, or are there cases under which human rights violations short of genocide (using Cambodia as a prime example) might be dealt with through military intervention?
Reminded me of something. In the "Apocalypse Now", the American soldiers vacinate the children in Cambodia (or some other country near by) against polio. When they return to the village for a follow-up, they find a pile of children arms, cut off by the children's parents. The real question is, who violated whose rights in this story?
[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The real question is, who violated whose rights in this story?
While in general it is a violation of human rights to lop off somebody's arm and not a human rights violation to administer a vaccination, since it seems to be a ficticious event and there is no background info from which to draw any conclusions, I'm going to have to blame the director and the writer for this one.
[ May 08, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2545
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
come on, all the so called human right violation are excuse. but of course, there is nothing wrong with making excuse!
 
John Lee
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2545
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH once said freedom is American's best gift to the world.
i think he is right on!
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic