Alex Schechter
International Relations
Blog Post #3
10/23/15
Bullies, Victims, and Bystanders
In my last blog post, I wrote about whether or not the armed conflict between the United States and Iraq, which began in 2003, was, “worth it” for the United States or not. We spent $1.1 Trillion during this conflict and did not even find any traces of weapons of mass destruction, which was our reason for being there. Therefore, I believe that this armed conflict was unnecessary and unsuccessful. Let’s take a step back though, and look at this conflict with a different perspective. While Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq at the time, Iraq was notorious for its violations of human rights. For example, there were secret police, there was torture, mass murders, rape, and also assassinations. The total number of deaths associated with all of these in Iraq is so high that the actual number is unknown. If the United States invaded Iraq solely with the purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein to protect the Iraqi people, then I think the “humanitarian intervention” of Iraq would therefore have been, “worth it.”
In 2002, the European Union stated that there had been no improvement in Iraq’s human rights crisis since 1979 when Hussein took power. This very statement criticized Saddam Hussein and his government for, “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.” The resolution that the EU created demanded that Saddam immediately stop this. Citizens in Iraq could not live normal lives. For example, they could assemble together, only if it was to specifically support the Iraqi government. Police checkpoints made it so that they could not even travel across the country. The people of Iraq were being oppressed. Putting the weapons of mass destructions aside, I believe that the United States did have a right to overthrow Saddam Hussein only with the intent of trying to protect the people of Iraq.
Interestingly, the United States is often looked at by other countries when humanitarian intervention is needed somewhere in the world. When is it appropriate for the United States to step in with another nation’s turmoil and when is it not? Many Americans have found themselves asking this question since the failed invasion of Iraq. In regards to humanitarian intervention, there is definitely a dilemma when a decision to act or not is being made. Personally, I believe, with a nation as powerful as ours, we have the responsibility to protect, the responsibility to prevent, and also the responsibility to rebuild. If our country can help protect the population that is in danger, then I think we should do so.
The United States should intervene in some foreign affairs. We should not look at a scenario and believe, “not our people, not our problem.” I think that is selfish especially with the amount of power and potential we have to help others who are in need. Ask yourself what would have happened if the United States did not intervene during the Holocaust. Things could potentially be very different in our world today. I would hate for us to be a bystander in a situation where people are being hurt. In fact, being a bystander in a situation like this is almost as bad as being the, “bully” itself. We have the potential to make the world a better place through humanitarian intervention when human rights are violated.
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteI thought your blog post was really interesting, and I really agree with your closing paragraph. I think that as a huge world super power, intervening in countries is important, even if we don't necessarily see the benefits right away. One question for you is do you think the time that we intervene matters as long as we help, or do you think that has an impact as well? Specifically, I know that we stepped in during the Holocaust, but it can be argued that we knew there were problems long before we eventually intervened. I wonder if that delegitimized our help at all. Just some food for thought. Good job!
-Baylie
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteI liked how your post changed the view point of the Iraq War from a failed invasion to a successful humanitarian intervention. I agree that we should have intervened regardless of the finding of WMD's in order to overthrow a dangerous and corrupt leader. Also, I agree with your assessment that as probably the most influential and powerful nation in the world, we should provide aid to those who are being extremely oppressed. My question would be, do you think we should intervene in conflicts that the state doesn't ask for our help, but we see it as the right thing to do? Or should we respect that sovereignty of that state?
Hey Jonathan!
DeleteThat’s definitely not an easy question to answer. In cases similar to the Iraq War, the states would not ask for our help. They were oppressing and harming their own people. Clearly, the United States felt that intervening was necessary and the right thing to do (talking about the oppression of the Iraqi people and not WMD). In some cases, I think that the United States has the responsibility to intervene when governments are clearly harming their own people. I hope that helps clarify my stance on this. It’s definitely tough to determine when or when not a country should intervene...and no matter what the intervening state decides to do, there will always be criticism.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI liked the view that you took on the US intervention in the Iraq; it was refreshing. However, I disagree with your statement about how the US has a responsibility to intervene every time there is a human rights abuse. These situations, although terrible, are not the US's problem, instead they are the world's. Therefore, it should fall on the UN or another intergovernmental organization to solve these issues. The US should help if they have motives to do so (be it resources or tactical advantage), but if there are no incentives, then the US should not be inclined to intervene. In addition to this, intervention also leads to more problems because of the lack of cultural understanding that is required for these often delicate situations.
-Ben
Hey Ben,
DeleteThanks for that. Although I agree with most of your argument that the United States should not always intervene, I disagree that we should only intervene when there are incentives for us. That brings back up my point that being a, “bystander” is almost as bad as being the, “bully” itself. You are right that these are delicate situations, and it is never easy to determine whether or not a state should intervene, incentives or not.
Alex, we did not intervene until the last minute in the Holocaust. I talked about this in another comment. I feel like calling oppressing countries "bullies" is too simple. What they are doing is much worse and on a much bigger scale. While I understand your comparison, I feel like the word "oppressor" could be better. Just an idea. Also, I agree that the United States should not always be a bystander. However, I feel like we tend to get involved too often. In the case of human rights, yes I would hope that we would intervene immediately. Some scenarios are just not related to the United States and we should not feel the need to intervene just to show how powerful we are.
ReplyDeleteCaroline,
DeleteYes, the, “bully” analogy is simple, but I used it to help make my point. I agree that I should have used the term oppressor or oppression more in my blog, but have used it to describe what I was trying to convey in all of the the comments/responses I have made. Thank you for mentioning that though.
Although I agree with your point on how America should intervene for other countries when they face humanitarian violations, I'm a little torn on the US's place in the intervention process. There is the argument of if the US doesn't step in, who will? But why should it always be our service men and women who have to give the ultimate sacrifice for a cause that provides no advancement or security to their nation?
ReplyDelete