The Rights of Intervention
by Dustin Hawkins
Does a dictator have the right to exist uninterrupted? Does one have the right to hold a population at his every dictatorial whim? Would a group of men who take over, by force, a small kindergarten school house, and shoot the teachers have a right to maintain such control? Is there really a difference between the former situation and the latter? Surely, how many people would object to the use of force in order to set these children free? But how many people do object to setting the people living under the dictator free?
The difference between the two situations is merely a matter of condition. Surely, one may argue, those living under the dictator are grown men and could rise themselves. But what organization or strategy could such men implement without either skill or guidance? Not much more of a successful strategy than the schoolchildren could, who may even outnumber their captives twenty to one.
An emotional observer may discover the right to set the children free, yet find no rights to help those living under the dictator. But neither situation is fundamentally different than the other. Is it possible to justify the right to take action in one and not the other? The formula set is the same for both cases, and to say the right for intervention exists for one, and not the other, is a contradiction in terms.
The right to retaliation is not solely reserved to the victim. Any person may come to the aid of another who has become the victim of a person's unwarranted aggression. Yet there are those who says that this is not so. Just think of what the consequences would be if we were to institute such an amoral policy in the United States. A man could not come to the aid of a woman being attacked by a predator. The attacker is attacking the woman, not him, so obviously he has no right to come to her aid. And would there be any need for police? Perhaps they would sit around and debate for months on whether or not it should be allowed to come to the aid of the woman, long after attackers worst has been done. Men do not maintain the right to rule or pursue any whim by pure force. And the right to stop such men belong to the victims of the predator, the police, or any other individual who wishes to act.
Whether or not a country has the right to go into and remove such a dictator, or to go in and set the children free, is only the first question. If you believe that men may respond to force, then the answer is yes. The second question is: should a nation, or person, take that right and act upon it? Certainly this question depends on the circumstances of individual instances. The Jamaican National Guard may find it within their means to go into the schoolhouse and over-ride the small group of thugs, yet would probably not go into a full-scale overthrow of a powerful tyrant. More than likely they would succeed in the first, and fail in the latter, thus making their decision to take action in one and not the other both rational and sensible. One should not take action if its only possible outcome is its own destruction.
But what if a country can easily do both, maintaining the ability to take out the schoolhouse thugs and the dictator? Self-destruction is not a factor. Is it in the countries self-interest to intervene? Perhaps a powerful country would decide not to prevent Columbia from taking over a village of 30 people. It would likely not be feasible to do so, just as it would not be feasible to attend to every similar situation in the world, as there are far too many, and the resources and ability of one nation to do so is not attainable. So, when does one decide to take action? This can only be answered through an evaluation of the circumstance.
In the case of Iraq, self interest exists. Stability in the Middle East is of interest to the entire world, from the far east to the Americas. Instability in the Middle East effects matters of trade, tourism, economics and national security. The stronger the Middle East is, or any other large block of nations for that matter, the better off countries worldwide are. Stable regions allow for the further development of all nations involved. To assume that what happens oversees is of no interest and has no effect within our own borders is at best naive. Having started wars, invaded countries, and slaughtered his own people, Iraq and the leadership Baathe Party was without a doubt a cause of regional instability.
Coming upon a conclusion to act may also involve the decision to invoke ones principles. Perhaps a brutal tyrant who lines up political opposition and assassinates them, has the husbands of his daughters executed, slaughters in mass his citizens, gasses to death the countrywide opposition to the tune of 8,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in a 24 hour period, maintains torture chambers and rape rooms, and contains his population to a lifetime of fear, is reason enough to come to the defense of the victims. But to some, perhaps not.
A reasonable question follows: which is worse? A brutal tyrant who murders, tortures, rapes, and gasses both his own citizens and neighboring countries, or those men who, while maintaining the means to stop him, sit on the sidelines and allow it to happen.
Discuss this Article (13 messages)
|
