Planetarion Forums - humanitarian justifications are merely a cover for selfish interests

JammyJim · 17 Apr 2004, 15:51

Critically assess this statement...

Seeing as have lots of discussion about Iraq/Kosovo/Afghanistan from american foreign policy haters i thought id throw this open and see what ideas you guys had....

MrL_JaKiri · 17 Apr 2004, 15:56

They can be, but aren't always.

Dante Hicks · 17 Apr 2004, 15:59

Seems reasonable enough, but it depends what level you're talking about for it to hold true.

As I've argued elsewhere, pure Machiavellian politics is pretty rare. The soliders in Iraq are not thinking "Haha, now we oppress the 3rd world and ensure domination for western interests muwhahaha" for instance.

Neither are their commanders. Or their commanders bosses. If you could somehow put Tony Blair and George W Bush on a polygraph test and ask them why the Iraq invasion took place, I'd bet heavily that they would say "it was for the safety of the world, for the Iraqi people, for freedom, blah, blah". And they'd be telling the truth too.

So the queston is not about some fiendish Zar-style conspiracy where GWB and co sit in a big room with "Operation : Dominate the World" written on a white board.

But this doesn't make the statement any less true. It just operates in interesting ways.

JammyJim · 17 Apr 2004, 15:59

why

MrL_JaKiri · 17 Apr 2004, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

why

Why aren't they always? Because it's quite likely that most humanitarianily justified actions aren't gaining the implementer much, if anything.

queball · 17 Apr 2004, 16:47

There is no self!

Ste · 17 Apr 2004, 16:56

there's no such thing as a selfless action.

Nondescript Human · 17 Apr 2004, 18:45

All governments act primarily to further the interests of their own nation in foreign policy, so often the answer is yes. However, this does not preclude the possibility of genuinely humanitarian acts, nor is it universally applicable.

Ebany · 17 Apr 2004, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

All governments act primarily to further the interests of their own nation in foreign policy, so often the answer is yes. However, this does not preclude the possibility of genuinely humanitarian acts, nor is it universally applicable.

He doesn't define it merely as the operation of governments, and even so you have bodies like the UN

SYMM · 17 Apr 2004, 18:48

George Bush made many more references to "Protecting america" in his speech/conference this week than he did to anything resembling "protecting the world"....

Nondescript Human · 17 Apr 2004, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebany

you have bodies like the UN

which are ignored by each nation whenever it adopts a policy contrary to its own

MrL_JaKiri · 17 Apr 2004, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

which are ignored by each nation whenever it adopts a policy contrary to its own

Lol satire!

The point was, if you failed to notice, that the UN is a body which enganges in humanitarian (Kosovo anyone? (Insert other examples here)) aid for humanitarian aid's sake, or for some form of global 'stability' at least.

Nondescript Human · 17 Apr 2004, 20:14

yes, and each nation participates in such UN ventures beacuse 'global stability' is in their own interests.
The UN could not operate without its member states!

MrL_JaKiri · 17 Apr 2004, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

yes, and each nation participates in such UN ventures beacuse 'global stability' is in their own interests.
The UN could not operate without its member states!

There's a difference between not acting altruistically (at least in a digital sense) and acting selfishly.