For instances in the cases of Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?
Initially, this was one topic where I thought the right thing to do was a no brainer…don’t get involved. But thinking of atrocities like those committed in Rwanda where NATO occupation could have prevented such a horror has made me rethink my whole position. People argue that Kosovo or Libya could have ended up much much worse without NATO help, and on those points it’s hard to argue. War Hawks even go on to say that if you slap on a Marshall Plan in places like Libya, that everything after the conflict will be right as rain.
Just try to verify anything that has happened in Libya or Syria. All you get in the West is propaganda that blames literally everything that happens on the States on the CIA enemies list.
That’s a tough one from an historical perspective. As far as I know, war, intervention, or even being in the process of winning the war (against the cleansing state) has only ever intensified the process of ethnic cleansing. I can’t think of a single case right now to the contrary…(which doesn’t mean that there can’t be one, just that I’m drawing blanks).
Also, it’s important to remember that many cases of ethnic cleansing took place in the 20th century with at least tacit approval of the Powers-that-Be (whether the Great Powers, the Entente, the Big Three, etc), if not with their active connivance (and I’m not just talking about the authoritarian Powers, either). You can still today find influential journals publishing articles claiming that ethnic cleansing works. That is, that it can play an essential role in transforming a serially unstable powder keg country into a stable, respectable “nation” (read: ethnically homogenous nation-state).
More directly on your OP, Kosovo was a clean(-ish) war: next to no casualties on the coalition side. But that was a coalition of industrial powers acting against a third-rate industrial army. Again though, it didn’t stop the cleansing, but rather accelerated it to completion. The case of Rwanda would have been a much, much more brutal and dirty guerrilla war, the likes of which modern industrial armies are not prone to fight well.
Assuming the state we have I suppose my answer would be: I’d be in favor if (1) Congress agreed to intervene with a very limited set of publicly stated objectives, (2) if the soldiers to be deployed (actually) volunteered to fight there, (3) government cuts were enacted to fund the intervention over and above the current military budget, and (4) if only volunteer levies of money could be called for to support the action to make up the shortfall, if any, etc.
This is my very first post, but I didn’ t want to create those welcome posts, and I felt like replying this one. Anyway, hello community =)
I’m a libertarian (ancap, to be more precise) for some time now (almost one year, I think), and I regularly read articles from Mises Institute and Mises Institue Brazil (my homeland). It was recent, though, that I started reading the forums, and I’m having a good time. Back to the topic.
As I stated above, I’m an ancap, and I cannot possibly support any government action, even if it’s for defending other people from dictators; but I acknowledge the fact that there are people who actually want to live in a democracy (lot’s of people actually). So, in a best-case scenario, where people in the world are free to choose their political system (or lack of one), if people in a democracy genuinely wants to help the oppressed nation (the majority, of course, cause that’s democracy), and the people in the oppresed nation clearly don’t want this kind of government anymore (or, at least, the majority; that’s where the problem begins, since there are people who like dictatorships; I mean, even if brainwashed, there surely are people in N. Korea that likes how things are handled there), than I guess that would be fine.
Of course, in such a world, there wouldn’t be any dictatorships, because supposedly people would be free to choose their system.
In the real world, though, I simply can’t support any government action because I, for one, am getting my money taken by force.
I’m with Frederic Bastiat on this one. The sole purpose of a central government (a very limited one of course) is to defend the natural God given rights of its citizens, primarily life liberty and property. If there is a credible, systemic threat, then defensive force is warranted to protect the lives, liberty and property of that nation’s citizens.
Libya? that was between the people and their government. Same with egypt and the great majority of the others.
was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?
Well that depends on what you mean by “take sides”. if you mean sitting there cheering for one side or the other then thats fine. But dont intervene. Besides, look at lybia and egypt. Which was better a tyrant who was a tyrant for the sake of himself or rule under the fist of the muslim brotherhood?
Is it necessarily a bad thing to oppose tyranny? Not at all, IMO. But I don’t think that prima facie justifies taking other people’s money without their prior consent.
Nothing wrong with taking the side of the people against the oppressive government - just don’t try that crap here in America. You know America - the place with the highest rate of incarceration on the face of the Earth (ever?).
People have already given very good answers, but I think there is one important one missing. How do you know that American intervention will not hurt the innocent people in the state America would be fighting? Nevermind indirect results such as ethnic cleansing, what about the direct results of American soldiers killing innocent civilians, on purpose or by accident? The fact of the matter is, that America has no real interest in helping the people oppressed by a tyrant. The soldiers are not all personally involved. Sure, maybe some befriend a local or two, but they really don’t have any connection.
It’s kind of like how community charity is more effective than welfare. Nevermind the immorality of stealing from one to give to another, the problem is that the people in welfare just don’t have the same interest in helping than the people of a community have in helping each other. Sure, the clerk handing out the welfare check may really think he’s doing charity, but it will never be as effective as a local church helping out a member.
It’s just the same with tyrants. Sure, we might all like to tyrants defeated, but even if each and every soldier wanted the same thing, their options and choices will never really be in line with the local population. The negative effects of welfare can be pretty bad, but hell, the negative effects of war are even worse.
Yes, the state is usually the catalyst for inciting a campaign that calls for ethnic cleansing. As far as I can recall, in Yugoslavia Tito thought it would be a good idea to have the different ethnic groups be forcibly integrated with each other and believed that this alone could overcome the shaky history between them and eventually lead to peace. It ended pretty badly after his death of course leading to the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. In Rwanda, because the differences between the Hutus and Tutsi were emphasized by the European colonization forces, it lead to bloody conflict and massacre. These histories are of course good indicators of how state imposed power can lead to disaster.
However, I have Albanian friends who immigrated here to the US after the Kosovo conflict. They swear that they were saved as a result of NATO’s involvement. They also are big fans of America as a result. It is inapropriate for me to simply espouse my belief that they we should have just left them alone. While Rwanda might be different since I think it was 90% vs 10% of the population, and would have been much more difficult to handle adequatly I can’t help but feel that I as someone who doesn’t see the world as “states” but as individuals making up a mass of land that to defend those people against aggression is something I have a duty to do. When the US government prevents an oppressive regime from carying out its full brutality on its citizens then those citizens see the government as intervening saviors in a way and become convinced that they are truly good orginization. Then you have the libertarians on the side who criticize the intervention and they suddenly look insensitive and selfish to the citizens of that country. It’s the same way with my Albanian buds, they truly feel this way.
With regards to you last paragraph, I think those solutions would be reasonable. As far as know, it does not take much to actually destroy a 3rd world countries military supply. In Libya, I believe NATO just established a no flight zone and destroyed the Libyan governments aircraft supply (this part I’m shaky on). I was also thinking that private militias could be established here that make their living by training and arming citizens interested in combating their adversaries. Maybe they already have that, but I think militias are so demonized today that it doesn’t come up much do to bad association.
I wouldn’t say 90 percent vs 10 percent. While the Tutsis are a minority in Rwanda, not every Hutu was a member of the militias. Even Hutus were massacred in 1993 (if they were suspected Tutsi sympathizers).
True as Hotel Rwanda showed (sure some parts may be exagerated for effect) it was either complete Hutu nationalism or nothing. You pretty much couldn’t be a moderate unless maybe you could bribe well.
I think you misunderstood this part of my post. I was noting that the international community has historically been equally supportive of ethnic cleansing (though they call it “population transfers”) as a solution to perpetual regional/state instability. The idea of a “nation” (an ehtnically homogenous state) was one of the many poisonous gifts that 19thC nationalism bequeathed onto modern history, truly a gift that keeps on giving. The Greek/Turk expulsions were orchestrated and confirmed at the Lausanne Conference by the Great Powers; statelets were drawn up in the aftermath of Versailles adhering to this “nation” principle (with the concession to Czechoslovakia (no mention of the Ruthenes?) and Yugoslavia–all the rest of the South Slavs who together could form a large enough state to be “viable”…even in both these cases however, it was official policy that Czechs and Serbs would assimilate their minorities into a single ethnic mass–clearly that’s not what happened); the mass (10+ million) forced expulsions that came in the wake of Nazi Germany’s collapse (Germans, Ukrainians, Hungarians, etc etc) were approved by the Big Three (Britain, the US and USSR); etc. The Cold War (more directly the Soviet grip) hermetically sealed a considerable amount of the fallout that should have erupted, delaying it until the Wall came down. Now we have the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and an explosion of states where Yugoslavia used to be.
In any case, when push comes to shove, a surprisingly high proportion of people resort to backing the “cleansing” solution even though it can never be “clean”…people fight when forced to leave their homes, go figure.
As for your Albanian friends, that may very well be true, but my point was that intervention didn’t stop what it was meant to stop. The cleansing happened anyway and, when the height of intervention was upon them, these cleansing operations became more intense and the work was largely finished by the time of the surrender. This is what muddies things up–it will happen regardless: there are no examples that I can think of where intervention did anything but speed up the “cleansing operation”.
Think Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1979-89), Chechnya (1994-96 or 1999-2009, ongoing insurgency), etc. First World industrial countries generally come off well against Second or Third World industrial countries, but not against non-industrial countries who fight asymmetrically.
I struggled with that nswer. In the end I realized that if I was being beaten savagely, my family being killed and someone walked by who didn’t try and do anything (intervene, cry out for help, find help, urge others to help, etc), I’d hate them as much as I’d hate the person attacking me.
That’s a great film (That was my first time seeing Don Cheadle act). Rusesabagina is a hero of mine. I know it’s just a film, hopefully any historical innaccuracies that may exist are minimal, but it really made me think about my beliefs regarding intervention.
At least two of the specific events mentioned in the article are about the bombing of Albanian civilians by America/NATO. This was my point in my post earlier (not that you responded to it). America “liberating” other nations is not necessarily a good thing. You can look at the statistics of the currents wars now. The American military is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.
Sure, some civilians might be better off, but what about the people who were murdered? What about their families? Are they better off?
Inherently there’s nothing wrong with a force going into an area and improving the lives of everyone who was oppressed by a government. Whether or not this is a government makes little inherent difference. The problem, is, of course, that things with government tend to be amazingly mishandled, as the history of American intervention shows.
NATO and the UN are great ideas in principle, and in a more libertarian world who wouldn’t want voluntary organizations that would help to keep existing governments from abusing their citizens? Yet as we have seen in the past year hope for freedom ultimately lies in the ability of western states not to come in and f*** everything like they normally do, and instead let it happen upon a more natural, and idealistic basis.
Absolutely not, because the state should not exist in the first place. However, a better solution would be to start a volunteer force to go over into a country like those and see if the rebels want your help.
Let the insane drive each other to extinction. Encourage them to focus on each other. Support the one that is losing; but, conserve strength as much as possible to mop up the remains. (Including the state you live under.)
Any time that you are witness to a crime in progress and reasonably sure of the context, that is you’re witnessing someone’s rights being trampled on, you are within your rights to step in and use responsive-force to end the aggression you’re witnessing.
The classic example is coming upon a scene of a rapist attempting to force himself on a victim. You are within your rights to use enough force to end his attempted aggression, and to protect yourself should he turn wrath upon you.
As for other nations, one need only inflate proportion. Anyone would be within their rights to, for instance, invade North Korea in order to free its oppressed and starving people from their aggression-ridden military rulers. You could make a similar case for China, and perhaps even Russia (if you had incontrovertible proof of rigged elections).
It’s a pretty clear case morally. Any nation aggressing against its people or neighbors can be morally invaded by anyone in order solely to end that aggression and no more.
I think this is really close to my viewpoint, and maybe after clarification we might agree, but I think it’s a bad (incomplete?) principle as you wrote it. I do believe that a third party can step in to help a victim of aggression, but being “reasonably” sure of context is never good enough. Walter Block gave a good example in one of his articles about Person A taking a watch from Person B. The fact of the matter is, we don’t know if Person A is a thief - he might actually be reclaiming stolen property from Person B. The solution is that if you step in to help Person B and it turns out he was in fact the original thief, then you are liable for aggression. Just because you were “reasonably” sure doesn’t cut it. You aggressed. Maybe this is your opinion too, but that’s not how I read what you wrote.
Suppose it is just a couple playing out a fantasy. I just want to point out that if I saw a man raping (or what I perceived to be rape) a woman, I would either step in to stop it or call the police (or both!). However, if it turns out that it wasn’t actually rape, you would be liable for any aggression.
For the most part, I agree. The only problem is that it is almost virtually guaranteed that there will be casualties caused by the invading force. They would be liable for aggression. If the people who are liable for their aggression are not held accountable, then I don’t think I can support it. But certainly, in theory there is nothing wrong with a force helping to liberate. In practice, it doesn’t seem to work out well.
The “no more” part is the most important. The problem is that in practice, is it really possible for an invading force to not aggress against the civilian population?
Reasonable surety is all one could possibly ask for. Wait too long and the victim may be dead, etc.
Well, when stepping in, we would also expect you to use a reasonable amount of force to stop the aggression and get the story from both sides in that scenario. Things are a lot more clear cut when someone’s wielding a weapon against another and threatening imminent harm. Not sure I’d call someone stepping into a fight an aggressor. It doesn’t matter at that point who owns the watch. Break up the fight, ask what’s going on, and if the case is clear support the claim of the true owner, or else call the police and let them sort it out.
Exactly, that’s why I use the idea of reasonable surety. If you see this ‘fantasy’ taking place in a back alley and the woman’s screaming for help, you’d be perfectly reasonable to step in. And, were it a fantasy in that moment, they’d immediately drop the act and tell you it’s cool and to go away.
True, but I do want to make a distinction here, between aggression and responsive coercion. Any amount of force used to stop an aggression it -not- itself an aggression, it is a moral use of coercion which I’ll call responsive-coercion, and is always ethical, assuming you reasonably believe you’re witnessing aggression. Even if you turned out to be wrong, it’s like the difference between murder and manslaughter. The point where responsive-coercion turns into aggression is the point where you’ve used enough force to stop the aggression and then gone on to use further coercion not to stop an aggression on the part of the other party.
If the casualties are on the part of the immoral regime’s military, do you still feel the same way? I don’t.
Secondly, as warfare advances, we gain more and more ability to take out an individual without surrounding innocent casualties. That trend will continue.
Certainly it’s possible. Difficult, but possible. Getting easier all the time. In ancient times, troops invaded local houses for lodging and food, ravaged fields, etc. Today we don’t need to do that. Similarly, in WWII, we carpet bombed cities because our bombs had horrible aim. Today we laser-guide them. In the future, we may be able to kill a bad man with a single laser shot to the head from space while he’s dancing at a crowded wedding, sparing all innocents around him, who knows. That’s the trend anyway.
I’ll tell you what I’d like to see, I’d like to see people liberating sex-slaves in south-east asia, extra-legally. The situation down there is beyond horrific Right now the only people fighting it are lawyers working for international organizations working with local police, corrupt police. It’s barely effective.
Right now the only people fighting it are lawyers working for international organizations working with local police, corrupt police. It’s barely effective.