But why? What makes the USA and the UK feel they have a moral duty to interfere in the internal machinations of other countries? Why is it that we think our political systems and way of life are right, while those employed by other nations are wrong?
The other issue is the rather selective way that the USA/UK chooses the nations it feels necessary to interfere with.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 atrocities in New York and Washington D.C. It was based on "intelligence" that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the mountains there - he wasn't. And the invasion, and ensuing war, involved the overthrow of a sovereign government just because "we" wanted to, as far as I can see.
Yes, there was much to dislike about the Taliban regime, but let's not forget that 20 years earlier, as the Mujahideen, they had been allies of the West, and freedom fighters standing up to Soviet imperialism. They had the same unpalatable beliefs, so what had changed?
The reasons, and legality, of why the USA/UK invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein has been debated long and hard. Clearly, the excuse that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes was untrue and it would be possible to debate for weeks whether this was a misunderstanding or deliberate, but comments from Tony Blair, British PM at the time of the Iraq invasion, has suggested that regime change was at the heart of his reasons for taking action.
Again, it is undeniable that Saddam was an evil and oppressive dictator who made the lives if many of citizens a living hell. But what right did the USA/UK have to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?
Why did we invade Iraq, for instance, when there are so many other evil and oppressive regimes around the world including Zimbabwe, North Korea, China and any number of the Arabian nations.
Sure, it's very easy to say that the Iraq war (BOTH Iraq wars) was really about oil. Even if that was the case, the question still has to be, does it justify our involvement in a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians?
So what should we do? Just sit back and let evil dictators do whatever they want?
During the 1930s and 1940s the rest of the world did nothing about the concentration and death camps that the Nazis had built, and where they were sending Jews. There was as much, if not more, evidence for these camps as there was for WMDs in Iraq but the USA/UK did nothing to stop the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. Instead, when war was finally declared, it was to defend a treaty protecting the sovereignty of Poland. Where were the morals of the West?
I think the line has to be drawn when dictators and oppressive regimes are harming their people. Sure, we might not like a political system, we might not agree with the lack of freedoms that women or homosexuals have. We might disagree with rigged elections and want democracy to happen in other countries. But those things aren't sufficient for military intervention.
Military intervention must only be used when a regime is physically harming or killing its citizens - and such intervention should be truly international and not the preserve if one it two nations imposing their will in others.
I guess I see an international force as being more of an International Rescue group than a traditional army.
Similarly, all international arms sales must be made illegal or, if, say, a Middle Eastern dictator uses British weapons against its people then Britain stands just as guilty.
So, the West should have stepped into Syria months ago, they should have taken action against Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and they should do whatever is needed to protect human life whenever there is suffering. But political change must be made by education, empowerment, pressure, campaigning and the will of the people - not because we disagree with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment