The logic of Humanitarian Intervention

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The Logic of "Humanitarian Intervention"
Neocolonial tool serving geopolitical interests

by Brendan Stone

May 13, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

On his recent speaking tour across Canada, former Haitian minister of defense Patrick Elie, an elected representative in the first government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, was asked by a member of the World Federalists NGO to support Canada’s new “Responsibility to Protect” (RtP) doctrine. The idea behind the “RtP” is that other countries should intervene in the politics of a sovereign country if they perceive instability or a human rights crisis.



Patrick, who spoke at McMaster University early in March, acknowledged the need to protect people whose human rights come under attack. But since this “RtP” doctrine is coming largely from the developed Western nations, many of which are currently violating human rights at this very moment, Elie asked, "Who is protecting the rights of the people of Iraq, killed by the bombs of those who would grant themselves the "responsibility to protect?" For example, the lead author of the Lancet’s Iraqi casualty estimate has recently updated the death toll caused by the U.S./U.K. war to 300,000.



Patrick, in asking this question, pointed out the dissonance between countries like Canada and the United States who are, on the one hand, waging illegal wars across the world that have killed tens of thousands, while on the other hand painting themselves as angelic figures who can be trusted to shepherd and steward the “benighted” peoples in Africa, South America, and elsewhere.



When you think of the term “humanitarian intervention” or “responsibility to protect,” do you envision soldiers from Ethiopia or India coming to the U.S. to arrest George Bush for war crimes, for the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and for neglecting his own population in health care, infant mortality, and New Orleans? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. You think of soldiers from the white, former and current colonial powers like the U.S. and Britain, going to the dark continent and fixing the problems of the natives, whom we implicitly and imperialistically assume are incapable of self-government.



And that is where the current focus of the RtP doctrine lies. Patrick asked, “what about the colonial powers in Africa, namely France and Belgium, whose interference in Rwanda created the problem there in the first place?" As author Tony Black has detailed, the invasion of Rwanda by a U.S.-backed Tutsi army from Uganda, which we call the “Rwandan Genocide,” did not happen because “we” in the West were not there. It happened because we were there.[1] To use the conflict in Rwanda, precipitated by thirty years of Western involvement following the “post-colonial” period, to justify intervention into countries like the Sudan is disingenuous at best.



Recently, however, news outlets and government figures including George Bush and Colin Powell have asked us to pay attention to Sudan, and its endangered population of refugees. And as the Jerusalem Post reports, “the [Save Darfur] coalition, which has presented itself as ‘an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations,’ was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community.” The embarrassed organizers of the recent Darfur rally in the U.S. were forced to admit their failure to include other American ethnicities and organizations, such as the NAACP and the Africa Action group, and actually struggled to find a single Darfuri or Muslim speaker.



Christian fundamentalists have also been a key force in the coalition. According to the Washington Post from April 27, “Last week, after an inquiry from The Washington Post, [Christian evangelist group] Sudan Sunrise changed its Web site to eliminate references to efforts to convert the people of Darfur.” And beyond the religious groups, who play a subsidiary role, the idea of Western intervention into Darfur is primarily an initiative of the U.S. state department. Sudan’s oil-rich Darfur region makes it the second-largest oil producer in Africa, and its strategic location places the country at the gateway to the Middle East. Additionally, Sudan has been using its oil for the cardinal sin of developing an economy independent of the United States.



According to John Laughland, “Darfur is a region which is rich in oil and through which pipelines are to be constructed. Moreover, the main investor in the Sudanese oil industry is the China National Petroleum Company, and China is Sudan’s biggest trading partner overall. It has been alleged that there are Chinese soldiers in Sudan protecting Chinese oil interests there, and that these troops have engaged in skirmishes with the rebels. Moreover, while there are numerous foreign oil companies present in Sudan, it is precisely in Southern Darfur that the Chinese National Petroleum Company has its concessions. USAID, the American humanitarian agency, has helpfully provided a map of Sudan showing precisely where the oil concessions are. See http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/map_oil.pdf)” [2] China invested $300 million dollars to expand Sudan’s largest refinery, and buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil.[3]



Well-known academics such as Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky have been at the forefront of investigating how a key feature of U.S. policy in the Middle-East has been to deny oil to competitors, especially China. Columnist Eric Margolis argues that the U.S. is interested in nearby Chad’s oil as well.[4] The U.S. Congress has allocated $500 million dollars for military assistance to African governments, particularly Chad’s, [5] whose military has been engaged in conflict with Sudan.



As former U.S. President Jimmy Carter says, "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effo
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
When you think of the term “humanitarian intervention” or “responsibility to protect,” do you envision soldiers from Ethiopia or India coming to the U.S. to arrest George Bush for war crimes, for the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and for neglecting his own population in health care, infant mortality, and New Orleans? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. You think of soldiers from the white, former and current colonial powers like the U.S. and Britain, going to the dark continent and fixing the problems of the natives, whom we implicitly and imperialistically assume are incapable of self-government.

I think this should occur. India and China should join and lead a strike team in a strike to capture and charge Bush with war crimes. A preemptive strike.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Yeah, because of past wrongs, now it is "right" for countries to stand on the sidelines while murderous governments turn on their own people? :roll: Whatever happened to "Never again"? Are our memories that short? R2P is great policy that everyone should support. It puts human life and dignity above notions of sovereignty. But like everything else, the devil is in the details, and debate should rightly occur on how this noble concept can be justly implemented.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I think not said:
Never in my life have I ever heard a soldier in an allied army make such a statement.

I sure hope we aren't actually paying him for his army activity.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
MMMike said:
Yeah, because of past wrongs, now it is "right" for countries to stand on the sidelines while murderous governments turn on their own people? :roll: Whatever happened to "Never again"? Are our memories that short? R2P is great policy that everyone should support. It puts human life and dignity above notions of sovereignty. But like everything else, the devil is in the details, and debate should rightly occur on how this noble concept can be justly implemented.

MMMike you're MMMistaken, RtP is bullshit from the empire. :lol:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: The logic of Humanita

I'm more than happy to pay for a fine military asset and a socialist gentleman like comrade Jersay, we need thousands more like him. Lean mean gentleman killing machines, able to leap tall buildings and march all day on a bowl of rice.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: The logic of Humanita

who's to say who's right or wrong......am I the only one that see's your picture is indeed at odd's with your quote Jay?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: The logic of Humanita

Daz_Hockey said:
who's to say who's right or wrong......am I the only one that see's your picture is indeed at odd's with your quote Jay?

What? I said he could have a bowl of rice.... :p
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: The logic of Humanita

is that like "let them eat cake", rice, sort of like cake, if you dont have any cake that is :p

I like the picture though, Blackleaf and Enoch Powell would be very proud of you.......George Washington wouldnt though :)
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: The logic of Humanita

time will tell if Powell was wrong.......I think his idea of buying a russian phrasebook was sound though lol.

I think enoch is probably the most mis-interpreted people in history, he wasnt racist, had sound thatchrite economic policies (before thatcher) saw that america was only in world war two to ruin britain.....now where was he wrong?, our empire was forcfully disbanded, our navy....even before the war was shrunk and we had a HUGE unpayable debt..I cant see how he was wrong on that front....and have you seen the race riots nin britain?...the river tiber does indeed "run with much blood"
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
darkbeaver said:
On his recent speaking tour across Canada, former Haitian minister of defense Patrick Elie, an elected representative in the first government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, was asked by a member of the World Federalists NGO to support Canada’s new “Responsibility to Protect” (RtP) doctrine. The idea behind the “RtP” is that other countries should intervene in the politics of a sovereign country if they perceive instability or a human rights crisis.



The acronym RTP refers as well to Right to Play which is a Canadian international organization helping children in impoverished countries.

http://www.righttoplay.com/site/PageServer

And then there is the responsibility to protect which is also RTP and this is what is usually referred to as humanitarian aid. This particular phrase is usually used by NGO’s the UN, developing countries and of course Bono to get more affluent countries to contribute more in aid to poorer countries.

http://www.oxfam.ca/news/genocide/CanadaStatement.htm

This whole article is based on the opinion of Patrick Elie whose historical meanderings are debatable.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: The logic of Humanita

Daz_Hockey said:
is that like "let them eat cake", rice, sort of like cake, if you dont have any cake that is :p

I like the picture though, Blackleaf and Enoch Powell would be very proud of you.......George Washington wouldnt though :)

I love the pic...I took it from a Blackleaf post, but I can't find it again:(

George wouldn't like it, but he served under that lion for a few years.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: The logic of Humanita

Daz_Hockey said:
time will tell if Powell was wrong.......I think his idea of buying a russian phrasebook was sound though lol.

I think enoch is probably the most mis-interpreted people in history, he wasnt racist, had sound thatchrite economic policies (before thatcher) saw that america was only in world war two to ruin britain.....now where was he wrong?, our empire was forcfully disbanded, our navy....even before the war was shrunk and we had a HUGE unpayable debt..I cant see how he was wrong on that front....and have you seen the race riots nin britain?...the river tiber does indeed "run with much blood"

America was only in WWII to ruin Britain? :?

Yeah that's an accurate statement.