Page 1 of 3
#1
I'm writing a paper on this atm (no this isn't a "please do my homework for me thread") and was curious as to people's thoughts.

Do developed countries have a responsibility to protect human rights in other states?
If so how? Is military force the only real way? What is considered a large enough violation for a decision to be made-is it only genocide or does limited freedom of speech count? Is it all just a violation of a states sovereignty?

There was a lot of people in my class who agreed to humanitarian intervention on principle but not when it was done by the military.

Yes it's politics, but it's specific (and temporary) enough for its own thread I think.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#2
Quote by jambi_mantra

There was a lot of people in my class who agreed to humanitarian intervention on principle but not when it was done by the military.

What if it's done by the military but not by force? The military does a lot more than shoot people.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#3
Quote by rgrockr
What if it's done by the military but not by force? The military does a lot more than shoot people.

Sometimes they gut people.
Quote by vintage x metal
I love you =] I can't say I was very fond of you when we first started talking because you trolled the hell out of my threads, but after talking to you here I've grown very attached to you.

Yeah, write to my fanclub about it, honey.
#5
Humanitarian disasters have unfortunately always been used as smokescreens for economic imperialist invasions and asset grabs. For every intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons, there are a thousand thousand other equally grievous situations where there happens to be no oil. And that's not to mention that Western-backed dictatorships or insurgents, or fallout from previous failed imperialist ventures, are often responsible for creating the humanitarian situation in the first place.

Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.
#6
Quote by Kumanji
Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.

I disagree
#7
Look into the differences in humanitarian intervention between Kosovo and Rwanda.

There are certain things that need to be strictly defined in order for the standards and requirements of intervention to be held consistently.

A term like 'common interest' must be well-defined and well enforced.
#9
Quote by rgrockr
What if it's done by the military but not by force? The military does a lot more than shoot people.


No doubt there probably are soldiers on leave and programs in the Military that deal exclusively with humanitarian needs.
#10
Quote by Kumanji
Humanitarian disasters have unfortunately always been used as smokescreens for economic imperialist invasions and asset grabs. For every intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons, there are a thousand thousand other equally grievous situations where there happens to be no oil. And that's not to mention that Western-backed dictatorships or insurgents, or fallout from previous failed imperialist ventures, are often responsible for creating the humanitarian situation in the first place.

Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.


In the midst of your extremism, you make some valid points.

But you over-generalize. Example of an altruistic act of military intervention by a "capitalist government": Obama deployed about a 150 special force troops to Uganda to help stop the Lords Army. Where's the economic gain in that?

The Marxist theory isn't always true, man.
GEAR
Epiphone SG-400
Marshall 1987 JCM-800 2210 100W

Proud Member of:
The SG Owners Unite
Marshall Amplification
EHX Users Guild

The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society

#11
Quote by Kumanji
Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.


Disagree. Protecting people may not be the primary motive, but it can be a secondary or tertiary motive, therefore it is unfair to categorize it as a false motive.
#12
Quote by Kumanji
Thank you for informing me of this, I'll get right on it.

Thank you for being prompt in your reply and promising to remedy the problem.
#13
Quote by Weeping_Demon7
In the midst of your extremism, you make some valid points.

But you over-generalize. Example of an altruistic act of military intervention by a "capitalist government": Obama deployed about a 150 special force troops to Uganda to help stop the Lords Army. Where's the economic gain in that?

The Marxist theory isn't always true, man.


No political theory is.
#14
Quote by jambi_mantra
Is it all just a violation of a states sovereignty?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. The issue comes down to a society having a belief that their values are superior and more valid than another society's values and choosing to act on it by thrusting their belief system and values upon the other society. If you accept that, you have to then determine when it is and isn't acceptable to enforce your specific ideology on another society. It's really difficult to draw a line and determine that, and unfortunately it's a necessary process. It's debatable that it is even possible to do that in the first place. You'd need some form of objective mediating party that could effectively determine the value of different values and belief systems and come to a conclusion in regards to the clash of values in regards to which one is more just. The issues that just come from that concept in theory alone are staggering. Then the practicalities on top of the already difficult theoretical process makes it even shittier.

A perceived "responsibility to protect human rights" is a part of this issue. There is no such thing as "universal human rights". It's only a reflection of the values of a particular belief system held by the few cultures and societies that hold power and influence.
#15
Quote by rgrockr
What if it's done by the military but not by force? The military does a lot more than shoot people.



True, I think it was more they agreed to the removal of dicators/warlords that destroy their own people, but not through military channels. My question was, well how else do you do it? Ask them politely?

Quote by Kumanji
Humanitarian disasters have unfortunately always been used as smokescreens for economic imperialist invasions and asset grabs. For every intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons, there are a thousand thousand other equally grievous situations where there happens to be no oil. And that's not to mention that Western-backed dictatorships or insurgents, or fallout from previous failed imperialist ventures, are often responsible for creating the humanitarian situation in the first place.

Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.


This is one argument I've been researching and it's broadly accurate which is depressing. Looking at scenarios where action has and hasn't been taken, there has usually be a very clear national interest on the side of the intervening state.


Quote by Dudeinator
Look into the differences in humanitarian intervention between Kosovo and Rwanda.

There are certain things that need to be strictly defined in order for the standards and requirements of intervention to be held consistently.

A term like 'common interest' must be well-defined and well enforced.


But how do you define it? With Rwanda it was because the US argued that it wasn't a genocide, when it clearly was. But if you don't want to commit forces, it's easy to get around these loose definitions. What consitutes genocide, 1000+ 10000+ 50000+? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just pointing out the difficulty in saying "there needs to be a definition"
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#16
Quote by Dudeinator
Disagree. Protecting people may not be the primary motive, but it can be a secondary or tertiary motive, therefore it is unfair to categorize it as a false motive.

'Alpha Group, you will be dropped six miles behind enemy lines at 0300hrs. Your route is through the canyon into the compound. Bravo Group, you will approach by RIB at 0230hrs and rendezvous with Alpha Group having secured the pipeline. Delta Group, you will approach the town by half-track from the north and secure the cross-roads. Your orders are to shoot anything that moves. Oh, and, er, help some civilians and stuff'.
#17
Quote by Kumanji
'Alpha Group, you will be dropped six miles behind enemy lines at 0300hrs. Your route is through the canyon into the compound. Bravo Group, you will approach by RIB at 0230hrs and rendezvous with Alpha Group having secured the pipeline. Delta Group, you will approach the town by half-track from the north and secure the cross-roads. Your orders are to shoot anything that moves. Oh, and, er, help some civilians and stuff'.


You clearly don't know much about what happens on a battlefield.
#18
Quote by jambi_mantra

This is one argument I've been researching and it's broadly accurate which is depressing. Looking at scenarios where action has and hasn't been taken, there has usually be a very clear national interest on the side of the intervening state.

And here comes NZ with the saaaaaave
#19
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. The issue comes down to a society having a belief that their values are superior and more valid than another society's values and choosing to act on it by thrusting their belief system and values upon the other society. If you accept that, you have to then determine when it is and isn't acceptable to enforce your specific ideology on another society. It's really difficult to draw a line and determine that, and unfortunately it's a necessary process. It's debatable that it is even possible to do that in the first place. You'd need some form of objective mediating party that could effectively determine the value of different values and belief systems and come to a conclusion in regards to the clash of values in regards to which one is more just. The issues that just come from that concept in theory alone are staggering. Then the practicalities on top of the already difficult theoretical process makes it even shittier.

A perceived "responsibility to protect human rights" is a part of this issue. There is no such thing as "universal human rights". It's only a reflection of the values of a particular belief system held by the few cultures and societies that hold power and influence.


All valid points that I agree with. You could argue that they agreed to it by joining the UN, which although not legally binding, is attached the Declaration of Human Rights and has a Human Rights Council. But your point about cultural values is valid, the UN is western dominated in ideology, and shows why we aren't invading Islamic countries over their treatment of women.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#20
Quote by Weeping_Demon7
In the midst of your extremism, you make some valid points.

But you over-generalize. Example of an altruistic act of military intervention by a "capitalist government": Obama deployed about a 150 special force troops to Uganda to help stop the Lords Army. Where's the economic gain in that?

The Marxist theory isn't always true, man.

There's some talk that that might well have been a long-standing reciprocal agreement in which Ugandan soldiers fought against an Al-Qaida-linked group called Shabab in Somalia in return for US military aid in defeating the LRA.

Quote by WaterGod
You clearly don't know much about what happens on a battlefield.

Way to miss the point of my post, lad.
Last edited by Kumanji at Nov 4, 2011,
#21
Quote by Kumanji
Way to miss the point of my post, lad.

Was the point of your post to show how uninformed you are about what various Militaries around the world do?
#22
Quote by jambi_mantra
All valid points that I agree with. You could argue that they agreed to it by joining the UN, which although not legally binding, is attached the Declaration of Human Rights and has a Human Rights Council.

You could argue it, but that's really just an intelligent way of manipulating your power and influence in order to dominate the entire world with your specific belief systems and values. It doesn't make it any more valid, it's just an apt way to create a means to achieve an end. There's a reason it isn't legally binding in the first place.
#23
Quote by Kumanji

Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.

They also use it to give free education to willing enlistees. Even though we're not quite at free education for all, the government is willing to fully educate people who are willing to serve them.

Plus army=/=military.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#24
Quote by jambi_mantra
But how do you define it? With Rwanda it was because the US argued that it wasn't a genocide, when it clearly was. But if you don't want to commit forces, it's easy to get around these loose definitions. What consitutes genocide, 1000+ 10000+ 50000+? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just pointing out the difficulty in saying "there needs to be a definition"


The ongoing conflicts with humanitarian intervention is when does an event justify intervention without UN consent, and when is non-intervention acceptable?

With Rwanda, it is argued that non-intervention lead to an uncontested genocide.

With Kosovo, it is argued that NATO involvement without UN consent did more harm than good.

Other issues that arise is that, if states can intervene without consent, then what is the UN Security Council for? Granted, the UN has failed to operate as it was originally intended, but to get rid of the UN is to move backwards.

Which is why having legal definitions is crucial to help prevent these circumventions. The UN, and the international community as a wholem must have clear-cut guidelines or we'll just end up making those same mistakes
#25
Quote by rgrockr
They also use it to give free education to willing enlistees. Even though we're not quite at free education for all, the government is willing to fully educate people who are willing to serve them.

Plus army=/=military.

You don't think that that might be because people need bribing damn well to go and be shot at for someone else's profit? It's nothing to do with some kind of honourable deal between equals.
#26
Quote by Kumanji
You don't think that that might be because people need bribing damn well to go and be shot at for someone else's profit?

Not everyone is a pussy like you
#27
Quote by Thrashtastic15
You could argue it, but that's really just an intelligent way of manipulating your power and influence in order to dominate the entire world with your specific belief systems and values. It doesn't make it any more valid, it's just an apt way to create a means to achieve an end. There's a reason it isn't legally binding in the first place.



Agreed. Most of the stuff in the Declaration of Human Rights is stupid anyway.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#29
Quote by Kumanji
Humanitarian disasters have unfortunately always been used as smokescreens for economic imperialist invasions and asset grabs. For every intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons, there are a thousand thousand other equally grievous situations where there happens to be no oil. And that's not to mention that Western-backed dictatorships or insurgents, or fallout from previous failed imperialist ventures, are often responsible for creating the humanitarian situation in the first place.

Intervention for true motives of protecting people is impossible under capitalism, because those who control the army will use it for one thing only - protection of economic and strategic interests.


He's right guys, grab your tinfoil hats. They're coming for us.
Chelsea FC



Quote by Blues Hippie
As for the swim team member that drowned, it just means the swim team just got a lot better. Same with him too, it's time to move on, the weakest link is gone...
#30
Quote by jambi_mantra
Agreed. Most of the stuff in the Declaration of Human Rights is stupid anyway.

If you're going to mock me, can you at least provide some fair points for me to debate at the same time?
#31
Quote by TOMMYB22
He's right guys, grab your tinfoil hats. They're coming for us.

It's nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's just what the situation demands of them. In fact, I don't doubt that most members of the armed forces up to the very highest rank believe quite honestly that their actions are for the good of their own people and that of the nation that they're intervening in.
#32
Quote by Kumanji
I'll be on the barricades when the time comes, don't you worry.

England's going to get invaded? Who would want England?
#33
Quote by Dudeinator
The ongoing conflicts with humanitarian intervention is when does an event justify intervention without UN consent, and when is non-intervention acceptable?

With Rwanda, it is argued that non-intervention lead to an uncontested genocide.

With Kosovo, it is argued that NATO involvement without UN consent did more harm than good.

Other issues that arise is that, if states can intervene without consent, then what is the UN Security Council for? Granted, the UN has failed to operate as it was originally intended, but to get rid of the UN is to move backwards.

Which is why having legal definitions is crucial to help prevent these circumventions. The UN, and the international community as a wholem must have clear-cut guidelines or we'll just end up making those same mistakes



But the UN is pretty useless in these instances. In Rwanda everyone knew what was going to happen. Kofi Annan called up something like 90 UN members military leaders, basically telling them "if you give me 4000 troops, I'll save half a million lives". Not a single state did that. It ended up being a seperate French intervention, without UN sanctioning.

In Sierra Leone, UN forces couldn't handle the situation and it took SAS involvement, not sanctioned by the UNSC, to contain the situation.

I'm not saying we should get rid of the UN. But states generally won't get involved if there isn't in there national interest. Kosovo also had to deal with the tactics post Mogadishu which led to immense bombings to save troops on the ground being injured, and therefore save public opinion back home.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#35
Quote by Thrashtastic15
If you're going to mock me, can you at least provide some fair points for me to debate at the same time?



I wasn't mocking I can't argue against something I agree with.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#36
Quote by jambi_mantra
Do developed countries have a responsibility to protect human rights in other states?

Do you think human rights are universal? What does the location of a human right abuse have to do with the justification of the prevention of a human rights abuse?

Basically, ask yourself if we have a responsibility to protect human rights. See Kant's categorical imperative or Rawls' Social Justice Theory.

If so how?

That's a far more situational question. It would have to depend on the various rights abuses, the sociocultural and socioeconomic environments, political power, militarism, etc. I can't imagine any hard and fast rules working.

Is military force the only real way?

No. If you're interested in looking at the further intricacies of the use of military, i'd recommend picking up The Accidental Guerilla and/or Counterinsurgency by David Kilcullen; it's a very handy source to have.

What is considered a large enough violation for a decision to be made-is it only genocide or does limited freedom of speech count?

It depends on the extent of the violation and the importance of the right. See the UN War Crimes convention for a more formal guideline.

Is it all just a violation of a states sovereignty?

Is a states sovereignty more important than human rights?
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#37
Quote by jambi_mantra
I wasn't mocking I can't argue against something I agree with.

Oh, ok. It certainly seemed like you were.
#38
Quote by Kumanji
Who said it was going to be invaded?

What was the barricades comment alluding to then?
#40
Quote by Kumanji
'Alpha Group, you will be dropped six miles behind enemy lines at 0300hrs. Your route is through the canyon into the compound. Bravo Group, you will approach by RIB at 0230hrs and rendezvous with Alpha Group having secured the pipeline. Delta Group, you will approach the town by half-track from the north and secure the cross-roads. Your orders are to shoot anything that moves. Oh, and, er, help some civilians and stuff'.


relevance?
Page 1 of 3